Sitting of 3 July 2003

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

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Stephen Pound: What action she is taking to make the Doha trade round benefit developing countries. [123219]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): May I begin by wishing you a very happy birthday, Mr. Speaker? It is an especially good week to celebrate being fifty-something.
  We are determined to make the Doha round work, especially in the interests of developing countries. That is why I visited Thailand, India and South Africa in the past year for discussions with other Trade Ministers. I shall visit central America with Christian Aid in September on my way to Cancun. If we could halve protectionism and trade barriers globally, we could cut the number of people in the developing world who live in poverty by more than 300 million by 2015. That would be a significant contribution towards achieving the millennium development goals.
  Mr. Pound: May I add my congratulations to those of my right hon. Friend to you on your birthday, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps dare to draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that it is also my birthday today? That is a happy congruence, which my parents arranged as a tribute to you, with great prescience.
  I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Has she assessed last week's statement on common agricultural policy reform, especially its implications for the new trade round?
  Ms Hewitt: I am delighted by the big step forward that we took in the European Agriculture Council last week. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Our initial assessment of last week's agreement shows that it will enable the European Union to accept—indeed, to better—the proposal in Stuart Harbinson's paper for reductions in agricultural subsidies. There is much else
  516
  to be done, not least by the United States, but last week's deal in the Agriculture Council removes one of the biggest barriers on the road to Cancun.
  Michael Fabricant: But is not the reality that, although the CAP improvements are welcome, they will not happen until 2013? They do not include any changes to the sugar regime. Does the Secretary of State accept that subsidies are a menace, not only through the CAP but through the United States, which she mentioned? Will she use her best endeavours tomorrow, the next day and the day after that to speak to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and persuade the Department to ensure the removal of all such subsidies?
  Ms Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. I know that, before he became a Member of Parliament, he spent considerable time working in eastern and southern Africa and that he is committed to the agenda that I described.
  The British Government have led the way and argued successfully for reform of the CAP. We have made considerably more progress than the Conservatives when they were in government. We are leading the charge against the sugar subsidies, which will be discussed in Europe later this year, because they are disastrous for some of the poorest countries, including Mozambique.
  The Conservative party, especially its leader, has experienced a welcome conversion to the cause of free and fair trade. However, let me remind Opposition Members of their record when they were in government and could have done something about the matter. They were behind the intellectual property agreement that did nothing—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has been very nice to me this morning, but I have to stop her.
  Claire Ward: Last week, like many other hon. Members, I participated in the lobbies of the Trade Justice Movement. My constituents raised their anxieties that a World Trade Organisation agreement on investment might harm developing countries. Does my right hon. Friend share those concerns? If so, what does she intend to do about it?
  Ms Hewitt: The new issues we are discussing—which include investment, but also such matters as trade facilitation and Government procurement—are on the agenda because it is clear that developing countries need more investment, and that a multilateral agreement on investment could help to remove some of the barriers that result in those countries' receiving no foreign direct investment. As I made clear last week, no decisions have yet been made on the structure or content of an agreement. We will review progress in Cancun in September, and we in the United Kingdom Government will not sign up to anything that is not in the interests of the developing countries overall.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the complacent and arrogant attitude of the European Union's trade negotiators, Mr. Lamy and Mr. Fischler, who have

  517
  dismissed the possibility of any early move to improve market access to, for instance, sugar as "unilateral disarmament"? Does that not either represent the most primitive kind of protectionist economic thinking, or suggest that the negotiators are being unduly influenced by agricultural lobbies in Europe? In either event, should they not be fired?
  Ms Hewitt: I normally find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman about trade issues, but I think that he is quite wrong in this instance. Pascal Lamy played a crucial role in securing the launch of the Doha development round, and Commissioner Fischler has played an outstanding role. Had it not been for his persistence, I do not think that we would have secured agreement on the reforms in the Agriculture Council last week. In the European Union—again, on the initiative of Commissioner Lamy—we agreed the everything but arms initiative specifically to help the least developed countries.
  There is a huge job to be done in dismantling our sugar subsidies. That must be discussed and agreed in the European Union later this year; but I think that the agreement that we reached in the Agriculture Council last week makes agreement on dismantling these absurd subsidies more likely.
  Sandra Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many developing countries share the anxieties of the Trade Justice Movement about any extension of the agenda to include investment? What action will she take to ensure that they have their say in the negotiations?
  Ms Hewitt: The developing countries constitute the majority of the membership of the World Trade Organisation, and nothing can be agreed in the round unless everyone is signed up to the package. Let me make it clear, however, that neither for the developing countries nor for us and the other developed countries are these new issues the first priority. The first priority is to obtain an agreement with the United States Government on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights—TRIPS—and access to medicines. The second priority is to secure agreement on the appalling, trade-distorting agricultural subsidies; we helped enormously with that last week. We must then proceed to secure other forms of market access that will, above all, be good for developing countries.
  Chris Grayling: What action she is taking to meet the obligations agreed by the Government at Doha in 2001. [123220]
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Trade rules must be reformed to benefit the poor. The Government have worked hard to ensure that the changes in WTO rules being negotiated in the Doha round will benefit developing countries. The recent very positive outcome of the discussions on CAP reform in the EU Agriculture Council should now act as a catalyst for other WTO members, like the US, to liberalise their markets.
  Chris Grayling: Like the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward), I had meetings with the Trade Justice Movement last week in Ewell and Ashtead in my
  518
  constituency. The movement is hugely frustrated by the fact that while a process is under way to require the opening of markets in the developing world, the process of opening markets properly in the developed world is progressing at a snail's pace. The movement wants action. When can the Minister deliver that action, on a short time scale?
  Mr. O'Brien: Obviously those issues must be negotiated at Cancun. That is why we are having a meeting in September; they are part of the wider Doha round. The whole process of the negotiation is aimed at securing changes that will benefit not only the developing countries but the developed world. If we can reduce our trade barriers by 50 per cent., we will benefit world trade by creating $150 billion of extra trade in the world. That will have to happen over time, but happen it must.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position on the Front Bench. I also welcome the Government's attitude to the WTO round, as did my constituents when they came to see me at the lobby last week. Does he agree that besides pressing for good governance for developing countries, we should also press for companies that provide international investment to take on board the best guidelines for corporate social responsibility, which I know the Secretary of State has been especially keen on?
  Mr. O'Brien: I certainly agree that corporate social responsibility is vital. We need to ensure that our own companies in this country, in particular, recognise that when they invest in developing countries we expect them to adopt the highest standards in their treatment of both their workers and the environment.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Peter Luff: When she expects to bring forward proposals in response to the Office of Fair Trading report on community pharmacies; and if she will make a statement. [123221]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): First, I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), a happy birthday.
  In respect of the OFT report as it relates to England, the Government have stated clearly that we will introduce a balanced package of proposals before the summer recess that will promote change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas. In coming to conclusions, we are considering not only consumer and competition issues in pharmacy but wider health policy objectives, such as the role of pharmacists in delivering NHS objectives, and how we can improve access for patients to high-quality pharmaceutical services.
  Mr. Luff: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. It gives me great pleasure, as I consider him a decent, honourable and thoughtful man. We had many dealings together as Treasury Whips, and I hope that the same spirit of cordiality will characterise our exchange today—but I have two words of advice for him as a new Minister. First, he should take his time. These petitions

  519
  that we are all getting—such as the ones from the Moss pharmacy in Droitwich and Badhams pharmacy in Evesham—show how seriously the general public take this matter. Secondly, he should be wary of full-blooded competition. I bear the scars of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer from when I was a special adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry. Be very, very wary.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. As I have emerged from the dark arts of the Whips Office, I pay tribute to the wonderful job that Whips of all parties do in the House. I know where my bread is buttered.
  We have had the opportunity to debate all the issues openly. Nobody is attacking the work of community pharmacies, which do a tremendous amount for our constituencies, but the OFT report has shown that there may be some gaps. Our response will be measured and sensitive to all the issues that have been raised, not only in petitions but in all the correspondence that the Department has received. This is a cross-departmental matter, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and others will appreciate our response when we publish it.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I echo the congratulations to the Minister, as well as the urging of caution in responding to the OFT report. In particular, has he given attention to the fact that the report did not examine the competition that exists between community pharmacies in the additional services that they provide, especially for nursing homes, such as prescription audits, prescription packs for the homes' residents, and home delivery services?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome. She raises an interesting point that will be taken into consideration in our deliberations. I do not want to be drawn too far on this question, because the process is still going on, but we will make the announcement before the summer recess.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: I, too, welcome the Minister to his post and wish him well in it. He will be aware of the great worry and uncertainty among pensioners. I received a petition the other days from Stockleys pharmacy, signed by 500 people in my constituency. Can he guarantee that there will be an oral statement before the recess, and will he take the opportunity to make it clear today that he will not give in to the wishes of the large retailers—many of which fund the Labour party—but stand up as a champion of small businesses?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. Clearly, we do not want the community pharmacies, which we acknowledge are doing a wonderful job, to be threatened by any outside sources. We will ensure that we have a balanced and sensitive package that meets everybody's needs.
  The hon. Gentleman's remarks about organisations that support the Labour party, however, do not become him. The format of the announcement is still under consideration and we will inform him in due course.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What weight does my hon. Friend—my good friend—give to the very persuasive Health Committee report, which suggests that if the OFT recommendations are accepted there is a great likelihood of closures, and that little in the way of savings would be made to the public purse?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for that. We are looking at all aspects of the situation, and the Health Committee report was very helpful in that regard. It expressed some concern about the OFT report, but it did accept the need for some competition in the marketplace. The points that he raised will be considered, as will the Health Committee report.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on her objectives for the forthcoming WTO meeting in Cancun. [123222]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Our immediate objectives are to secure agreement on affordable access to medicines, and on a framework for an agreement on agriculture. We shall also press for agreeing special and differential treatment for developing countries, reducing non-agricultural tariffs and increasing private services liberalisation.
  Mr. Thomas: On that last point, will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that in Cancun, she will not take a position that prevents developing countries from controlling their own economies or deciding on their own period of trade liberalisation and timetable for free trade? Will she ensure that the trade emerging from Cancun is fair trade, and not just free trade?
  Ms Hewitt: As I have said repeatedly, what we want to do within the WTO is to create a framework of trade rules that is indeed fair, as well as free. That means sorting out rules on special and differential treatment, so that developing countries can indeed pace liberalisation with particular reference to products and sectors that are of great importance and sensitivity to their own economies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not falling into the trap of believing that the way in which developing countries should cope with agricultural subsidies in Europe and America, for instance, is by trying to match them with their own subsidies. The answer is for us to dismantle our subsidies and open up our markets to their products.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Surely one of the most important things that could come out of Cancun would be an enhanced reputation for the WTO, because it represents a rules-based trading system, which is the most effective way of reducing tariffs. In some respects, that is more effective than the granting of vast sums of aid, which can often be dissipated by all manner of incompetence and corruption in the recipient countries.
  Ms Hewitt: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is very clear that if we can create a system of free and fair world trade, we will deliver far bigger benefits to the developing countries than aid budgets ever will. We need both, but trade is crucial. I also agree about the

  521
  importance of the WTO and, indeed, of the growing capacity of developing countries, which are now using WTO rules to try to enforce access, on fair terms, to the markets of developed countries. The reality is that if we do not succeed in Cancun, we will destroy the possibility of a rules-based trading system. That understanding is growing and people are redoubling their efforts to ensure that we do indeed succeed in this Doha development round.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I fully support the Secretary of State's commitment to fair and free trade. Poorer people in developing countries would like to help themselves, and if we can give them a hand up, rather than a handout, that is a better way forward. Does she accept that our own farming community is very concerned about what the future holds, and that it is important that the Government should, at the earliest possible date, actively spell out how the proposals will affect family farms and their other impacts?
  Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has already set out the principles through which we will approach agricultural policy reform in the United Kingdom. The agreement that we reached last week was broadly welcomed within farming communities. It will enable them to receive support from taxpayers for sustaining the rural environment, but it will no longer give them ridiculous incentives to over-produce and over-farm land, which is damaging to our own environment, as well as to that of developing countries. I think that the complete transformation of the common agricultural policy will be good for our farmers and good for our rural environment, as well as for some of the poorest people in the world.
  Mr. Speaker: Kevin Brennan.
  Mr. Tim Yeo rose—
  Mr. Speaker: My apologies, Mr. Yeo.
  Mr. Yeo: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. That may have been an anticipation of your birthday celebrations. May I offer generic congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), to anyone else born on 3 July and to all the distinguished new arrivals on the Front Bench on both sides of the House? I particularly endorse the remarks of the Minister for Employment Relations, Competition and Consumers when he paid a warm and fully justified tribute to the integrity, conscientiousness and distinction of the Whips on both sides of the House—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). I am heading for an evening off one day next week.
  Given that controversies over genetically modified crops may well surface at Cancun, will the Secretary of State join me in rejecting President Bush's criticism that European anxieties over the environmental impact of GM crops are not scientifically based? Will the British Government give unqualified support to proposals for a rigorous, robust and transparent labelling regime for all
  522
  foods containing genetically modified ingredients, so that consumers in Britain and other countries know exactly what they are eating?
  Ms Hewitt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the American Administration does not sufficiently understand the depth of public concern on food safety issues, particularly GM food, in the European Union. That forms an important part of the background to our negotiations within the WTO. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made clear, we strongly support a proper and practicable labelling regime for GM ingredients. We think that there should be a full public debate on that issue and we are facilitating that, but we need to proceed on the basis of rigorous scientific evidence. That is what we are doing and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us.

  Steel Industry
  Kevin Brennan: If she will make a statement on the prospects for the steel industry. [123224]
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): Recent restructuring in the steel industry, together with some signs of recovery in the steel market and exchange rate improvements, provide this important sector with the opportunity to build for a sustainable future. UK macro-economic stability, low inflation and interest rates at their lowest for 50 years also provide a sound foundation.
  Kevin Brennan: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post. She was outstanding in the Department of Health and I am sure that she will be in her new role.
  It was a disaster last year when, despite the best efforts of the Department and the National Assembly for Wales, Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff closed down, largely on account of the short-sightedness of the banks. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the news that the Spanish steel company, Celsa, is reopening the steel plant in Cardiff, re-creating many of the jobs that existed before, and has pledged to produce even more steel than was produced before ASW closed?
  Jacqui Smith: Yes, I share my hon. Friend's concern and disappointment about the regrettable demise of ASW, and I join him in welcoming the Celsa Group's plans to resume steel making at Cardiff. That is good news for many of the communities in the area, whose interests my hon. Friend has ably championed. I hope and believe that many former ASW—and, indeed, Corus—workers and former contractors will be reemployed by Celsa, thereby making use of the considerable skills and productivity of UK steelworkers. They are part of the strength of that industry.
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. I thank the Secretary of State for her recent visit to Teesside steelworks, which was greatly appreciated by many of my constituents and across Teesside; she was the first Secretary of State ever to visit

  523
  Redcar steelworks. Has the Minister seen the Trade and Industry Committee report on the future of the steel industry? It made many recommendations, one of which was for the Government to set up a national steel forum. I urge her to give strong support to that recommendation, because such a forum could help to ensure that we continue to have a successful steel industry in the future.
  Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I know that the visit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was welcomed on Teesside, and that she was impressed with relations locally. She was also impressed by the commitment shown by my hon. Friend himself, and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) to ensuring the future of steel in their communities.
  I have had the opportunity to look at the Select Committee on Trade and Industry report, and I welcome many of its recommendations. We will look carefully at the specific recommendation about the steel forum. We have already taken action by giving Government support in respect of lean manufacturing and some of the metal technologies, for example. The intention with the steel forum is to bring together stakeholders such as businesses, employees and trade unions, who will play such an important part by working together to ensure that the steel industry has a future. We will respond to the Select Committee report, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will give his representations very serious consideration.

  Atypical Workers
  Mr. Huw Edwards: If she will make a statement on the consultation on employment rights for atypical workers. [123225]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): Responses to the consultation are currently being analysed, and the Government hope to publish a response to the consultation later this year.
  Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and welcome him to his post. Last year, I visited the Department with a large delegation of clergy and ministers of religion who feel that they have no redress against discrimination and unfair dismissal. The delegation included members of the Anglican, United Reform, Greek Orthodox and other faiths. Given the Government's commitment to ending social exclusion, will my hon. Friend end the exclusion of the clerical profession from the employment rights enjoyed by all other professions?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am well aware of his work in this area. The issues that he raised are sensitive and cause great concern to all involved. The consultation on this matter is progressing. I think that, in the near future, I should
  524
  meet my hon. Friend and the people whom he represents to talk through the issues in more detail. I too am very concerned about employment rights, on which the Government have a proud record. I should like to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
  Mr. John Bercow: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and wish him well in the fulfilment of his responsibilities. Agency workers are atypical workers, and Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands accounted for 80 per cent. of such staff in the EU. Both the Confederation of British Industry and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development are concerned that the agency workers directive could threaten to destroy up to 160,000 jobs. Will the Minister undertake to press, inside the EU, for a sunset clause in any such directive? That would allow us to look again, in due course, at whether the directive has been damaging or beneficial.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point about the agency workers directive. Clearly, a balance has to be struck. The UK position remains unchanged, in the sense that we want to make sure that agency workers' minimum rights are protected, but also that jobs remain for them to do. There is no immediate reason to believe that the European directive will change matters, but we will monitor the situation and make our opinion known in due course and in light of circumstances in the UK.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker, even though it is not my birthday and I have not been appointed to anything recently. However, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that the most atypical workers in this country—if they can be called workers—are the ones who get paid for failure? I am talking about the directors who reward themselves with hundreds of thousands of pounds even when they produce huge losses instead of profits. Surely it is about time that the Government took some firm action to ensure that such gross rewards for failure are not given out in future.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that he will be in the sunlight again in the near future. He makes a good point. The Government have already acted an unfair rewards and rewards for failure, and we will look again at the matter and try to do more. Clearly, it is difficult to tell low-paid workers to be more productive when others give themselves such large awards—23 per cent. is one figure that I have heard in that connection. It is important that we strike the right balance, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What plans she has to provide financial assistance to firms in the small and medium sectors to enable them to engage further workers, with particular reference to school leavers. [123226]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Nigel Griffiths): Since 1997, more than 2 million small businesses have been established creating 2.3 million more jobs, which is why no direct financial assistance is given. The House will be keen to learn what Plaid Cymru's precise budget is for that.
  Mr. Llwyd: I congratulate everybody on both sides of the House, in case I leave somebody out.
  I am not going to talk about budgets, as I am actually questioning the Minister; I do not think that he is supposed to be questioning me. He will realise that more than 90 per cent. of employees in Wales are engaged in the small and medium sectors, which are a very large part of the Welsh economy—I am sure that the same is true of England and Scotland. What incentives are there to assist those hard-pressed businesses which complain that they are under continued pressure, day in day out, from red tape, paperwork and so on? We need to alleviate the problems experienced in that sector while encouraging those businesses to take on more employees. That was the point of my question and I should like the Minister to answer it.
  Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has shifted from budgets—I think that financial assistance is budgets—to the wider question, which I am happy to answer. When I met the Federation of Small Businesses in Swansea recently, its representatives told me how much they appreciated the raising of the VAT threshold, which has benefited 700,000 small businesses in Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A lot more work can be done, however, and I welcome constructive comments from anyone in the House that will help us to achieve that goal. I pay tribute to the small businesses in Wales.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: In order to help small businesses expand and employ more people, will my hon. Friend look again at the threshold for accessing level 2 regional selective assistance funding? At present, a business has to invest £500,000 to qualify, which is beyond many small businesses. On the other hand, if they go for level 3 assistance, the pot is small and not worth much. Will my hon. Friend look again at how those funds operate?
  Nigel Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been engaged in one of the most extensive reviews of business support. The aim is to ensure that businesses of all sizes can access both the appropriate financial expertise and mentoring. Of course, we shall take on board what my hon. Friend said; we are keen to ensure that the thresholds are appropriate, but they must also be consistent with European legislation.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: As we learned only this morning that the higher national insurance contributions and extra regulations imposed by the Government have destroyed 1,400 jobs at Britain's biggest bank, does the Minister agree that giving financial assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises to encourage them to create jobs will be a complete waste of taxpayers' money unless it is preceded by a cut in the huge burden of extra tax, national insurance contributions, climate change levy and
  526
  pensions tax and a reversal in the ever-increasing tide of regulation? Unless it was preceded by those moves, we should simply be throwing away good money.
  Nigel Griffiths: Responsible employers—I understand that they made several billion pounds in profit in the past year, so they are not doing so badly—should appreciate that labour costs in Europe are far higher in the round, as the CBI unreservedly accepts, even after the increase in national insurance. They should also accept that our drive is to invest in the health service to ensure that people who are off work sick or waiting for operations can return to work and play a productive part in the work force. People benefit from the relief of pain—not a moment too soon—and employers also benefit from getting workers back to work more quickly, so it is only fair that both should pay.
  Mr. John Taylor: I declare an interest as chairman of Solihull Business Enterprise. I invite the Minister to agree that, if in doubt, one of the most benign things that the Government can do to small businesses is to leave them alone.
  Nigel Griffiths: I could not agree more—except some small businesses ask me for considerable help.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Richard Page: How many Post Office card accounts have been opened. [123227]
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I understand from Post Office Ltd. that, by 20 June 2003, 57,000 Post Office card accounts had been opened. By that date, 430,000 people had indicated that they wanted to open a card account, so the number of accounts opened will grow rapidly in the period ahead.
  Mr. Page: I thank the Minister for those, in fact, disappointing figures. May I say, because he is a nice chap, how much I regret the fact that he has been unable to unload the role and responsibility for the Post Office on to some other unfortunate Minister, as it really is a disaster and an absolute black hole? Can he explain to the House how his colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions have estimated that there will be 3 million Post Office card accounts, but the Post Office has calculated that there will be 5 million? As the Post Office has done the 5 million calculation to ensure the viability of those sub-post offices that survive the present savage cull, what will happen to them if Ministers at the Department for Works and Pensions are right with their 3 million figure? What will the Minister do to ensure a 5 million take-up of Post Office card accounts to make sure that our sub-post offices—those that are left—survive?
  Mr. Timms: The Post Office is progressing extremely well. Large numbers of Post Office card accounts are being opened, as I have said, and they are proving particularly popular among pensioners. Everyone who wants a card account will get one. My hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions have indicated

  527
  that they now expect the number to be above the 3 million figure, which was the initial working assumption.
  It is very important not to miss the bigger opportunity. From this week, Lloyds TSB current account holders can use their cashpoint cards to obtain cash at any post office in the country. I tried that on my way in at the Members' Post Office, and I am pleased to say that it worked extremely well. With Alliance and Leicester and Barclays already offering that service, that brings to 19 million the number of current accounts now accessible at every post office in the country. That is a huge commercial opportunity for the post office network. It is half as many again, for example, as the total number of state benefit and pension recipients, and the Post Office can now make a success of that opportunity.
  Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that, because of the difficulties that some people still have in gaining access to the Post Office card account, there should be a clear understanding—obviously, he will have to talk to those at the Department for Work and Pensions about this—that, if people choose not to open a bank account, the Post Office card account should be the failsafe system, so that post offices would be guaranteed that anyone who chose not to have a bank account should have a Post Office card account?
  Mr. Timms: I agree that all those who do not want a bank account will be given a Post Office card account if they decide that they want one. That has been built into the process, so I can give absolutely that assurance to my hon. Friend.

  Broadband
  Mr. Steve Webb: If she will make a statement on her strategy for enabling residential customers to benefit from the provision of broadband internet access in publicly-funded organisations. [123228]
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): The public services between them expect to invest £1 billion in broadband connectivity over the next three years. Our intention is to aggregate demand to maximise the chance to extend broadband availability to users outside the public services, as well as to obtain the best value for the public services themselves.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but will he be more precise on timing and process? A school in the village where I happen to live will get wireless broadband because it is too far away from the BT exchange. Lots of people live near the school, and they are asking me when they can benefit from the school's broadband. The Minister has set up a task group and is spending £1 billion, but when and how?
  Mr. Timms: I am delighted to hear that broadband is being extended to the hon. Gentleman's local school. Every school in the country—primary and secondary—
  528
  will benefit from broadband over the next three years. I am not able to tell him precisely when the service will be extended to others in his local community, but he makes a very important point. Of course, particularly with wireless broadband, once that facility is available to the school I can see no reason why others should not benefit from it as well. In fact, there are examples of schools around the country that have become the hub for community-based wireless broadband services, and I very much welcome that development.
  Mr. John Gummer: Can the Minister help with villages in my constituency that are also bereft of schools, and in which broadband provision is therefore an important way of helping them to retain liveliness? Can he give us some hope that we will be able to help specifically the very remote areas that many of us represent?
  Mr. Timms: Yes, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of that. We can be optimistic about the prospects. He will know that the East of England Development Agency has been active in supporting broadband, and a number of rural communities in Suffolk and elsewhere in the east of England are benefiting as a result. We recently completed successfully an auction of wireless spectrum, which will be available for wireless broadband, and I expect that that will be advantageous to rural communities, too. We can therefore be hopeful about the prospects in the months ahead.

  Smaller Enterprises (State Promotion)
  Mr. Jim Cousins: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of state-funded promotion of smaller enterprises. [123229]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The best assessment of the effectiveness of our DTI small business support programmes is contained in the reports of the Small Business Council, whose 24 members are all successful entrepreneurs. I know from my ministerial visits to the north-east that there are many success stories, and I want to work with my hon. Friend to achieve even more.
  Mr. Cousins: I very much welcome Labour's new economic policy for small businesses, and I am extremely disturbed to learn that the Conservative party would want to scrap it completely. That support, however, must be clear and effective. Is my hon. Friend the Minister as concerned as I am by the statement of the chair of the regional development agency in the northeast that there are no less than 200 different organisations trying to support small business within fives miles of the centre of Newcastle? Does he have any proposals to rationalise that, to get some clarity and to establish robust, clear support that new and small businesses can understand and with which they can work?
  Nigel Griffiths: Indeed. One NorthEast, the regional development agency, has conducted its own review of business support to ensure that all funds for the purpose are held in one pot, to get a strong focus on start-ups and

  529
  to meet the needs of SME customers who choose the service that they want. I also pay tribute to the £13 million being spent in Tyne and Wear on business support, which is being co-ordinated by Business Link Tyne and Wear. Those two important agencies are cooperating, and I am sure that they will take the advice of my hon. Friend on board.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I declare an interest as an unpaid director of Ormeau enterprise park. Does the Minister accept that small businesses need help when they start up? Unfortunately, those who may fund some of those businesses may have a mindset that, when they have failures, they cannot be relied on to go forward in the future. Do we not need to change that mindset, bearing in mind that even large firms with enterprising inventions have had to repeat their experiments to succeed?
  Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I was in Belfast a couple of weeks ago discussing this issue with Bill Jeffrey of the Federation of Small Businesses, I stressed to him that the changes in the insolvency provisions that we have already made, which take the focus away from the honest failures and allow us to concentrate on the small minority of dishonest failures, will help to introduce a culture into Britain that to start up in business, to run a business, and to fail because the wrong product or service is being offered at the wrong time is not something of which to be ashamed. I encourage all Members of the House and the press to take that approach and to ensure that people are given encouragement to start business again. In the United States of America, people are not a success in business unless they have had at least one failure.

  Objective 1
  Mr. Wayne David: Whether she has made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of objective 1 programmes in the UK. [123230]
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): The DTI and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are co-financing an evaluation of the added value and costs of EU structural funds in the UK, including in the objective 1 regions. That is expected to be completed before the end of 2003.
  In addition, as required by the EU regulations, managing authorities and programme secretariats are currently carrying out mid-term evaluations of all structural funds programmes for the current programming period. Those will feed into the mid-term reviews, which will provide a basis for adapting the programming documents if necessary.
  Mr. David: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will know that the largest objective 1 programme in the country is in west Wales and the valleys. That programme is proving to be effective for the regeneration of communities and the creation of jobs. Does she agree that there is a strong case to be made for simplifying the grant application process for the structural funds?
  Jacqui Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the specific objective 1 programme to which he refers is on target to deliver its important improvements for jobs in west Wales and the areas that it covers. I agree that we need to ensure that while getting the best out of the funds, we eliminate bureaucracy and reduce burdens whenever possible. It was, of course, during the 1999 renegotiations on the current programme of structural funds that the Government were able to push for, and make, improvements to the bureaucracy surrounding the administration of the structural funds. That will certainly have a significant bearing on our current work on improvements for the next tranche.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—

  Women Clergy
  Mr. Huw Edwards: What representations she has received about amending the law to give women clergy protection against discrimination. [123239]
  The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): I know that this is an area that my hon. Friend has actively pursued, not least earlier in this Question Time. Although we have received no specific representations about amending the law to give women clergy protection against discrimination, we are obviously pleased, as a Government who are keen to promote equality for women, that 2,000 women have been ordained in the Church of England since the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993 was introduced.
  Mr. Edwards: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the two women who were ordained into the Church in Wales by the Bishop of Monmouth last Saturday? Does she agree that although an increasing number of women have been ordained in the Anglican Church and other denominations, many face discrimination when seeking appointments? I urge her to ensure that women clergy get the same rights as other women in other occupations. They should be included in anti-discrimination and equal opportunities legislation.
  Jacqui Smith: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the recently ordained women to whom he referred. I was pleased that a woman priest presided in the House of Commons during our own Prayer session before Question Time. It is an important step forward for the Church. I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about particular restrictions, such as those in section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Although we have no plans to reform that, we will continue to keep the law as it applies to religious bodies under review in the light of developments in EU law.
  Lady Hermon: Mr. Speaker, I wish you and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) many happy returns of the day. If anyone wants an additional birthday, I volunteer mine—I am in the mood to give them away.
  I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I welcome her to the Dispatch Box in her new role and wish her all the best. I bring to her attention a worrying report entitled, "They shoot children don't they?", which focuses on child victims of paramilitary punishments in Northern Ireland. Will she speak to her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that women clergy in Northern Ireland who have condemned, and voiced their abhorrence of, paramilitary intimidation in their communities and congregations will not be discriminated against? I would appreciate that very much.
  Jacqui Smith: I have no doubt that the fact that the hon. Lady raised the issue in the House will have been important enough to highlight it. I undertake to ensure that the report to which she referred is brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: May I put on record my support for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards)? Is the Minister aware of an organisation called the group for the rescinding of the Act of Synod? It organised a meeting two weeks ago at which I spoke, and many of the women in the group are angry because of the discrimination from which they still suffer 10 years on from the date when women were ordained into the Church of England.
  Jacqui Smith: I know that my hon. Friend also pays close attention to the issue. I am not aware of the group to which she refers, although I am certainly willing to consider its concerns if she passes them on to me. However, the very fact that she mentions the Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure 1993, passed by the Synod of the Church of England, gives an idea of where the responsibility lies. I reiterate that I welcome the progress made by the Church of England. Despite the possibility contained in the measure of opting out of the welcome ability to ordain women, fewer than 1,000 parishes out of more than 13,000 have chosen to do that, although I do understand my hon. Friend's concerns.

  Women's Pensions
  John Barrett: What recent discussions she has had with (a) the Treasury and (b) the Department for Work and Pensions on women's pensions. [123240]
  The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Department is in regular contact, at both ministerial and official level, with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions about women's pensions. I welcome the commitment of
  532
  the Department for Work and Pensions to consider this issue further in the light of the responses it received to its pensions Green Paper.
  John Barrett: Given that pensioner poverty is highest among women, with almost three quarters of pensioners on income support being female, what action will the right hon. Lady take with other Departments to ensure that that does not get worse? Some 1.5 million women in their 40s and 50s are about to receive derisory pensions as low as 7p per week because they followed the Government's advice and paid the lower national insurance rate for married women.
  Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the poverty of many women in retirement. We, of course, have made a great difference to those women with the minimum income guarantee, the pension credit and the increase in the basic retirement pension.
  On the issue of the married women's stamp, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. When that option was available to them, women made their own decision whether to pay full contributions or the reduced rate. If they paid the reduced rate, they still receive 60 per cent. of their husband's pension. In today's terms, the husband gets a pension of £77 a week; the wife, having paid no contributions of her own, receives a pension of £46 a week. It would grossly unfair to give someone who had paid no contributions—[Interruption.]—who had paid the reduced married women's stamp, which was not designed to pay for a pension, the full single person's retirement pension. That would give her the same pension as a married woman who had chosen to pay the full stamp, thereby reducing her earnings when she was in work. That would be grossly unfair and I am astonished that it is the position of the Liberals.
  Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why women are poor in retirement is that they have caring responsibilities and take time off to look after children or elderly parents? What does she intend to do to address that issue?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. I know that she, like me, will welcome the fact that the second state pension, which we are introducing, will for the first time allow women and men who have taken time out of employment for caring responsibilities to build up a proper second pension on top of their basic pension. Over time, that will benefit millions of carers, the vast majority of whom are women.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Will the Minister confirm that women with broken national insurance records will not benefit in full from the Government's new pension credit? Will the Government follow the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that those women should be able to buy back the missing years?
  Ms Hewitt: I think that the hon. Lady is wrong about the pension credit, although I will check that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and write to her. It has always been possible for people to make additional contributions to fill broken records or missed contributions. Indeed, the

  533
  Department for Work and Pensions and its predecessor have, on several occasions, written directly to married women who had chosen to pay the reduced contribution to draw their attention to the consequences that that would have for their pension provision.

  National Insurance (Married Women)
  Mr. Steve Webb: What discussions she has had with women's groups concerning the operation of the married women's national insurance stamp. [123241]
  The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I have discussed the issue of women and pensions with a number of women's organisations, including the Women's Budget Group, the Women's National Commission, the National Black Women's Network and the National Federation of Women's Institutes. Of course, that included the operation of the married women's national insurance stamp.
  Mr. Webb: Is the Minister familiar with the Support Women Against Poverty network, which we helped to establish, which brings together women throughout Britain who have a variety of concerns about the way in which the pension system works to the disadvantage of women? Would the right hon. Lady be willing to meet me and a group of these women from around Britain who have a range of concerns about the way that pensions are bad news for women, and listen to what they have to say?
  Ms Hewitt: Of course. However, I stress that in the steps that we have already taken on the state pension
  534
  scheme, we have made a real difference for women pensioners in particular, including the proposals recently announced, for instance, to simplify pension splitting in divorce and to enable people to take the full pension value out of their occupational pension scheme, even if they have less than two years' service. We are taking further steps to improve pensions provision for women.
  Glenda Jackson: In the meetings, will my right hon. Friend include representations from those women who believe that their title of common law wife affords them legal protection, but who discover on the death of their invariably long-term partner that that is most certainly not the case in terms of pensions and the sharing of pensions?
  Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important point. Like her, some of my constituents discovered too late that being a common law wife has no status in law. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Deputy Minister for Women and Equality has agreed that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will consider how we can better inform women in this position about the legal risks that they are running should their relationship break up.
  Mr. Colin Challen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the statements.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the part-time Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 JULY—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Failure of the Government to meet its Targets", followed by a debate entitled "Failure of the Government's Tax Credits Scheme". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 8 JULY—Remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 9 JULY—Debate on the Convention on the Future of Europe on a Government motion, followed by remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
THURSDAY 10 JULY—Debate on Economic and Monetary Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 11 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 14 JULY—Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
TUESDAY 15 JULY—Second Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 16 JULY—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 17 JULY—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment followed, if necessary, by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
The House will not Adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to any Act.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, then Leader of the House, made clear on 1 May, the events in Iraq had a considerable impact on the business of the House. My right hon. Friend called for the co-operation of the House to ensure that the summer recess dates remained unchanged. It is for these reasons that business may continue beyond the normal moment of interruption, allowing the House every opportunity fully to scrutinise and contribute to the business coming forward up to and including 17 July.
It may be for the convenience of the House to expect sitting beyond the moment of interruption on Tuesday 8 July, Wednesday 9 July, Thursday 10 July, Tuesday 15 July, Wednesday 16 July and possibly Thursday 17 July.
On behalf of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wish you a happy birthday.
With your permission, may I say that my mother and father are present to see their son perform at business questions? I am sure that when they were imprisoned
536
under apartheid in South Africa in the early 1960s they never imagined being in this position, or my being in this position.
Mr. Forth: We very much welcome what the part-time Leader of the House has just said—we are getting back to business. Instead of the House being forced to bunk off early every evening, we will have an opportunity to do some proper scrutiny, which is a welcome development. The part-time Leader of the House might bear that in mind when thinking about the longer term and the hours that the House sits, and he might start to draw conclusions. However, it is indeed a welcome announcement.
Last night, the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said at column 498:
"We understand that tomorrow the Government intend to publish a White Paper that will contain major policy announcements about the future of the national lottery. We further understand that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is to give a press conference and a major speech on the matter, but given previous rulings by Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would deprecate it if such announcements were made at press conferences and on the "Today" programme, but not through a statement in the House."
Following that, Mr. Deputy Speaker said that
"Mr. Speaker has made his views on these matters very clear on many occasions".
After a modest intervention by myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
"Mr. Speaker feels extremely strongly about these matters and I have no doubt that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the points at have been made."—[Official Report, 2 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 498.]
Sadly, it appears that those Ministers either did not hear those points or casually ignored them. Indeed, a significant announcement on the national lottery was sneaked out in a written ministerial statement. A document was smuggled into the Library at 11.20 this morning, in which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport says:
"I am today publishing a document".
That document is the written statement which, according to the Secretary of State,
"proposes a radical new approach to licensing the national lottery."
Mr. Speaker, you have ruled repeatedly from the Chair that major policy statements should be made in the House by Ministers so that they can be held to account. In blatant disregard of your rulings, we have yet another example of a Secretary of State who, I am told, appeared in the media this morning, has been on the radio, toured the studios and spoke to everyone except the House of Commons about this matter. Is the Leader of the House going to instruct her, even at this late stage, to come to the House this afternoon to answer questions on this matter? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a challenge for you—how often are you going to put up with this blatant disregard of your rulings from the Chair by Ministers of the Crown? It is quite unacceptable, and I hope that something will be done about it.

537
I should also like to ask for an urgent debate entitled "The Government's approach to child welfare", which would give us an opportunity to explore the recent extraordinary appointment of the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as, of all things, Minister for Children. If nothing else, that is surely an example of the Prime Minister's complete lack of judgment and sensitivity. Given the many former professional social workers on the Labour Benches, he has an ample of choice of people who know about the subject and can easily demonstrate a record of genuine care of children. Instead, he chose the former leader of Islington council. At the very least, that is an insult to the damaged children of Islington and their parents. At the very worst, it is yet another example of putting the Islington mafia before Islington children.
Peter Hain: That last comment demeans the shadow Leader of the House, but I will return to it later and answer directly the points that he made.
Before I do so, however, I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on his appointment as shadow deputy Leader of the House. He is widely respected and even liked in the House, which is not the case for all of us. I assume that the leader of the Conservative party put him in that position so that he could act as a minder for the shadow Leader of the House. After the performance that we have just witnessed, he will have a lot of minding to do. I hope that the hon. Member for Witney can influence the shadow Leader of the House to look more closely at the reshuffle announcements made by the leader of his party before continuing to criticise the Government's reshuffles.
For example, we have heard regular calls from the shadow Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I am responding to the use of the term "part-time Leader of the House" and other comments from the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a heavyweight Minister for homeland security. What happens? When the appointment is made earlier this week, the shadow Minister is not even a member of the shadow Cabinet. How can he be a heavyweight shadow Minister dealing with homeland security if he is not even in the shadow Cabinet?
On the business of the House and the hours, the House took a view on the hours and that was for the rest of the Parliament. If hon. Members wish to make representations to me on that matter, we can consider that for the future, but the House took a decision and we have operated the present system for only six months. We will need to consider how it beds in and what we do for the future.
On the point about a statement to the House, over the past months and years the Government have made more statements to the House than almost any Government in recent memory. As for the nonsense about a statement being sneaked out and smuggled into the Library, I do not know whether the shadow Leader of the House smuggles himself into the Library in order to consult its contents, but that is just rhetoric. The truth is that the two written statements to the House were made by the Secretary of State in the usual way. She acted absolutely
538
properly on an important announcement, which I should have thought even the right hon. Gentleman would welcome, about renewing and regenerating the lottery, particularly with the Government's intention of making an Olympic bid in mind.
I turn to the right hon. Gentleman's rather disreputable attack on my hon. Friend the Minister for Children. I refer to her excellent work over recent years, which I am sure every Member of the House would support. She has carried forward a policy that has provided free part-time early education for all four-year-olds and established a growing child-minding sector, with 647,000 new child care places being created. She helped develop the sure start programme, which provides a range of family and health services to local young children and their families in disadvantaged areas, and she took forward a neighbourhood nurseries policy. That is an excellent curriculum vitae for a children's Minister, and the shadow Leader of the House should withdraw those remarks.
Mr. Paul Tyler: First, Mr. Speaker, may I wish you many happy returns of the day? I hope your day will not be spoiled by yet another Secretary of State deciding that the media is the right place to make a major announcement. The Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that it is a great statement of new policy and a radical departure, and at the same time refuse to come to the House of Commons.
When does the Leader of the House expect the House to be able to consider the Lords amendments to the Communications Bill? He will be aware that last night there were some extremely important exchanges in the Lords on that Bill in respect of cross-media ownership and the need for plurality. As we understand it, the Secretary of State is to produce some sort of statement about the precise terms in which the new regulator can insist on proper plurality before considering any cross-media ownership changes.
Has the Leader of the House noted this morning the way in which the Italian media have treated the outrageous statement by Mr. Berlusconi? The Berlusconi blunder was not reported in any of his own media, of course, nor on the state television programme, although the independent papers in Italy covered it in full, and rightly so. Does he not recognise that that is an appalling example—an awful warning—of the dangers of monopolistic tendencies in the media? Does he accept that one of the reasons why we can claim to have a free society in this country, in contrast to Saddam's dictatorship in Iraq, is that we have a free media? Does he accept that Alastair Campbell's attack on the BBC and its freedom of editorial control, the weapons of mass distortion and distraction that he is deploying, and the bullying of the BBC, demean the Government rather than the BBC? Does he accept that we need a full debate on these matters when the Communications Bill returns to the House?
Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman says that we cannot have it both ways. Actually, he and Conservative Members are the ones who want to have it both ways. When Ministers come to the House and make statements, they complain about the time that that

539
takes, especially on Opposition days. They cannot have it both ways. There is already going to be a statement following business questions this afternoon.
Mr. Forth: Longer hours.
Peter Hain: If the right hon. Gentleman is demanding that we should sit beyond 17 July—
Mr. Forth: I did so last week.
Peter Hain: So it is the official Conservative position that we should say to all the House officials who have booked their holidays, "You should stay on, boys and girls, and forget about your holidays." Is he really saying that?
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Peter Hain: Well, I think that he would find that he faced a revolt on behalf of officials in the House, let alone Opposition Members. I notice that Members on the Back Benches—[Interruption.] No, I have not booked my holiday, as it happens. I notice that Opposition Back Benchers are looking particularly glum about the way in which their Front-Bench spokesman is behaving and about cancelling all their holidays.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked me specifically about the Communications Bill. I would have thought that he would welcome the fact that the Government are listening to Parliament's opinion about the Bill and, as a result, will table Government amendments in the House of Lords. As I understand it, provisionally, the Third Reading of the Bill is on 8 July. Of course, it will then come back to us in the normal fashion.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Italian Prime Minister. As I understand it, Prime Minister Berlusconi is talking to the Chancellor of Germany at this moment; at least, he was scheduled to do so. No doubt, that will prove to be a very interesting conversation. Perhaps he will follow Basil Fawlty's dictum, "Don't mention the war."
On the question of the BBC and the Government's attitude and complaint to it about the stance taken by its defence correspondent, may I commend the statement made by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who said overnight, as I understand it, that it was totally and entirely untrue that the Government had interfered with the flow of secret intelligence? The hon. Gentleman was a respected Defence Minister and talked, as I understand it—he can confirm whether this is the case—very recently to the head of intelligence and knows that it was not true that the Government, Alastair Campbell or anybody else in Government circles sought to distort intelligence information. That would be an entirely improper thing to do and I think that the BBC should bear his comments in mind.
Ann Clwyd: May I say how much I welcome the Government's proposals to end age discrimination in employment? I hope that we can have a very early debate about this matter, as it is important
540
to discuss employment practices in this House and the civil service. Please can we have an early debate about those issues?
Peter Hain: I am not sure whether it will be possible to have a very early debate, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government have issued a consultation paper and the Secretary of State for Trade Industry has taken that forward. The initiative will be very important, as what we are talking about is giving people a choice. That is what the policy is about—the moment at which people retire. I would have thought that the whole House would welcome that choice and join the Government in clamping down on age discrimination.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House in respect of the Prime Minister's appointment of the new Minister for Children? Does he not accept that it is not enough to point to improvements that she recently made in an earlier job when that is set against one of the most atrocious periods of local government in London, during which she was responsible for homes in which there were some of the most serious cases of child abuse that have ever been seen in this country? Does he really believe that such a person is truly suitable for a job of this type?
Peter Hain: I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because he is highly respected in this House, and I share that respect, but he really cannot take this argument to such extremes. My hon. Friend has a very good record in Government of supporting children at all levels of life and taking forward such policies. I think that with hindsight the hon. Gentleman will regret those remarks.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I say to my right hon. Friend that one of the many reasons his mother and father have to be proud of him is that he consistently voted for modernisation of the sitting hours of the Commons?
I have always recognised that there is a sound argument of tradition for keeping the old hours, but there can be no argument at all for the business managers pocketing the early starting hour and keeping the old finishing hour. Can I therefore invite my right hon. Friend to look beyond the dates in September to which he referred and give the House an assurance that when we resume after the summer recess he will in good faith implement the decision of the House to stop at 7 pm? In the course of the current discussions on the legislative programme, will he tackle the root cause of the problem, which is Whitehall's tendency to keep putting before us more legislation than we can properly scrutinise in any one Session?
Peter Hain: I have already made it clear that I regard the decision of the House in respect of hours as one for the rest of the Parliament, because that was the spirit of the decision that was taken. Of course, I am open to representations from all Members of the House if they think that that is unsatisfactory, think that adjustments should be made, or have views on the policy thereafter.

541
In respect of the legislative programme, my right hon. Friend has a very good point. He will be aware, since I follow in his footsteps, of that problem. Indeed, I have been wrestling with it overnight and talking to Cabinet colleagues about it. We have to ensure that the legislative programme fits in with the hours that the House works and that there is opportunity for proper scrutiny. I do not intend to make it a practice to go beyond the moment of interruption, because that is not within the bounds of the House's decisions. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that in some circumstances it is necessary to do so for orderly business to proceed, and that it is for the convenience of Members and staff of the House to know when the recess is coming.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Some weeks ago, I asked the then Leader of the House when the Government would publish their Green Paper on the Victoria Climbié inquiry. I later received a letter from him telling me that it would be published before the House rises for the summer recess. Would the Leader of the House like to confirm that that is still the case? If it is not, can he explain why the publication of the Green Paper is to be delayed? Could it have anything to do with the controversy surrounding the new Minister for Children? If so, is it not disgraceful that the Government are more concerned with stifling a controversy than with the needs of vulnerable children, two of whom die from abuse each and every week?
Peter Hain: I am a little unsighted on this matter. I shall deal with the hon. Lady's question in next week's business questions, if the opportunity arises. May I just say, however, that there is no connection at all between the Green Paper's publication date and the position of the Minister for Children, and that I regret that the right hon. Lady repeated the linkage that was made earlier?
Mr. Tony Colman: I welcome my constituents, the parents of the Leader of the House, and join in their pride that a former Labour candidate for Putney is now Leader of the House of Commons.
May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 1413?
[That this House notes that Professor Sir Roy Meadow give pivotal expert evidence in the murder trial of Sally Clark, who was subsequently cleared by the Court of Criminal Appeal; further notes that Professor Meadow discovered Munchausen's syndrome by proxy and might therefore be expected to diagnose that syndrome more readily than other, more sceptical experts; deplores the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to field Professor Meadow in the trial of Trupti Patel; and calls for an urgent review of all cases in which Professor Meadow has given evidence, including those in the Family Court.]
Professor Sir Roy Meadow has a role in many cases—not only in the criminal court, but many thousands in the family court—and there is a need for a full legal inquiry into those cases. Could there be a debate on that or a statement from the relevant Minister as to how such an inquiry can go forward?
Peter Hain: I had many happy days tramping the streets of Putney knocking on doors, although I must say that my hon. Friend is a much better representative for that community than I proved to be, because he actually got elected.
The early-day motion concerns important issues. I commend him and his colleagues for placing it before the House, and we will bear in mind his request.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I listened carefully to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). This is too serious a matter to be dismissed in such a way. We all understand that he has not been in post for long, and that there are some matters on which he is unsighted. He may not be aware that representatives of Downing street made it clear this morning that Lord Laming's report on the protection of children following the tragic death of little Victoria Climbié has indeed been delayed because of the difficulties facing the new Minister for Children.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must take her seat. There seems to be a regular and concerted attack on the Minister for Children. The House should know that when an hon. Member is being attacked in such a way there should be a substantive motion before the House. I will not allow such matters to come up in business questions. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to be seated and inform other hon. Members who have this line of questioning that I will stop them.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is some time since the publication of the Budd report on gaming. Will he look into how soon a new gaming Bill can be introduced to the House, because it would be of great benefit to seaside resorts and generate many jobs in the economy?
Peter Hain: I am aware of the impact of gaming on the economy, especially in seaside resorts. Careful thought is being given to creating an opportunity to introduce a Bill in the legislative programme that is now under consideration.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Happy birthday, Mr. Speaker.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a substantial grouping of opposition to World Trade Organisation policies for so-called free trade and open markets across the world. He will also be aware of the Trade Justice Movement's opposition to those policies. I myself took part in a demonstration against them last Saturday. This week, the World Bank acknowledged that its policies have not helped the world's poor. Will my right hon. Friend make space for a major debate on the Floor of the House on future trade policy?
Peter Hain: In respect of the world's poor, I share my hon. Friend's ambitions to conquer world poverty. This Government have the best record of any British Government in taking forward a massive increase in our overseas aid and development budget and in leading the international campaign to lift the dreadful burden of debt from the poorest countries in the world.

543
Along with many other Members, I received a delegation from the Trade Justice Movement in my surgery last Saturday morning, and I was very pleased to be photographed with them and to identify with their ambition. [Interruption.] They asked to be photographed with me, as it happens. I entirely share their goals. The Government are committed to taking forward an international trade round that truly frees up trade so that the poorest countries of the world, instead of being exploited by the rich part of the international community's trade protectionism, are able to get their produce into the markets of the richer world, including Europe. There will soon be an opportunity—next week, in International Development questions—for those issues to be raised.
Sir George Young: In his statement, the Leader of the House said that he hoped that we would have enough opportunity to scrutinise the Government's legislation between now and the summer recess. I am sure that the servants of the House would respect a decision by the House to sit beyond the announced date if we felt that it needed to do so in order to hold the Government to account. May I ask him about Tuesday's business, specifically the remaining stages of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill? Is he aware that 54 clauses of that Bill were not discussed in Standing Committee, and that since it left Committee the Government have tabled a whole range of new clauses about GP contracts? Should we not spend all Tuesday on that business instead of combining it with Lords amendments to other Bills?
Peter Hain: I have considerable respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I hope that we shall work together, as we did last week on the Wicks committee. It was a good try at going beyond 17 July, but I shall not comply with that request. In any case, the decision has already been made.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. There has been plenty of opportunity for scrutiny of the measure, which has been well debated. I cannot agree with his point on that.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will there be an opportunity for hon. Members to know the Prime Minister's response to Mr. Berlusconi's intemperate remarks yesterday?
I do not know whether the part-time Leader of the House or his deputy will reply to the summer Adjournment debates. The last debate of term takes place in a holiday atmosphere, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will outline his attempts to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to holiday in the United Kingdom, perhaps in Wales. We would be worried if any member of the Government, including the Prime Minister, accepted Mr. Berlusconi's hospitality.
Peter Hain: That was an attempt to link so many issues that I shall not respond in detail to it. However, Prime Minister Berlusconi and his remarks bring into focus the Government's argument, which the Opposition consistently attack, for a stable presidency for the European Council. We have argued that a six-
544
monthly, rotating presidency, which means that a new country with a new Head of Government takes charge and goes off in a specific direction, is not a good advertisement for the European Union's leadership. The presidency should be full time and for five years. That would mean a stable presidency, and everybody would know who represented Heads of Government in the European Council and the international community. I should have thought that even members of the Conservative party would support that commonsense approach.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: My right hon. Friend may know that Allan Leighton, chairman of Royal Mail, attended a meeting in the House yesterday at my invitation to answer hon. Members' questions about Royal Mail's decision to shift mail from rail to road. As far as I know, that was hon. Members' only opportunity to question that serious decision. Given that Royal Mail is a wholly owned company of the Government's, does my right hon. Friend share my view that hon. Members should have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the decision? Will he arrange a debate or a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?
Peter Hain: I am not sure whether there will be an opportunity for a debate or a statement, but I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. I am worried about the decision. Obviously such matters are for Royal Mail, but the night mail has long been part of its tradition. I remember the W.H. Auden poem "Night Mail", and I shall read the first few lines:
"This is the Night Mail crossing the Border,
Bringing the cheque and the postal order,
Letters for the rich, letters for the poor,
The shop at the corner, the girl next door."
There are lots more verses, but I shall leave it at that.
It was important that Allan Leighton attended the meeting in the House. I hope that he will continually address anxieties that hon. Members of all parties have expressed about the decision.
Lady Hermon: I am sure that the Leader of the House knows that, as part of the recent joint declaration of the British and Irish Governments in Hillsborough, it was agreed to establish a new ceasefire monitoring body. That will require legislative authority. Do the Government intend to introduce a Bill before we rise on 17 July—or perhaps not on 17 July? The right hon. Gentleman should please not be encouraged to go beyond that date, but will he confirm that legislation will be introduced and when that will happen?
Peter Hain: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support for not going beyond 17 July; I think that view is shared by hon. Members of all parties.
We are aware of the need for legislation and of the importance of the matter, which will be addressed as soon as it is sensible to do so.
Peter Bradley: Will the Leader of the House arrange to hold a debate on the affairs of Westminster city council, especially its former leader, Dame Shirley Porter? Is he aware of the Law Lords'

545
unanimous judgment two years ago that she was guilty of deliberate, blatant and dishonest abuse of public power, amounting to political corruption? She is subject to a surcharge of £40 million, which increases by £5,000 a day in interest. Westminster city council is currently run by those who were her acolytes when she pursued her reign of terror. So far, they have collected £3,000 and a gold-plated toilet seat. My right hon. Friend will also know that the "Today" programme revealed that she is in contempt of court. A debate would allow the Government to set out the means whereby they intend to bring her to justice, perhaps including extradition from Israel. It would also allow Conservative Members, for the first time in the seven years since she was condemned—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his two penn'orth.
Peter Hain: I am not sure whether there will be an opportunity for a debate or an early statement. However, my hon. Friend has raised an important matter. The district auditor issued a damning report about the behaviour of Dame Shirley Porter, who has parked herself abroad, and the way in which she made it more difficult for Westminster city council and its council tax payers to recover the £40 million. It will have our full support in doing that because the sort of political corruption in which she indulged should not be allowed to go unchecked.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Could we have an early debate on the decision to replace the Connex South East rail franchise? Whatever the merits of the decision, will the Leader of the House clarify the way in which hon. Members representing the constituencies affected can properly scrutinise the Strategic Rail Authority's decision-making powers?
Peter Hain: I understand that an Adjournment debate on a related matter will take place next week, so perhaps the point can be raised then. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
Mr. Martin Salter: What provisions are the House of Commons authorities making to respond to threats of civil disobedience, unlawful activity and other stunts by the Countryside Alliance to disrupt the workings of Parliament after the failure of that organisation to convince the House of the case for continuing the practice of hunting with hounds?
Peter Hain: I understand that the police dealt promptly this morning with the matter to which my hon. Friend referred. I understand his concerns, which hon. Members of all parties have expressed, including those about gaining access. Obviously, we need to balance the right to protest with the orderly transaction of business in the House. Those matters will be kept under continual review.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is being sent back to
546
Committee and that it is being revised. Will he give a categorical assurance that if the revised Bill is sent back to Committee in the second and/or third weeks of September, it will be printed before 17 July?
Peter Hain: I shall look into the matter because I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. I shall get back to him as soon as possible.
Glenda Jackson: When will the House be afforded a debate in Government time on post-conflict Iraq? I am aware of the statement after business questions, but my constituents' concerns are not limited to the humanitarian situation in Iraq, and it is time the House examined in detail what appears to be a marked failure to deliver on the promises to the Iraqi people.
Peter Hain: I know and respect my hon. Friend's close interest in this matter. She referred to the statement that will follow on the humanitarian situation, which is related to her point. And the Foreign Affairs Committee is due to report on general issues next week.
Dr. Vincent Cable: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the deteriorating financial position in the nuclear power industry, and especially on the Government's role in negotiating a contract with the new head of British Energy, which is being bailed out by the taxpayer, that awards him £800,000 if he fails and the company goes into administration? That is completely contrary to Ministers' strictures on fat-cat pay.
Peter Hain: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's points to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mike Gapes: May we have an early debate on transport in London, and in particular on the Government's attitude to the business case for Crossrail, which I understand is currently being considered by Transport Ministers? Hopefully we shall soon hear an announcement of a decision that is vital to the regeneration of east London and the improvement of east-west transport links in the capital.
In that context, may I point out that there have been serious problems on the underground this week? There have been staff shortages—I am not sure why—and delays and overcrowding on the Central line. Given the current temperature, that is not at all satisfactory for millions of people in London, including my constituents.
Peter Hain: I sympathise with what my hon. Friend says about the underground, especially in the light of the hot weather. Travelling in crowded trains can be intolerable, and the relevant authorities must deal with the problems.
I hear muttering from the Opposition Benches. Record amounts are now being invested in rail and underground services, after nearly two decades of persistent underinvestment by the Conservatives. That

547
underinvestment is one of the main reasons why London commuters are having to put up with the present conditions.
I am well aware of the importance of Crossrail. I believe that nearly £200 million has already been spent on the project, and I hope that it will proceed with all speed.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The Leader of the House will know of the serious breach of patient confidentiality in the Royal group of hospitals in Belfast, where tens of thousands of patients' records have been accessed. The breach of trust is all the worse for having been perpetrated by a terrorist organisation for intelligence-gathering purposes. May we have an early statement from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what he plans to do to restore confidence among the tens of thousands of families who have been affected? He might also give us an update on other intelligence-gathering activities. We have yet to hear any detailed response from the Government on, for instance, the Castlereagh break-in, which occurred on St Patrick's day last year, and the Stormontgate affair.
Peter Hain: I know that the Secretary of State is addressing all those issues with his usual diligence and urgency, but I shall draw his attention to the important matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony McWalter: It is the role of Members of Parliament to ascertain what difficulties, or even injustices, their constituents are encountering, and to judge the extent to which Government initiatives and activity might correct the position. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on identifying one such problem: a number of my constituents with low incomes are paying the higher tax rate. Has his appetite for initiating debates—which is an important part of the process I have described—been lessened, or will he continue to raise issues which I believe to be of the utmost importance to my constituents?
Hon. Members: Answer!
Peter Hain: I am about to answer.
I welcome my hon. Friend's generous question. I think that enlightened debate on all matters of Government policy is a good thing.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May we have an early debate on the Government's long-delayed fallen stock collection scheme? Against the background of a general crisis in agriculture, on Tuesday it became illegal for farmers to bury dead livestock. Most of the local abattoirs have now closed, and the Government want to close down hunts as well. Will they stop messing about with surveys asking farmers, some of whom do not even have livestock, whether they want a scheme, and get on with introducing one?
Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter has been raised on many occasions, but I will certainly remind the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On Tuesday we shall have an important debate on foundation hospital trusts, but many aspects of the governance proposals are still very opaque. Must people pay a pound to vote in the election of a board of governors, or must they merely pledge to pay a pound? How big are the catchment areas for specialist hospitals? After hours of debate in Standing Committee, thousands of questions about the trusts remain unanswered. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Secretary of State for Health, and will he produce a memorandum—an explanatory note—about the governance proposals on Monday, before Tuesday's debate?
Peter Hain: I shall certainly inform the Secretary of State of what my hon. Friend has said; but I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the speech in which, earlier this week, the Secretary of State spelt out a Labour vision of a national health service free and available to all and receiving record investment—in contrast to the Tory policy of charging, privatisation, cuts and running down the NHS. For that is what the Tories did so effectively, from their own destructive viewpoint, during their many long, bitter years of power.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the fulsome tribute that the right hon. Gentleman has paid to his most recent predecessor but one—the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), whose noble attempt to democratise the second Chamber was sabotaged by the rather cackhanded and brutal intervention of the Prime Minister—will he confirm in a statement, very soon, that his own commitment to an elected second Chamber remains absolute? Will he also confirm that he is determined, within the lifetime of this Parliament, to present legislative proposals to allow that objective to be achieved, in the interests of parliamentary legitimacy and democratic scrutiny alike?
Peter Hain: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's hyped-up rhetoric. He is very good at it.
I have paid tribute to my immediate predecessor as well as the most recent but one, who was present earlier.
Mr. Bercow: Less warmly?
Peter Hain: No, equally warmly. He was a very good Leader of the House, albeit briefly.
As for future legislation, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, he will have to wait for the Queen's Speech to see what transpires.
John Mann: Today the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Home Secretary are citing Sweden as the basis for evidence of why residential rehabilitation for drug addicts under 18 works and should be introduced in this country. I visited Sweden recently. This year, the Swedish Government are reducing such residential rehabilitation by two thirds. Given that inconsistency, will the Leader of the House consider a debate giving the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to apologise to the Swedish Government and people for so blatantly misrepresenting the Swedish policy?
Peter Hain: Members will have a chance to table questions to the Home Secretary next week, and my

549
hon. Friend will be able to raise the matter then. I pay tribute to the work he has done in his constituency and the lessons he has drawn to the House's attention on tackling the drugs problem, especially in former coalmining areas such as those that he and I represent.
The policy announced by the Conservatives is a recycled version of a policy that they first announced at their party conference nine months ago. It involves nicking £465 million from the health service budget. The Conservatives are, of course, in a terrible dilemma. They have imposed a policy of 20 per cent. cuts across the board. They are, indeed, cuts addicts—a party that is high on cuts. No one will take their anti-drugs policies seriously until they are prepared to come clean about where their cuts will fall.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not like the word "nicking". I am not sure of the implications, but I do not think that the Leader of the House should go too far down that line.
Peter Hain: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will say "borrowing from the health budget". The net effect, however, is the same: a cut in overall health spending and a refocusing of that spending, on top of 20 per cent. cuts across the board. Every time the Conservatives announce a new policy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Leader of the House again, but he is not here to answer for Opposition policies.
Bob Spink: May we have a statement on airport development in the south-east, giving Ministers an opportunity to withdraw the now dead-in-the-water and outrageous Cliffe airport proposal, to apologise to the people of Kent and Essex for presenting it in the first place, and to congratulate Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who worked together so successfully to ensure that the disastrous scheme was stopped?
Peter Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. Whenever there is a proposal for a new airport or an airport extension, there is obviously local concern, but the Government have to address the serious problem of rising demand for air travel and inadequate airport capacity. Either we allow Britain to fall behind, which I am sure he would not want to do, and certainly the Secretary of State for Transport and the Government will not allow to happen, or we must consider all options, and that is exactly what is happening. I have had representations about Severnside airport, for example, suggesting that it could be an alternative to extra capacity in the south-east. The Secretary of State is considering a range of options, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand why.
Mr. Tom Harris: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on the future of NHS Direct, which was described by the National Audit Office as a very safe service and which generated a 97 per cent. satisfaction rate among those who used it? It would
550
also be useful in giving the Conservative party the opportunity to explain, belatedly, its position on NHS Direct and whether it intends to abolish it. That information would be helpful not only to the House but to the 500,000 people who use the service every month.
Peter Hain: Obviously, I will not attempt to answer for the Conservative party, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can confirm that NHS Direct has been a huge success, with more than 95 per cent. of those who used it registering satisfaction. It has handled more than 18 million calls in the five years since it was established. It would indeed be helpful for the House to know what the Conservatives propose to do with it—and if they abolished it, how they would handle those 18 million inquiries.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Can we have a debate before the recess on the recent ombudsman's report on the situation at Equitable Life? There cannot be a single Member of the House who does not have some constituents who have been affected. There has been at least negligence on the part of both Equitable Life and the Financial Services Authority—a Government agency—and it is the ordinary policyholders who are supposed to pay. Surely, equity demands that these people should be properly compensated for other people's negligence.
Peter Hain: I fully recognise the legitimate anger that the hon. Gentleman is articulating on behalf of many, many people. The matter must be resolved, and he was absolutely right to raise it in this way.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: The chief medical officer has today highlighted the threat posed by West Nile fever. Given the importance that Sir Liam Donaldson attaches to this issue, will the Leader of the House encourage the Health Secretary to make a statement to the House on it, so that it can be properly aired and debated?
Peter Hain: Again, I understand the concern on this matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments, which I will draw to his attention.
John Barrett: Is the Leader of the House aware of answers that I received to parliamentary questions to the Department for Work and Pensions that show that thousands of pensioners in my city of Edinburgh, and tens of thousands throughout the country, are eligible for but not claiming minimum income guarantee, falling below the Government's basic income level? Will he find time for a debate in the House, so that we can discuss how to improve take-up, especially as we will be only a few weeks away from the new pension credit when the House returns?
Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are lots of opportunities for hon. Members to secure debates on such matters. It is an important subject, and we attach great importance to the minimum income guarantee. For the first time, poor pensioners are being lifted up to around £100 a week, and that gives them some form of security. It is important to ensure better

551
take-up. The Government cannot force people to take advantage of their entitlements, but we continually do more and more to ensure that more and more pensioners realise their rights and the opportunities before them. The pension credit, which as he said, will be introduced in October, is a huge boost for hard-working pensioners who have saved a bit and have a small pension, but not a decent enough one to take them into secure living.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Leader of the House invited representations on the issue of hours, so perhaps he will allow me to offer him one. I refer him to early-day motion 607,
[That this House regrets the revised sitting hours; notes that the business of the House has been adversely affected; and calls for a review of the arrangements.]
The motion has almost 200 signatories, and I suspect that it would have more if Ministers, many of whom are unhappy with the system themselves, were allowed to sign EDMs. As the Government's principal selling point for the change of hours was that the House would finish regularly at 7 o'clock, and as the past few weeks have patently shown that that is not the case, can the House not vote again on this matter and change its mind?
Peter Hain: The House decided on this matter, even if the hon. Gentleman does not like it.
Mr. Forth: For ever?
Peter Hain: No, for the rest of this Parliament, which is exactly the point that I have been making.
I regard myself as a custodian, along with others, of the decisions of the House. If the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) disagrees with our decision, he can mobilise more supporters of his EDM, and no doubt that will form part of the coming debate and the climate in which any future decisions are made after the next general election.

Iraq (Humanitarian Situation)
1.25 pm
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to repeat a statement made in another place by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. She was in Iraq last week, in both Basra and Baghdad, and met representatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the United Nations, the military, Iraqi administrators, non-governmental organisations and UK civilian staff. She also visited a prison and a water treatment plant in Basra, and the British office in Baghdad.
Progress has been made in Basra. Days after the end of the conflict, British troops took off their flak jackets and helmets and talked to civilians, which set the tone for a progressive return to normal life, with the military presence now relatively unobtrusive. Life has regained an air of normality: people are out in the streets; the markets sell fruit and vegetables; cars are on the streets; and shops and restaurants are open.
Quick impact projects, implemented by British forces, together with the UN. NGOs and local authorities, have made a visible difference. Basic services, including water and electricity, have been restored to pre-war levels. The prison has been rehabilitated. The courthouse has been refurbished, and cases are now being heard. Work is under way to clean the city of solid waste and other health hazards. Medical services are functioning, albeit with localised shortages of specialist drugs and oxygen.
The House will, I am sure, want to pay tribute to UK forces for their very significant contribution, often working in difficult and at times dangerous circumstances, as the tragic deaths of the six Royal Military Police in Maysan last week all too clearly demonstrated.
The expectations of ordinary Iraqis are very high. The south suffered particular neglect under Saddam's regime, and was starved of investment for years. We need to do better than just restore services to their prewar levels. People expect and deserve more.
The situation in Baghdad is more difficult. Threats to security remain a significant obstacle to progress. Regrettably, attacks against the US military by ex-Ba'athists and criminals appear to have become more organised, as has sabotage of newly restored infrastructure, and there are worrying signs of threats to international personnel and Iraqis working with the coalition, which could undermine the developing links between the Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi Ministries. Worries over personal safety keep many Iraqis in their homes, rather than at work or school, and impact particularly on women and girls. Cuts in electricity and water supplies also disrupt everyday life. We are working to tackle these.
Some progress has been made on security: 30,000 Iraqi police officers have reported back for duty, a legal system is beginning to be re-established to control criminality, and the CPA has decided to pay stipends to ex-soldiers, which should help. We are working to put in place the conditions for Iraq to be seen, by its own citizens, to be policing itself rather than being controlled by Coalition forces. We attach a very high priority to the effective reform of the security sector.

553
Rapid and visible progress towards fully representative and democratic government is central to the future of Iraq. Iraqis must regain political control of their country as quickly as possible. While Iraqi-controlled local authorities are already working in a number of provincial towns, the process of establishing an Iraqi-led governing council is much more complex. This has to be done quickly, but it also has to be done right. The governing council needs to be representative, involving all the main parties and religious and ethnic groups, as well as providing for the effective involvement of women. The CPA is making progress on developing consensus among Iraqi representatives on the way forward, and importantly, the United Nations is closely involved in the process.
Much has been made of shortcomings in the CPA. That criticism has in many cases been overstated, but things clearly could improve, and the CPA's leadership, with UK support, is working hard to improve the authority's performance. That includes establishing better communications between headquarters and the regions, and—even more vitally—between the CPA and the Iraqi people. It is essential that the people understand what the CPA is doing and why, and that the CPA can understand their wishes.
Almost 100 secondees to the CPA from a wide range of UK Government Departments are now in partnership with Iraqi ministries, our US colleagues and the humanitarian agencies, helping to get the Iraqi civil administration back up and running. The Department for International Development now has 27 advisers in Iraq, including the CPA's recently appointed director of operations.
DFID is also making a substantial financial contribution to humanitarian agencies working on the ground. Our total financial commitment now stands at £154 million, most of which is channelled through organisations with the capacity and expertise to mount humanitarian operations quickly and effectively. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses details of the reconstruction work that has been undertaken so far by the agencies that we have been funding.
We are also working to support the longer-term reconstruction of Iraq. Much of the finance for that will come from Iraq's own oil revenues—initially through the development fund for Iraq, and subsequently through Iraq's own budget—but the international community also has an important role to play. In New York last week, informal meetings, which included Iraqi representatives, began preparations for a donors conference that is expected to take place in October. Details were also agreed on the assessment that the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations will carry out in the intervening months. DFID will consider how best we can contribute to that longer-term reconstruction effort in the light of this work.
Years of sanctions and mismanagement by the Saddam regime have left the Iraqi economy very weak. Even before the conflict, only about half of the Iraqi work force were in full-time employment. Iraq's oil wealth and its relatively well-educated population
554
should enable it to grow rapidly, once security has stabilised and a representative government are in place who can take long-term economic policy decisions.
Humanitarian agencies, with our support, returned to Iraq quickly after the conflict ended and have helped the country to recover from that conflict and the subsequent looting. The ability to do so was strengthened by good preparatory work, in part financed by DFID, and supported by our armed forces. But continued threats to security, particularly in Baghdad, remain a very significant constraint. The coalition is working urgently to address that in order to build on the progress achieved so far, and to make real, lasting and visible improvements to the lives of the Iraqi people.
Following her visit, the Secretary of State is urgently discussing with the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues what more we need to do to address the key priorities on the ground. We will continue to keep the House fully informed.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Does the statement's sanitised description of life returning to normal really match the reality for ordinary Iraqis? And why is there no apology for the failure to plan properly? On 3 February, the Prime Minister pledged to Members of this House that there would be
"a humanitarian plan that is every bit as viable and well worked out as a military plan."-[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 36.]
But on Monday, the Secretary of State admitted before the International Development Committee that the planning was poor. I understand that in the statement that has just been given in another place, the Secretary of State—how we wish, with no disrespect to the Minister, that she was in this House—said that she blames the chaos mainly on looting, which she said was impossible to predict. Since when, in the aftermath of a war, has looting been impossible to predict? The Secretary of State also denied that the Government were unprepared.
The director of Save the Children said in his evidence to the Select Committee:
"We were told that as much priority would be given to the humanitarian dimension as to the others. That could not have been the case, given where we have ended up."
So what confidence can the public now have in the Prime Minister's assurances? Why do the Government appear to be responding to events, rather than anticipating them? And where is the road map to a stable and secure, self-governing Iraq?
There are humanitarian problems, and it is the serious lack of security that is hampering attempts to return life to normal. Women and children do not feel safe on the streets. People are being forced to drink dirty water because water facilities have been sabotaged. Electricity is still intermittent, hospitals are still short of drugs and people are being operated on without anaesthetic. Yet all that we heard in the statement is that there are "localised shortages".
Can the Minister set out now how the Government hope to mange security in Iraq? Do we need more troops; did our Government support the de-mobbing of the Iraqi army; and what does the coalition plan for ex-soldiers, beyond the provision of a stipend? The visible

555
presence of coalition troops on the main roads may give the impression of security, but the side-streets are still haunted by the shadow of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist militia. And what of the new threat of 10,000 Iranian-trained Shi'a militia, who are increasingly militant?
What matters from now on is that there is a clear, well-defined road map for how to get from occupation to Iraqi self-government, which needs to be laid out and shared with the Iraqi people. The Minister said that we need to communicate much more clearly to the Iraqi people what our intentions are. Will he set out how he intends to improve communications with ordinary Iraqis? How much money does the coalition administration need to run the country, and what is the strategy for raising it? He said that much will come from oil revenues, so why are there reported plans to sell off Iraqi national assets? Would this even be legal?
This statement does not reassure us that there is a clear plan for securing the future of Iraq. Although the Minister acknowledges that security is a problem, he does not say how it will be addressed. He says that Iraqis should run Iraq, but he does not say when or how this will take place. Aspirations are no substitute for a clear strategy. Does this not leave the UK's armed forces in an increasingly invidious position?
Yesterday, the nation paid respect to the six gallant men of the Royal Military Police, and we do pay tribute to all of our armed forces.[Interruption.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: You all voted for the war.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order.
Mrs. Spelman: But if we are to continue to risk our soldier's lives to prevent terrorists and weapons-proliferators from threatening us from that land again, why is there still no clear plan that can show how to bring peace and security to Iraq?
Hilary Benn: I am sorry that the hon. Lady began her comments by referring to my statement as a sanitised version. I do not accept that description at all; indeed, I regard it as a balanced account of the difficult situation that exists in Iraq, but which also recognises that progress has been made since the end of the conflict.
The hon. Lady makes a very fair point about the question of planning. As she will be aware, DFID, the UN and other agencies made considerable preparations for a range of eventualities, including the possibility of prolonged urban warfare, large-scale movement of the population and considerable disruption to the infrastructure, which in the end—thank goodness—did not transpire. That is one reason why the UN and other agencies, with financial support from DFID, were able to get up and running relatively quickly.
The truth is that we then found ourselves dealing with a different set of challenges as a result of the swift collapse of the regime: looting, and the subsequent initial breakdown in public services. The House needs to recognise and acknowledge that in a society on which the lid was kept for 25 years by fear and terror, a very different approach is required, particularly to policing, to which I shall return in a moment.
556
In this case, the sensible action for DFID to take was to fund the agencies on the ground and support the reconstruction work. As I said, I have put the details in the Library today. What matters is not whose flag is on the activity, but whether the work gets done.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) asked specific questions about the water supply. Our funding has helped to pay for repairs to 40 sewage pumping stations across Iraq and for the delivery of drugs and medical supplies to 11 hospitals, 15 health centres and 37 clinics—part of an attempt to get the drug distribution system in Iraq back up and running. Those who visited Iraq and reported what they found told us that part of the problem was an ineffective distribution system to get the supplies from where they are held in warehouses to where they need to go. That is why the Department funds the distribution system. In many respects, the position has improved. Food distribution, for example, is working again. Of course lessons are to be learned from the process, but the most important consideration now is to get on with the task of reconstruction.
The hon. Lady also asked about the political process. She is absolutely right that, to complement the work on security, we need to get the political process working. As she knows, that is a twin-track process. We first set up a governing council that is broadly based and representative. Sergio de Mello, the UN Secretary-General's special representative, will report to the Security Council when the council has been established, after which it will appoint Iraqi Ministers. The second track is to set up the preparatory commission, whose job will be to provide a timetable for the constitutional process that will eventually lead to elections and Iraqi self-government. I accept that that is important, but it is for the commission to decide—[Interruption.] It is not for us or the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to decide the timetable. The governing council wants it to happen during the course of this month. It must indeed be an Iraqi-owned process.
Finally, on policing, 30,000 Iraqi police are now back at work. As the hon. Lady will be aware, joint patrols have been stepped up and the chief constable of Hampshire led a team and produced a report on security sector and policing reform, which is now being taken forward by the CPA. The hon. Lady is absolutely right and we agree that security is the foundation on which the reconstruction of Iraq will be achieved.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: It is absolutely clear to everyone that there was no coherent plan to deal with what is currently happening. The attacks on US troops are seriously worrying. We have heard warnings from two ayatollahs, one of whom issued a fatwa opposing the US plan for choosing who should rule Iraq, because Iraqis should themselves be able to choose. I have spoken to two soldiers who have returned from Basra and been debriefed. Their message to me was that the Iraqi people do not want us there. The Iraqis are utterly bitter about the number of civilians—now estimated at 7,000—who have been killed, with a further 15,000 having been injured. Is it not time for the full

557
involvement of the UN? It is now for the UN to come up with a plan to take over the organisation of elections, which should be solely for the Iraqi people.
Hilary Benn: I do not accept my hon. Friend's description of an absence of preparation, and the whole House acknowledges the extent of the difficulties that we face. The whole House also fully understands the desire of the people of Iraq to speed up the process that will allow them to take decisions about the future of their country. If we had not taken action, we would not be having this discussion about the possibility of a new future for Iraq, a constitutional process and a governing council, because Saddam Hussein would still be in power. We should acknowledge that fact. Whatever people say about the difficulties in which Iraq currently finds itself, very few wish for the return of Saddam. That should be acknowledged as a starting-point within the process. I nevertheless accept the spirit of what my hon. Friend says about the need for the process to proceed speedily. I accept her point about UN involvement, which is why Sergio de Mello's contribution to overseeing the process of political reconstruction is so important.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the Minister for the statement, even though it was second hand. I share the doubts expressed by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about the Secretary of State's assessment, following a two-day whistlestop tour of the country, of the position in Iraq. I happily acknowledge, however, that progress has been made in Basra, mainly because of our own armed forces. I saw at first hand in Kosovo how hard our soldiers work to restore services and the whole House should congratulate them on their work in the south of Iraq.
As we have heard, the real position in Iraq is much worse, and it is difficult for those who were against the rush to war from the very beginning not to say, "I told you so". It is all very well for the official Opposition to complain about the lack of progress to date, but, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, they voted for it all so they must accept the consequences.
The key to reconstruction, as everyone accepts, is security and the establishment of the rule of law. How long do the Iraqi people have to wait for sufficient peacekeepers to bring law and order to their land? The Iraqi people do not trust many of the civilian police. Is it not time for the UN to take over the security function and the building of a civilian Government who will have the respect of the Iraqi people?
When will water and electricity supplies be reliable enough for hospitals to function, and when will those same hospitals become secure enough to be administered under proper management, with proper equipment? Will the Minister comment on the incidence of cholera in Iraq, and on the very disturbing reports, following the looting of the nuclear plant, of radiation sickness among Iraqi people? When will criminal and religious violence against women be controlled, and how many women will be in the governing council of Iraq? Will the Minister also tell us how Iraq's enormous debt is to be dealt with?
558
Finally, does the Minister agree that the chaos and suffering in Iraq, following the reckless rush to war, was—as suggested by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) in a written statement on 13 March—due to insufficient planning by the US?
Hilary Benn: I do not accept the hon. Lady's last point, but I thank her for her acknowledgement of the contribution of UK forces, which is felt throughout the House. She is absolutely right about the primacy of security and the rule of law. Clearly, the release of 75,000 criminals has not helped, and I described earlier the steps taken by the CPA to deal with the problem.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly among those who opposed the action in the first place.[Interruption.] I repeat that, if Saddam was still in control, we would not be having this discussion about the possibility of a new future for Iraq. Let us all recognise the importance of the achievement in removing him. The key point is that this is a very difficult task, and those who tap their watches and ask why it has not been done yet fail to understand the scale of that task. We are dealing with the consequences not of three weeks of conflict, but of 25 years of destruction of the country's politics and culture. That is what created the difficulties with which we now have to deal.
The hon. Lady asked about the cholera outbreak. There was an outbreak, but it has been managed and, thankfully, no deaths have been reported. It was a matter of considerable concern, but the system has responded reasonably effectively to it.
I concur with the hon. Lady about the importance of women's involvement in the political process. She will be aware of the meeting that took place in May in preparation for the women's conference planned for later this month. The British Government continue to press strongly for the view that the position of women should play its proper part in the governance of Iraq—though, in the end, it is for the Iraqi people to determine under the new structures.
On debt, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will be aware that the Paris Club has indicated its willingness to look at Iraq's sovereign debts. The assessment being made by the IMF, the World Bank and the UN will feed into the donors conference in October. That will give us the opportunity to take a wider and longer-term view of the debt position in Iraq.
Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend the Minister was just asked about the civil nuclear facility at al-Tuwaitha. I want to follow up on that question, as 500 radioactive barrels were looted from that site, and used by local villagers for water storage. Is he aware that the US is offering only $3 for each returned barrel, whereas a new barrel costs $15? Will he congratulate Greenpeace, which is collecting contaminated barrels and giving out new ones free? Equally importantly, or even more so, will he press for the International Atomic Energy Agency to be given the full mandate that it is seeking to tackle this serious humanitarian and radiological crisis?
Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and I apologise to the hon. Member for

559
Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for not responding to her point on the same issue. The House will be aware of the reports that the population in the area of the alTuwaitha nuclear facility had taken drums and containers and that they had emptied low-enriched uranium from them and taken them off for use as water storage. I was not aware of the steps being taken by Greenpeace, although it sounds like a commendable initiative.
To date, the World Health Organisation has not received any reports of suspected radiation sickness in local hospitals, although it has received reports of possible exposure to risk. Consequently, it has sent a team to the area to assess local health facilities and patterns of admission, and whether there have been any reported cases of exposure locally. It would be sensible to reflect on what that teams report, but I shall bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
Sir George Young: I recognise that real progress has been made in difficult circumstances, but is not it worrying that the mood of the average man in the street seems to be changing? It has gone from relief to disillusionment and now—worryingly—to resentment. Will the Minister share with the House the strategy that exists to win back the hearts and minds of ordinary people in Iraq?
Hilary Benn: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. Two things need to be done: we must make progress on security and get the political process moving as quickly as possible. There has to be clarity about the timetable, as the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) noted earlier. Improving people's day-to-day lives and providing clarity about how long it will take for the Iraqi people to have the chance to take decisions about their country's future are the best things that we can do. We must continue to work hard at that to overcome the frustration that of course people feel. There is a great wish, especially after 25 years of trauma, to get on with establishing a new future for the country. The responsibility on the coalition is to make sure that those two things can be achieved.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke gently and politely, but I have seldom been so angry with an Opposition statement. What on earth did the Opposition think would happen? The shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Defence Secretary goaded the Government into this folly. You are all in it together—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House. He knows that he must direct his questions and remarks to the Minister who is making the statement to the House today.
Mr. Dalyell: My question is very precise. It concerns British troops. The first wave became gradually acclimatised, and that is all very well, but we are now sending members of the services straight into the sweltering heat of Basra, where temperatures reach 52 degrees. Given the security position in which our forces find themselves, how on earth can they be expected to keep their cool throughout? We are asking a heck of a
560
lot of the Army. I ask the same question as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon): for how long do we delay bringing in the UN? The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) is right to say that things are turning sour. People are moving from acceptance to outright hostility. Our forces are seen more and more as an occupying army, and not as a liberating army. We ought to understand the consequences of that.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is agreement across the House on the need to make progress as quickly as possible to address the points that he raises. He asks specifically about how the British forces who will be arriving in Iraq shortly are meant to cope. My answer is, simply, that I would expect them to cope with exactly the same professionalism and dedication to their duties as those who will leave shortly have demonstrated. As I think all hon. Members will recognise, their work has made a great contribution to the improvement that has taken place, especially in the south and particularly in Basra.
Mr. Michael Portillo: Does the Minister recall that on 4 June the Prime Minister crowed to this House that those who said that Iraq might turn out to be his Vietnam had been proved wrong? Given the continuing level of allied casualties, would not the Prime Minister have shown less hubris if he had simply said that he did not know what lay ahead in Iraq, but that he would be resolute in seeing the task through to the end?
Hilary Benn: We certainly do need to be resolute and to see the task through to the end. I believe that those who choose to make analogies with Vietnam are mistaken, principally because the starting point was the overthrow of Saddam's regime. A majority in the House voted for that, although I recognise that there are hon. Members who did not support the decision. I repeat that we would not be having this discussion about a new future for Iraq if the action had not been taken, but the scale of the task facing us is very considerable. We owe it to the people of Iraq to see it through.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Rebuilding Iraq and establishing democracy there would be greatly facilitated if the UN were in charge, but will my hon. Friend say what role the new and developing free trade union movement will play? Trade unionists are united by common interests, rather than being divided into sectarian and ethnic groups. They will form the bulk of voters in a new Iraq, and they will also be the workers who will accomplish the reconstruction and rebuilding of the country. If the unions are to have a role, what will be the attitude of the US towards them?
Hilary Benn: The UN plays a very important role in the political process, particularly because resolution 1483 has given Sergio de Mello special responsibility for overseeing the establishment of the political process. His contribution and report to the Security Council on that process will be very important in taking the matter forward. I agree about the importance of supporting the establishment, in all aspects of Iraqi life, of the institutions of a functioning democracy. The trade

561
union movement has suffered enormously, and the Government certainly wish to encourage that and other aspects of civil society. They will all contribute to the process of enabling the new democracy to be more than just a constitution and words on a document. We want it to be a living and breathing entity that enables the Iraqi people, over time, to take control of the destiny of their country.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I may be accused of benefiting from hindsight, but the Minister will accept that at an early stage I expressed concern about the consequences of the war. Does he agree that searches need to be conducted sensitively, especially when men burst into houses in which women have normally been sheltered? We must understand the views on Islam on that issue. When the Minister spoke about there being three months before the donor countries conference is held, I could not help but think that that was a bit like the waiting lists in the health service. Given the magnitude of the task they face, is it not possible to call the countries together sooner, so that they can start their planning earlier?
Hilary Benn: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, he is right about the importance of being sensitive to local culture and custom. I know that UK forces are acutely aware of the need for that sensitivity, and it is something that they hold dear to their hearts when they carry out their work.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have already made progress on bringing the donors together for the UN flash appeal. A further meeting was held in New York last week, which included representatives from Iraq who discussed what they felt would be needed for the future of the country. That has brought forth additional funds to support the money that has already been pledged. It is right that we should allow the World Bank, the IMF and the UN to make the detailed assessments. In one sense, three months is a long time, but we are talking about long-term reconstruction, so it is right that we should give them the chance to do that work as we shall have a more informed donors conference in October once that work has been completed.
Lynne Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that any objective observer must conclude that there was a near total lack of preparation for the post-war needs of Iraqi society. However, I also agree with the Minister when he says that we need to do more than restore services to pre-war levels. When will services be restored to even those minimal levels, to cater for humanitarian needs and, for example, broadcasting and communication? What action is being taken to distinguish between those Ba'athists who are loyal to Saddam Hussein and those who joined the Ba'ath party only from expediency, who do not have a record of corruption and abuse and can, therefore, contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq?
Hilary Benn: In answer to my hon. Friend's first question, progress has been made in Basra in reaching
562
pre-war levels with, for example, the electricity supply, although we need to go further. In Baghdad, progress had been made but the situation worsened last week as a result of acts of sabotage, which reinforces the point about security. A lot of money, investment, time and effort have gone into restoring the electricity supply and some people are setting out to undermine that. We have to deal with that problem to ensure that the electricity supply is constant, because people need it; it is needed to pump the sewerage system and so on.
My hon. Friend's second point, about de-Ba'athification, is important. It is vital that those who played a leading role in the old regime, and all that flowed from that, should be removed from their positions but, at the same time, the de-Ba'athification policy should be sensibly applied because we need to ensure that services can continue to function. The CPA is extremely conscious of the position and needs to reflect on it as it takes the process forward.
Adam Price: In his statement, the Minister stressed the importance of Iraq being seen to be policing itself rather than being controlled by coalition forces. How does he square that with the comments made by Mr. Paul Bremer on Sunday? Mr. Bremer said that
"we will continue to impose law and order and impose our will on this country".
Does the Minister believe that somebody capable of making such clearly inflammatory remarks is fit to lead the civilian administration in Iraq? Is not the gung-ho approach of the Americans, reflected in that statement, becoming the major obstacle to efforts to achieve security in the region? Is not it time to get the US out and the UN in?
Hilary Benn: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for the simple reason that, reflecting on the contributions that we have already heard in response to the statement, the overwhelming message has been the importance of security and law and order. Paul Bremer was saying that that, too, is the coalition's priority. The people of Iraq are looking for reassurance that there is the commitment and the will to ensure that security is provided. In part, that is about the work of the coalition forces, but at the same time we must build the capacity of the Iraqi police force; 30,000 of them have returned to work and are being paid twice what they received when Saddam Hussein was in power. We also need to train them, because the type of policing that is required in a country that is heading towards a different and democratic future is very different from the type of policing that one can get away with in a country where order is maintained by fear and terror.
Glenda Jackson: I pay tribute to the sterling work being done by British troops in Basra and I was interested to hear about the clean-up process. What priority is being given to cleaning up unexploded armaments, most markedly the unexploded bomblets from cluster bombs?
With regard to the interim council that is to be created in Iraq, who will have the last word about who will be the representatives of the Iraqi people? Will it be

563
Mr. Bremer or the UN representative? Surely the UN should be in the driving seat during the first step of recreating some kind of democracy in Iraq.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point about mines and unexploded ordnance. The matter is of grave concern, not only because of those that are to be found following the three-week conflict but because of other unexploded ordnance that is to be found across Iraq from conflicts dating back over a long period. That is why some of DFID's work has been to fund the UN Mine Action Service and the Mines Advisory Group, which is working with both the coalition and local organisations to plot the location of unexploded ordnance and then to carry out disposals.
On my hon. Friend's second question, the process is one of discussion and dialogue between the CPA, those who will serve on the governing council and Sergio de Mello, the UN representative. That is why, when answering the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I drew attention to the especially important role that Sergio de Mello will play as the guardian, under resolution 1483, of the responsibility for overseeing the transfer to the new political process. It is important that he is happy with, and supportive of, that process as we take it forward.
Norman Lamb: Further to the issue of unexploded bomblets, can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of their total number following the conflict and precisely what progress has been made in clearing them? How many civilian deaths and other casualties have resulted from those that remain? Does the Minister agree that the presence of unexploded munitions represents an additional lethal ingredient in an already highly volatile situation?
Hilary Benn: I accept that unexploded ordnance is a serious problem. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about an assessment of the total amount of unexploded ordnance, my understanding is that, because the plotting process is continuing, by definition that information is not currently available. However, I
564
shall make further inquiries and if I can provide the hon. Gentleman with further information, I shall write to him.
Mr. Paul Marsden: As one of the two occupying powers, the British Government are responsible for the welfare of the Iraqi population, so will the Minister make a more detailed statement about the provision of clean, fresh water? From the list in the Library that he provided, it would appear that only £4 million of the £100.4 million that the British Government are pledging is being spent on water and sanitation. UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross report an increased spread of diarrhoea, which is taking its toll, especially on the children of Iraq. One in eight children does not even reach the age of eight because they are dying from such diseases, so when will we see real action?
Hilary Benn: Obviously, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of water, but I do not accept his suggestion that no real action has been taken. Maintaining clean water supplies has been a primary and principal concern of ourselves, the ICRC and the UK military, in particular, who have done excellent work to repair water and sanitation facilities and build a supply line. The UN has been tankering 800,000 litres of clean water a day to the deprived areas of Baghdad and the south, so it is simply not true to say that nothing is being done. The situation is improving in parts of the country, including Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul. Baghdad's water supply system is operating at about 80 per cent. capacity, although it, too, was affected last week by the act of sabotage to the electricity system.
Dr. Vincent Cable: On long-term reconstruction, what discussions has the Minister had with his American opposite numbers on their proposal to use future oil export revenue as collateral to enable American exporters to export through the US import ban? Is that not wholly contrary to the assurances that oil export revenue would be used exclusively for the benefit of the people of Iraq?
Hilary Benn: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I have had no such discussions with my American counterparts.

Points of Order
2.9 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you had an indication that the Secretary of State for Health wishes to come to the House to apologise for remarks that he has been reported as having made in today'sDaily Mail? It is reported that he has told the Minister for Children, whom I have criticised for her failure to protect vulnerable children when she was leader of Islington council:
"The only reason the Tories are getting so het up about you is that they were all abused as children."
That is, at best, tasteless and, at worst, despicable. I understand that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health—[Interruption.] I do not know why hon. Members are shouting at me; this is a very serious matter. I understand that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health has written to the Secretary of State about this. If the Secretary of State for Health meant that point to be serious, I strongly object, on a personal level, and I ask for an apology. However, if he intended it as a joke—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady is developing this into a debate. I can deal with the point of order that she has raised. She asks whether I have had any notification that the Secretary of State for Health plans to make a statement to the House, and my answer is that I know nothing of that.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members will have been interested in the Retirement Income Reform Bill, which I am conducting through the House. Owing to a misprint in the Order Paper, its remaining stages are listed for tomorrow—4 July—but the true position is that it will be considered on Report on 11 July. So I would not want hon. Members to come to the House tomorrow, expecting an exciting time, when they will have to wait until next Friday for that treat.
May I take this opportunity to deal with an issue in relation to the Hunting Bill, which is currently back in Standing Committee? I do not want to open up the arguments about the merits or demerits of the Government's case on hunting, but to draw to the attention of the House and ask your advice about, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the wider abuse of the parliamentary process. Clearly, what is going on Upstairs is not a technical abuse because the House can order its affairs in the way that it chooses, and it has done so, but we are having to deal with a completely rewritten Bill. The Bill that we are discussing Upstairs has very little to do with the Bill that the House considered on Second Reading or in Committee earlier. I accept that the arithmetic—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can deal with both points of order that the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised. I shall take them in reverse order. On the second point, issues relating to that Committee are entirely matters for its Chairman and nothing whatsoever to do with me, as occupant of the Chair. On the first point,
566
owing to an administrative error, the Retirement Income Reform Bill was placed in the future business for consideration on Friday 4 July, as he said. It should have been placed in the future business for Friday 11 July, as item 4, after consideration of the Female Genital Mutilation Bill. The future business will be corrected in tomorrow's Order Paper. The Votes and Proceedings correctly state that the Bill is to be considered on Friday 11 July.
Mr. Colin Challen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the Hunting Bill on Monday afternoon, the official Opposition spokesman—he was pressed several times on this—said that the Hunting Bill was a waste of parliamentary time. In fact, he also said:
"It is a total and utter waste of time."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 74.]
Yet we read in the Financial Times yesterday, the day after debate, that
"the opposition said a future Conservative government would make the parliamentary time available to overturn the ban."
May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it is incumbent on official Opposition spokespeople not to dissemble in front of Members or misrepresent their position, or to mislead Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suspect that the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises are matters for debate, both inside and outside the House, and are therefore not matters for the Chair.
Mr. Paul Marsden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the statement on Iraq, the Minister of State for International Development said, "I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses details of the reconstruction work being undertaken in Iraq." When I checked, the Library had not received that list, and it was only on my prompting that it contacted the Department and received it. May I ask—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—whether Ministers could be a little more prompt and, when they say that they will place documents in the Library, they do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made the point for himself.

BILL PRESENTED
  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Mr. Michael Connarty, supported by Jim Dobbin, John Robertson, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Vera Baird, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. Bill Tynan, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Bob Blizzard and Angela Eagle, presented a Bill to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 to exclude tip gratuities from the calculation of wages and salaries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed. [Bill 138].

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  2.15 pm
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I begin by offering the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has just returned from a trip. He and his team must have ingested something because they have all been ordered to their beds. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be back on his feet soon. Of course, he regrets his absence, because, as the House will agree, reporting to Parliament is something that he takes very seriously indeed.
  I will ask you for your forbearance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am not here for the completion of the debate because I am expected in Gibraltar later this evening, to carry out ministerial duties.
  The debate is an opportunity for the House to review the performance of one of our most important Committees and a chance to measure the Government's performance against perhaps the most critical yardstick of all—the extent to which we are protecting the lives of our citizens both at home and overseas. That subject has always been a matter for serious discussion, but its prominence has increased exponentially since 11 September 2001, when our values—the values of liberal democracy—suffered one of their most grievous assaults in memory. That day brought a dreadful new resonance to threats to national security, which have been with us for many years. Fears about the uncontrolled spread of weapons of mass destruction have haunted humankind for over half a century. Terrorism has blighted the lives of millions, not least the British people, for years.
  What makes the situation today truly unprecedented is that our long battle against those threats has reached a turning point. In one direction lies a new global consensus against the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and an unyielding international commitment to the defeat of terrorism and the treatment of its causes. In the other direction, if we do not take action, lies a world where the forces of chaos become ascendant and where future generations have to live with the day-to-day possibility that terrorists may use nerve agents or even nuclear materials to inflict slaughter on an unimaginable scale.
  This year's annual report by the Intelligence and Security Committee reflects that grave new environment. Before I examine its conclusions and recommendations, I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and her fellow members of the Committee, many of whom are present in the House today. The ISC plays a vital role in holding to account the agencies and the Ministers who are responsible for them. The Chairman and her colleagues have performed that task with distinction during the past 12 months. Having given oral evidence to the ISC for the past six years, as both Home Secretary and in his current post, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can personally testify to the integrity and rigour that former and current members of the Committee bring to their work. The fact that Ministers from four Departments provided evidence to the Committee this year indicates the value that the Government attach to the ISC's role.
  568
  The Intelligence and Security Committee helps to make the UK's system of oversight for the intelligence and security agencies what it is: the most comprehensive such system in the democratic world. By the standards of most, if not all, of the world's democracies, the ISC is able to subject those agencies to intense scrutiny. To have managed that without reducing the effectiveness of our intelligence services has been a remarkable achievement.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister, not least for his very kind comments, but he slightly overstates the case in relation to the United States, where congressional intelligence committees have responsibility for the appropriations, thus the funding of the bodies, so the description that he gave might be misleading. Nevertheless, our experience is that the system that we have developed is much admired in much of the rest of the democratic world.
  Mr. MacShane: I think that that is right. The Prime Minister appears in front of the Committee, and he will appear before the Liaison Committee next week and can answer any questions that hon. Gentlemen wish to put to him, which is not an experience that the President of the United States has to go through.
  Andrew Mackinlay: As the issue has been opened up by one of the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, can my hon. Friend share with us an example of one other democracy in which the oversight committee is selected by the Head of Government?
  Mr. MacShane: I think that very few other democracies have such an oversight committee.
  I welcome the recognition in the Committee's report of the work of the agencies in protecting national security. I have been deeply impressed with the professionalism and courage shown by their staff and I know that many officers work in the most dangerous and stressful circumstances imaginable. Their dedication to public service is therefore all the more laudable. We should recall that the nature of the agencies' work means that they rarely if ever receive praise for their efforts. I will not set out an exhaustive list of their recent achievements this afternoon, but I am sure that the House will join me in praising their integral role in support of British troops in Iraq. GCHQ supported at the strategic and tactical levels of command in its largest operation since world war two.
  One of the harsh truths about intelligence work is that despite our best efforts we will never have advance notice of every potential terrorist act on our interests. That is a lesson that we have had to absorb in Northern Ireland over many years. In the past nine months we have had terrible reminders in Bali and Saudi Arabia of that truth. Many of the families of the British victims of the Bali atrocity will be in London today and tomorrow to attend the public inquest into it and I know that the entire House will join me in extending our sympathies to them at this distressing time. In the period following the incident in Bali, the agony of those who had lost loved ones was compounded by the speculation that the Government could have done more. In particular, there

  569
  were allegations that we did not act on specific intelligence pointing towards an attack in Bali, and failed to inform the public of the dangers in advance.
  It was for that reason that in a statement to the House on 21 October, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary commissioned a review by the ISC of the Government's handling of the intelligence in the run-up to the Bali atrocity. On 3 March, the House had an opportunity to debate the Committee's findings. I reiterate today my welcome of its central conclusion: that on the basis of the available intelligence, there was no action that the UK or our allies could have taken to prevent the attack.
  That said, the Committee did identify several areas for improvement, including in respect of the threat assessment system. We have reworked that system and have established a joint terrorism analysis centre—JTAC—and that multi-agency body launched on 2 June has developed rapidly with the support of Ministers, the Joint Intelligence Committee, the intelligence services and the relevant Departments. JTAC will be responsible for the long-term strategic assessment of the terrorist threat as well as the day-to-day response to specific intelligence.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: While we welcome this improved co-ordination among the intelligence agencies, can the Minister tell the House why the Government have been resisting our recommendation that such co-ordination should be carried on at ministerial level, too, and that the Government should appoint a dedicated Minister devoting his or her entire time to co-ordinating the various Ministries in precisely the same way that the agencies are now correctly being co-ordinated?
  Mr. MacShane: I will return to the point of ministerial oversight later in my speech.
  In response to some of the other recommendations from the ISC in respect of Bali, I am pleased to tell the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made extensive improvements to its travel advice service. We have now put in place arrangements to guarantee that travel advice for every country is reviewed at least once a month, and that each new piece of advice is checked for clarity, consistency and accuracy before publication. The FCO has also taken steps to ensure that it can respond quickly to major attacks on our interests overseas. We have established three rapid deployment teams, which can be despatched to the scene of any incident within 24 hours. We used one of the teams recently in the aftermath of the terrorist bombing in Saudi Arabia. Each team is led by a senior diplomatic officer and will combine a mixture of skills, including consular experience. We continue to look hard at the structure of our response in London to see if that too can be further improved.
  As well as Bali, the ISC's annual report includes a number of conclusions and recommendations for the future conduct of work by the intelligence agencies and the Security Service. The official response published by the Government on 19 June deals with each of those. I will not repeat all of that material in my remarks today,
  570
  but let me focus on just three of the most serious issues: first, Iraq; secondly, the role of Ministers in the management of intelligence services; and thirdly, ministerial involvement in counter-proliferation policy.
  First, on Iraq, I welcome the fact that the ISC will be conducting an inquiry into the role of intelligence in determining the Government's policy last year and in the run-up to military action. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced that he will see the Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will give evidence on 16 July. The Committee will also hear evidence from the heads of the intelligence agencies and the chairman of the JIC. The Committee will have access to the key documents that underpinned the judgments reached in the dossier that the Government published on 24 September. We can expect them to pursue their investigation with the same degree of rigour and probity as was so evident during their inquiries into the Bali incident and the Mitrokhin archive.
  The second issue that I would single out from the ISC's annual report is the role of Ministers in the management of the intelligence services. Over the past year, the Committee has conducted a full inquiry into the national intelligence machinery, examining who collects, analyses and assesses intelligence material. It is encouraging that the Committee did not identify any significant structural problems of gaps or duplication. The report, however, has noted that the ministerial committee on the intelligence services—the CSI—has not met and that Ministers should be more involved in longer-term strategic issues relating to the agencies.
  I fully accept that the CSI has an important role to play in the setting of resources and priorities for the intelligence services, and that it should meet to consider that work. The fact that it has not yet done so does not mean that the agencies have been operating in a vacuum—far from it. The Prime Minister receives regular reports from the heads of the agencies, and both the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary are apprised of the agencies' work on a regular basis.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What does the Minister think induced Vice-Admiral Sir Louis Le Bailly, who was vice-chairman of the JIC from 1972 to 1975, to write in The Times yesterday:
  "It follows, if this vital tradition it to be maintained, that the JIC, which looks at all the facts often in all their bleakness and transmits them to those the electors have temporarily lent the power to govern, must never be used as a political instrument and must never be referred to as "the Government's JIC"?
  Why does he think that Sir Louis wrote that? Ought it not be rebutted?
  Mr. MacShane: I believe he wrote that because some people have made allegations, but they have been dealt with by the Foreign Affairs Committee and much discussed in the House, and we now know those allegations to be false.
  Simon Hughes: The Government have consistently resisted the argument that there ought to be specific ministerial oversight. The Committee, however, has recommended on several occasions that the existing CSI, chaired by the

  571
  Prime Minister, should meet. I think that I heard the Minister saying that he agreed with that. Does that mean that it is going to meet? Surely the answer to some of the suggestions is that the principal Cabinet officers responsible should conduct a regular review, that we should know that that happens, and that they should report to the Intelligence and Security Committee.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Prime Minister accepts that recommendation, and the CSI will meet in due course. I stress, however, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is present, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is not here today, are the two senior Cabinet officers who should have charge of this. I am frankly against the notion of appointing a third Minister to be above or below them because it would be purely job creation for Ministers.
  Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister does not misunderstand me. Of course, the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary perfectly properly take day-to-day responsibility for the two security services—one is accountable for domestic matters and one for foreign matters. My suggestion is not that new people should do things but that the Prime Minister and key Cabinet Ministers, including the Defence Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister, should come together regularly to ensure that the operation is co-ordinated and brought together with the Prime Minister, as the principal Minister in Government, taking charge. Surely that is a good idea that should be implemented soon.
  Mr. MacShane: It is an extremely good idea and, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we accept the points that he makes.
  Ministers on the CSI are consulted on the requirements placed on their agencies, and their role in the process is being reinforced under the revised system that is being introduced this year. Contrary to the concern expressed in the ISC report, all CSI members have received, and will continue to receive, all Joint Intelligence Committee papers.
  The third issue that I identify from the ISC report is the conclusions on ministerial involvement in counter-proliferation policy. I cannot accept the Committee's central conclusion that Ministers are not adequately informed on counter-proliferation issues or that ministerial responsibilities are unclear. The Government's counter-proliferation policy, which was formulated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was set out clearly in response to a recent question asked by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The policy has been approved by Ministers, and they are also consulted on any major issues of implementation as they arise.
  The demarcation of departmental responsibilities is clear. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads bilateral and multilateral diplomatic activity. The Ministry of Defence leads on military operations and the Department of Trade and Industry covers national export controls. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary supervise the work of the agencies. That is not to say that counter-proliferation policy is compartmentalised in any way. On the contrary, it is an example of joined-up
  572
  government. Action against a proliferator, whether that is an individual, a country or a Government, usually involves close co-operation among Departments and agencies that is co-ordinated by the Cabinet Office. As the ISC report notes, the Committee has been briefed on enhancements to that machinery that were introduced last year.
  That brings me to an important final point. The threats facing the United Kingdom are formidable. The terrorist attacks in New York, Bali and Riyadh were thoroughly planned and executed. The North Korean nuclear and long-range missile programmes have been in development for well over a decade. Terrorists and proliferators use increasingly sophisticated means to work across national boundaries.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again, but I remind him that he said that he would address the point that I raised earlier: if the threats are so serious, why have the Government not appointed a specific Minister to be devoted entirely to co-ordinating the measures necessary to meet such dangerous threats? The Opposition have done that, in shadow terms, by appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) to his post.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) has many friends in the House and I hope that he will be promoted to the shadow Cabinet one day, although I do not know who will be removed to make way for him. I repeat what I said when I talked about ministerial oversight: I am content with the oversight of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. They form a good trio and we do not require extra Ministers to duplicate their work.
  Tackling these threats is not only a matter of intelligence collation and assessment by national authorities, but a matter of co-ordination with other countries. It requires joint law enforcement operations and renewed international efforts to address the underlying grievances and insecurities that provide terrorists with new recruits and fuel the appetite of regimes for the world's deadliest weapons. It is an intimidating array of challenges, but the Government will pursue them with unrelenting vigour because the security of our citizens at home and overseas demands no less.
  An effective Government response to the threats that we face requires effective intelligence agencies. The ISC has shown, yet again, that through the way in which it conducts its work, it contributes both to the effectiveness and accountability of our intelligence effort. On behalf of not only the Government but the whole House and the country, I thank the Committee and all its members for their work.
  2.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I start by saying that we quite understand why the Foreign Secretary is unable to be with us today. Many of us have occasionally found ourselves in the same circumstances and, given those circumstances, I am rather relieved that he is not here. I hope that the Minister for Europe will stop off on his way to Gibraltar and give the Foreign

  573
  Secretary our best wishes for a speedy recovery. When he arrives in Gibraltar, I hope that he will explain to the people of Gibraltar what he meant when he told a Spanish newspaper recently that Gibraltar was not British territory. I am sure that he will be met with rapturous applause if he tells them that again.
  With debate still raging about the Government's use—or abuse—of intelligence material, today's debate is not only important but, one that falls at an especially appropriate moment. The subject is serious, and balance and sensitivity are required. Although openness and democratic accountability are important, there is a need for discretion at the same time, if only to protect intelligence officers and their sources. Striking that balance is key, and the House's ability to do that has been greatly assisted by the detailed scrutiny undertaken on its behalf by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I pay tribute to the Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), for its important work and the informative report that it issued.
  Reading the report is sometimes something of a surreal experience due to the omissions that were deemed necessary. I am not sure how one should pronounce asterisks in the House, but paragraph 28 illustrates the surreal nature of the report better than others. It says:
  "*** continues to deliver considerable value to GCHQ and it may exceed its design life. As a consequence, GCHQ expects to extend the expected life of *** and make the corresponding accounting changes. *** will start later this year. The Committee wishes to record the significant contribution that *** makes to intelligence collection."
  And so would all of us, if we had the first idea what "***" was.
  Andrew Mackinlay: May I interrupt and break up the cosy consensus between the two Front Benches because I think that the Committee is not a servant of Parliament? As the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of asterisks, I draw hon. Members' attention to the glossary of terms on page 3 of the report. It says that CNI stands for "Critical National Infrastructure", and so on. The glossary is very helpful because it gives the meaning of "***"—or dot, dot, dot. One looks with great anticipation to find out what dot, dot, dot means, and the answer in the glossary is dot, dot, dot. The whole report is dotty and barmy. It should not be defended and people should not pretend that it represents a satisfactory oversight of our security and intelligence services. It is a sham.
  Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with my serious point that when the Committee reports on its current inquiry, I hope that it will be neither asterisked nor dot, dot, dotted.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I, too, noticed the omission on page 3, and I might be able to enlighten the House to an extent. All the acronyms in the glossary are in alphabetical order, so whatever the missing organisation is, it comes alphabetically between FCO and GCHQ. The organisation almost certainly begins
  574
  with the letter "F". I thought that it might be a shady Northern Irish organisation, but I have decided that "F" probably stands for "forty-five minutes".
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and deductive piece of work. I shall certainly ask for his assistance when I try to complete The Times crossword in future.
  To be fair, the Government's response concedes that one of the purposes of oversight is to identify potential problems—indeed it is. Let me start with a major current problem. In a nutshell, when is a report that is published and described in Parliament as "an intelligence report" not an intelligence report, and how is Parliament supposed to know that? One of the most important links between the intelligence services and Parliament must be trust.
  Hon. Members who are not within the security loops need to be able to place credence in that which they are told is intelligence. I refer the House to February's dodgy dossier, mentioned in paragraph 82 of the report. We were told that it was "further intelligence", and so, presumably, was the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, who went on to tell the UN that its detail was "exquisite". We now know that that was not the case. The document was partly cut-and-pasted material from the internet and, far from being an intelligence service or even a JIC production, its authors were the ubiquitous Mr. Alastair Campbell and a small band of acolytes.
  The ISC report states that unlike the September dossier, this dossier had not been cleared by the JIC prior to its publication or checked by the relevant agencies. As if to confirm that, the Foreign Secretary somewhat quaintly described it to the Foreign Affairs Committee as "a horlicks". That, however, was not what the Prime Minister told the House. After the dossier's publication on 3 February, the Prime Minister said:
  "We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports, but I hope that people have some sense of the integrity of our security services."
  He went on to say:
  "It is the intelligence that they are receiving, and we"—
  the Government—
  "are passing on to the people."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 25.]
  The Prime Minister's statement could hardly have been clearer, but as we now know from the evidence of Mr. Campbell and the Foreign Secretary, the dossier was not intelligence. The Prime Minister misled the House. Whether he did that deliberately, knowing that the document was a Downing street concoction, or unwittingly, because Mr. Campbell had not seen fit to tell him, does not actually matter. The House, on that occasion, had been if not exquisitely, certainly comprehensively duped.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)rose—
  Ann Taylor rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I will give way to the Home Secretary when I have made my point. I want to develop it because it is serious. I will also give way to the right hon. Member for Dewsbury whose report I mentioned.

  575
  As I said, the Government should not underestimate the seriousness of the issue. There can be no graver offence against the House than to deceive it by manipulating or misrepresenting intelligence information. The House, which does not enjoy the benefit of intelligence briefings, must be able to rely on the word of the Prime Minister on intelligence. In my view, the Prime Minister has an overriding duty not to mislead the House on matters of intelligence. The Prime Minister's statement was therefore serious. He is, in a sense, the trustee of intelligence on behalf of the House.
  Mr. MacShane: Cheap.
  Mr. Ancram: The Minister says that, but his colleagues behind him are nodding because they know that I am making a serious point. It cannot be brushed aside. If we are to have confidence in what the Prime Minister or the Government tell us about intelligence information in the future, how and why the Prime Minister misled the House on this occasion—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. These are very serious matters and I ask the House to deal with them seriously. Let us have no more interventions from a sedentary position. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give way to the Home Secretary in a moment.
  Mr. Ancram: If we are to have confidence in what the Prime Minister or the Government tell us about intelligence information in the future, how and why the Prime Minister misled the House on this occasion must be cleared up. The Home Secretary has tried to intervene. I hope that he can clear things up.
  Mr. Blunkett: In the spirit that you have asked us to take in our approach to the issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it is an absolute disgrace to come here and accuse my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of comprehensively duping and misleading the House on the matter. Such an allegation has not been made by other Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen. The leader of the Conservative party has accepted the evidence again and again, including that given to him under the Privy Council rules that apply so that he can receive comprehensive intelligence evidence. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw a scurrilous, unsubstantiated and disgraceful allegation against the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Ancram rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman responds, I ask him to weigh his words carefully. To accuse any Member of the House of deliberately misleading it is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Ancram: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I carefully said that I was not going to say whether it was deliberate or not, because it does not matter. What is important is that the House is able to hear what the Prime Minister in particular says to it about intelligence and to have confidence in it. The Home Secretary has missed the point. It is not me who is saying that the
  576
  Prime Minister was wrong: it is Alastair Campbell in the evidence that he gave to the Select Committee and, indeed, the Committee, which reported that the document had not been cleared by the JIC and had not been checked with the relevant agencies.
  Ann Taylor: I do not want to get embroiled in the discussions between Front-Bench spokesmen, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be careful not to misquote the Committee. He said that there was no intelligence in the February document. The Committee says that the document contained some intelligence-derived material, but it was not clearly attributed or highlighted among other material and was not checked. I hope that he will not attribute conclusions to the Committee that it has not reached.
  Mr. Ancram: I hear what the right hon. Lady says. If she reads what I said, she will notice that I used my words carefully. I said that the dossier was not an intelligence document. That is carried by the report, which says that it was not cleared by the JIC prior to publication, nor was it checked with the agency providing the intelligence. I was careful in what I said because it is important. I am making an important point about the right of the House to rely on information given to it by senior Ministers as to what is intelligence and what is not.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again and I shall endeavour not to try the patience of the House. In preparation for the debate, last night I looked at the uncorrected transcript of the evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday 19 June from Mr. Ibrahim al-Marashi, the author of the dissertation—the article—in the "Middle East Review of International Affairs", which was used in the second dossier. Something struck me which I had not heard before. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that in response to question 701 on page 43 of the transcript, Mr. al-Marashi said:
  "If I could estimate, I would say that 90 per cent. of this intelligence dossier was taken from the three articles: by myself … and the two articles in Jane's Intelligence Review, virtually unchanged."
  So only 10 per cent. at most was not from articles by academics like himself.
  Mr. Ancram: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who underlines effectively the point that I have been trying to make.
  Mr. Michael Portillo: Does my right hon. Friend think that the Home Secretary is in danger of being off message? I read carefully what the Prime Minister said to the House on 3 February 2003 at column 25. He seems to enter no caveat about the document being a mixed document. He talks firmly about it being intelligence. The most likely conclusion to draw from that is that the Prime Minister at that time had no idea that it was a mixed document. He had been misled by those who passed it to him. Surely the Home Secretary would be on much firmer ground in saying that it has since been recognised that the document was

  577
  an appalling mess and that the Prime Minister was put in the position of misleading the House inadvertently on 3 February because he had not been told that.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That was one of the options that I hinted at—
  Mr. MacShane: Ah!
  Mr. Ancram: If the Minister reads what I said, he will see that I said it was either one thing or the other. It is up to the Prime Minister to explain which.
  Let me make what I hope is a constructive suggestion. To prevent manipulation of intelligence material in the future, is there not a way of registering at publication whether a report is based on genuine intelligence material and has been cleared by the JIC? Perhaps the Committee will consider that. It would at least allow us to avoid the difficulty arising again.
  Ann Taylor: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the end of paragraph 82, in which the Committee says:
  "We have been assured that systems have now been put in place to ensure that this cannot happen again, in that JIC Chairman endorses any material on behalf of the intelligence community prior to publication."
  We have taken that matter up with those involved.
  Mr. Ancram: I welcome that. I just hope that it will be done in such a way that those of us in the House who are not privy to intelligence material will know that it is being done, and can understand the difference between an intelligence report and what we got on 3 February, which we now know was a concoction from various different sources.
  Today's world is much changed from the world of the cold war, with the certainties that the superpower balance and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction imposed on us. As 9/11 demonstrated so tragically, today's threats are unpredictable. Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, rogue or failed states as well as economic collapse, poverty and disease all threaten regional stability and our own security. The strongest weapon against them is good intelligence. I shall not speak about domestic security and the threat from terrorism in domestic terms as I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, will wish to do so when he winds up on our behalf. However, intelligence is at the centre of this fight. Indeed, increasing emphasis is placed on the value of electronic intelligence. However, in some parts of the world, human intelligence is equally, if not more, important. We must ensure that our human network is effective and that there are sufficient resources on the ground in the most sensitive areas. I hope that we can be reassured of that in the light of the report.
  I pay tribute to the often dangerous, unsung and sometimes secret work that the members of the intelligence and security services carry out on our behalf and for our safety. I include special branch officers in that tribute because quite often the role that they play is
  578
  missed. I am glad that the Minister also paid tribute to the intelligence services. That is in strong contrast to the comments of some of his ministerial colleagues. Accusing the intelligence services of containing "rogue elements", as the Secretary of State for Health did recently in a moment of hysteria, is both unjust and damaging. I can find no justification for those words anywhere within the report or elsewhere. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will today disown those silly words.
  I welcome the appointment of Sir David Omand as security and intelligence co-ordinator, and as accounting officer for the single intelligence account.
  I shall respond briefly to some of the specific points that are made in the report, and first, gaps in intelligence. Last year's annual report stated that the reductions in collection areas were causing
  "intelligence gaps to develop which may mean over time unacceptable risks will arise in terms of safeguarding national security and in the prevention and detecting of serious organised crime."
  It is therefore worrying that this year paragraph 67 reads:
  "GCHQ has reduced analysis effort in a number of possible trouble spots."
  The Committee believes that this confirms
  "that the problem of collection gaps has worsened and therefore risks are being taken with national security."
  That is a serious charge. The Committee concludes that
  "with the focus on current crises, the Agencies' long-term capacity to provide warnings is being eroded. This situation needs to be addressed and managed by Ministers and the JIC."
  These intelligence gaps should concern the House greatly, and must be rectified.
  Astonishingly, the CSI still has not met. The Minister told us that it will meet in due course. I do not know what he means by that. It is a term that normally stretches way into the future, and is a way of kicking balls into the long grass. I wonder how many other committees, after six and a half years of this Government, have not met. That is extraordinary, and we have had no real explanation for that. The Prime Minister and relevant Ministers have met only on short-term issues.
  At paragraph 56, the Committee reports that
  "these crisis-driven and ad-hoc groupings do not provide Ministers with an active forum in which they can make collective decisions about longer-term intelligence requirements and priorities for secret intelligence across the full range of topics."
  The paragraph concludes that
  "CSI Ministers are not sufficiently engaged in the setting of requirements and priorities for secret intelligence, nor do they all see the full capability of intelligence collection."
  These are serious charges that go to the heart of a joined-up approach to the effective and strategic use of intelligence, and the Committee's warnings should not be ignored.
  Do the Government agree with the Committee's conclusions in relation to weapons of mass destruction? Paragraph 78 states that:
  "However, world-wide, sanctions, even when effective, only slow proliferation."

  579
  What implications does that comment have for the current strategy on North Korea and Iran? Is it really a good idea for it to be left to be carried out mostly by officials, as the report suggests?
  On Iraq, I welcome recognition of the fact that intelligence—I quote from paragraph 80—
  "indicated that the Iraqis were continuing to produce WMD and their delivery means."
  There is much still to be explored and answered in this area, but such scrutiny will better follow the Committee's current investigation and subsequent report.
  I am pleased that the Government listened to the Committee's earlier report regarding problems and shortcomings in the previous counter-terrorism and analysis system as exposed by the Bali bombing. I, too, hope that the establishment of the joint terrorism and analysis centre will address the points that have been raised. We welcome any steps that will lead to a more joined-up approach that will increase efficiency and, of course, public safety. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's constructive response to suggestions that I made about travel advice. I welcome also the incorporation of our ideas for links between British and other Government travel advice. As the Committee notes, the advice is now clearer and consistent.
  The Committee also examined GCHQ and commented on the changes and modernisation programme that is underway there. The report raises concerns in paragraph 29
  "about the size of the planned write-off … that GCHQ is having to make in the next year for a developmental SIGINT system that has only partly delivered the intended capability."
  What assurances has the Foreign Secretary or the Minister received from GCHQ on this matter, and what steps are being taken to remedy this problem?
  I shall refer briefly to Guantanamo bay. I understand that it has been a matter of interest to the intelligence services since British prisoners were first taken there in January 2002. I understand why prisoners from the war in Afghanistan were taken to Guantanamo bay and the practical reasons for their rights being suspended in the public interest in order to obtain potentially vital information in the war on terrorism. However, as the months have passed with no charges being laid and apparently no due process, the British public have become increasingly uneasy about the situation. I understand why, and I believe that we must respond to this uneasiness.
  A tenet of our law is that British citizens should not be held for an unduly long period without charge. In normal circumstances there are safeguards that protect the citizen, not least the principle of habeas corpus and the judicial scrutiny of Executive decisions to extend periods of detention. I yield to no one in my determination to see terrorism eradicated. Force is necessary and special rules must sometimes be accepted, but law must also have its place. The nine British citizens held in Guantanamo bay have been there for 17 months without charge or apparent due process. I believe that the time has come for the Government to act. They must now let the House know how they intend to proceed.
  We are told that progress has been made. Will the Home Secretary, when he responds to the debate, or the Minister—I will give way if he wants to intervene now—
  580
  tell the House what has been agreed with our American colleagues? We have heard tell of tribunals. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister tell us how these tribunals will work? Has a date been set for the start of these tribunals? Has any agreement been reached on the handling of charges? What legal representation will the British detainees have? These are important questions. It seems that the Minister does not want to respond. I hope that the Home Secretary can take advice and respond to my questions when he winds up.
  I do not for a moment underestimate the complexities of the Guantanamo bay situation. However, we cannot pretend that it does not exist, or that if it does, it is not our business. The Government must face their responsibilities.
  Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman raises a matter that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and others in my party have raised. Does he share our view that British citizens at Guantanamo bay should be allowed to return to the United Kingdom or should be transferred to the British authorities so that if there are charges, they can be dealt with in this country, or if there are no charges, they will be released in the normal way?
  Mr. Ancram: I have set out a series of questions, which I hope will inform the House and upon which we can make judgments on what is the best way to proceed.
  The debate provides an important opportunity for the House to consider the intelligence and security services and their work in broad terms. It also allows us to pick up on some specific areas of concern. We can be satisfied with the Committee's report—at least those parts that were not asterisked. Even the Government's response, replete with its usual dose of blame avoidance, meets at least some of the points raised. However, the Government's response fails to face the strongest public concern about the allegations that the Government cynically misuse intelligence material as a tool of their propaganda and seek to make the intelligence services unwilling accomplices. Their characteristically arrogant dismissal of these allegations has neither persuaded us nor the British people.
  The greatest service that the ISC can perform is to bring it home to the Government that first and foremost the British intelligence services work on behalf of the British people, and they cannot and must never be a malleable tool of government. We respect our intelligence services, and I hope that the Government will do the same.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches, and that applies from now on.
  3 pm
  Ann Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to keep within that limit.
  I very much regret the fact that the Foreign Secretary cannot be with us, as I know that he takes a direct interest in these matters. There would have to be a very good reason and a very serious illness for him to be away. However, I welcome the Minister's comments,

  581
  although I regret that he cannot stay to the end of the debate because he has to go to Gibraltar. I suspect he regrets that he cannot stay, but I hope he will continue to take an interest in these matters.
  The debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report provides an opportunity to highlight our main concerns. The Committee has oversight of all the intelligence and security agencies, and it is important that we concentrate on issues of concern. However, while the report concentrates on problems, the Committee makes it clear that it wants to put the work of the agencies in context. I would draw the attention of my colleagues to paragraph 6, which states that
  "it is important to highlight the numerous successes that the Agencies have had in the last year, many of which cannot be reported to avoid prejudicing current and future operations."
  We go on to stress that the Committee holds the agencies in high regard, and it is important that that should be on the record, as should the Committee's belief that it is very well served by the agencies' briefings. We do not regard those briefings as minimalist in any way, and we have had a good opportunity to question senior people on many occasions. We are grateful for that level of co-operation, which gives us a unique reference point for many of the issues that have come up in the past year.
  There is much interest in the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, on which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) commented. Many other colleagues may wish to speak about Iraq, but it is important to stress that at this stage the Committee will not add to what it says in the annual report. However, I want to put our remarks in paragraphs 80 to 83 in context. We received ongoing briefings throughout the build-up to the conflict and, indeed, throughout the conflict itself, by the JIC Chairman and others in the agencies about what was happening. Indeed, we first took evidence on the problems associated with the preparation of the document to which the right hon. Member for Devizes referred in February. That is why we made the comments that I referred to in my intervention on him in paragraphs 80 to 83 on Iraq. We say clearly in paragraph 81 that the agencies were fully consulted in the preparation of the dossier produced in September 2002. However, we say in paragraph 82 that that procedure was not followed for a second document produced in February. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, we acknowledge that there is intelligence-derived material in that document, but it should have been clear what was intelligence derived and what was not. We have been assured that the JIC Chairman will in future endorse any material, and we shall want to follow up that important matter, as will the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
  Lynne Jones: Paragraph 80 of the report refers to intelligence passed on to UN inspectors. Is my right hon. Friend aware whether all relevant intelligence in the hands of the British authorities was passed to both the weapons inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency?
  Ann Taylor: That is not covered by our report. We have said that we will not give a running commentary on
  582
  our current inquiries. Such issues are the subject of the report that we are getting on with as quickly as we can, so at this stage I do not want to make any comments that would pre-empt any final decisions or recommendations that we might make.
  When we took evidence in February, we decided, as we record in paragraph 83, that we wanted to examine in more detail the available intelligence and its use, and that is what the Committee is doing at present. However tempting it is to give a running commentary, I am afraid that Committee members will not do so. However, we have received a number of letters about our inquiries, including from colleagues, suggesting lines of investigation. I hope that it goes without saying, but I shall put it on record none the less, that if anyone has evidence either of pressure on or within the agencies or of inappropriate behaviour, we want to see that evidence, whether from Members of Parliament, the media or people working in this field.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend's invitation to colleagues to make representations to the Committee, which I welcome. However, I am bewildered by paragraph 90, in which she says that her Committee has not looked into the question of the abuse of the Wilson doctrine. She merely says that the Prime Minister has not told the Committee of any change in the application of the Wilson doctrine, so it just lies there. Bearing in mind press reports and concern and reaction in the House about the bugging of MPs' telephones, why has her Committee not looked into that with vigour?
  Ann Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend is usually assiduous, but for once he has not done his homework. I know that he was here last year when we put in context our discussions on that matter—we said that we would report to the House if necessary. We look at the issue and report on it on an ongoing basis. I know that my hon. Friend is also interested in our current inquiry, so I shall make some final remarks about that. We want to complete it as soon as possible but, inevitably, that will take some time, as we want to be thorough and are treating the issue extremely seriously. We are having meetings and taking evidence in the summer recess. I hope that the work that the Committee has done in the past, for example on Bali, will give people confidence in our current work.
  I shall move on to what I regard as one of the most fundamental points in our report—the way in which intelligence machinery works, particularly the relationship between intelligence assessment and policy formation, and the extent to which Ministers are engaged with that machinery. The Committee, as the right hon. Member for Devizes said, has highlighted concerns before, particularly about the fact that the ministerial committee on the intelligence services—the CSI—has not met. We repeat that criticism this year, and we are not, as the Government response seems to imply, suggesting that there is not a good relationship between the Foreign Secretary, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ, or between the Home Secretary and the security services. We are not saying that at all—we are saying that there should be a collective overview across Government of the abilities of all the agencies and the challenges facing them. It is important that that

  583
  overview is in place and that Ministers collectively can talk about the issues and problems facing us. If we are to maximise the contributions that the agencies can make, we need not only co-operative working between the agencies—a great deal of that already takes place—but a long-term strategy that involves Ministers collectively establishing priorities and requirements in order to determine the resources that are needed.
  It has been mentioned, and the Minister indicated, that there might be a meeting of the CSI—I think the words were "in due course". It is not telling any secrets to say that when we met the Prime Minister recently, he said that there would be a meeting of the CSI and that there was an acceptance that there should be a collective overview, which we think is a significant step forward. We believe that, particularly given current and potential threats, Ministers are not sufficiently engaged in setting requirements and priorities, and we think they need to be aware of the totality of the intelligence capability that exists and how it can be used to best effect.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Before the right hon. Lady moves off the structural questions, could she guide us on her attitude and that of the Committee to a hypothetical question that is nevertheless extremely serious? If it should turn out—as we profoundly hope, in the light of what we all believed, that it will not—that there are not the weapons of mass destruction that were believed to exist, and given that that would clearly indicate a very serious failing at some point in the intelligence system, does she envisage her Committee conducting a full review of the causes of Ministers and the Opposition not understanding the situation as it actually was? Does she believe that her Committee is constituted in such a way as to be capable of carrying that out to her full satisfaction?
  Ann Taylor: I do not want be drawn into answers to hypothetical questions, but in regard to the last point made by the right hon. Gentleman, yes, I do believe that the Committee is constituted in such a way that we can carry out inquiry that we feel is appropriate. We have in other instances followed leads—for example, on Bali—and asked for further information, and been given access to it, which has had an impact on the judgments that the Committee made. So we are confident that we have the ability and the co-operation to do so. Should it turn out that we are not able to fulfil what we regard as being necessary, we will say so. We would also say so if we were not getting the full co-operation that we expected.
  I turn to another aspect of the problem. One of the things that we report is that not all CSI members see all JIC papers. We think that that is important. Ministers on the relevant Committee are sent all papers, but often their officials sift the papers or advise Ministers which they should read. That is not good enough. I should like to say more about this, but I do not have time. We think it important that all Ministers on the Committee should see all the JIC papers in order to build up an overview, so that problems do not arise.
  That brings me to the problem of collection gaps, which the right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned. As he said, we mentioned last year that intelligence gaps were beginning to develop. The Government's response last year acknowledged the pressures, and there have
  584
  been more resources. However, making more resources available does not mean that people with sufficient expertise and experience are instantly available to fill the gaps. We think the situation is probably worse than it was last year, given all the pressures following 11 September, Bali and Iraq.
  There is a real difficulty. Problems may be arising of which Ministers are not aware, even though they see the pressures. We need to protect the agencies' long-term capacity to provide warnings to Ministers. JIC needs to focus even more on this. In the next spending review, there must be sufficient long-term resourcing to deal with the problem and avoid difficulties in future. There is a feeling at present that firefighting is going on, dealing with current problems, whereas the agencies are at their most useful when they can warn off and disrupt challenges to our security.
  Colleagues on the Committee will want to use their time to raise other issues. I shall make quick points. First, we welcome what the Government did on Bali following our report. There were useful steps forward. Secondly, we are still extremely concerned about the accounts at GCHQ. We mentioned the difficulties in resource accounting there, and we are not yet convinced that they have been fully sorted out, even though progress has been made.
  Finally, I wish to say a word of gratitude to the Committee. The Committee's work load is significant and will be for some time to come. The Committee meets several times a week, and will meet during the recess. I know that my colleagues on the Committee have had to juggle diaries and miss other parliamentary occasions in order to keep up with their work. It is usual for members of the Committee to attend every meeting. It is rare that we have a Committee meeting without everyone there and everyone staying until the end—a somewhat unusual occurrence. I am grateful for members' commitment and for the spirit in which the Committee operates. I hope very much that our work is of value to the House.
  3.16 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). I begin by paying tribute to her and to the members of her Committee, who are renowned in the House for their independence of mind. The report is an eloquent testimony to the work that they have carried out on our behalf over the past 12 months.
  Like others, I wish the Foreign Secretary a speedy return to full health. I am sorry that he is not present, as I wished to congratulate him on the fact that, as I understand it, he is the first official of his standing on a visit to Afghanistan to have gone beyond Kabul and to have gone out to Kandahar to see for himself some of the circumstances that are giving rise to such anxiety about the progress of reconstruction being made in that country.
  We had an able substitute in the Minister for Europe. I urge him not to be too concerned when he gets to Gibraltar if he finds that drawn up alongside the aircraft is a tumbrel. His previously reported remarks will at least ensure that his arrival in Gibraltar does not go unnoticed.

  585
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was right to raise in the framework of the debate the fate of those who are detained not only in Guantanamo bay, but perhaps some two or three in Afghanistan as well. If I may say so, he asked some finely judged questions on an issue that I have tried to raise with the Foreign Secretary for some months.
  I shall make two comments. First, those men, who are British citizens, are in a legal no-man's-land in which they are unable to employ or make application to the jurisdiction of the courts in this country or in the United States. They are effectively stateless, so far as their legal rights are concerned. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to consider this. Suppose that the position were reversed, and it was the Government of the United Kingdom who were keeping nine citizens of the United States in similar conditions in this country over a similar period. Do we not think that the pressure for some progress from across the Atlantic would be anything other than irresistible?
  I turn to the terms of the report. I hope that the right hon. Lady will not think me churlish if I say that in some respects the report is notable for its omissions as much as for its contents. Those omissions were highlighted by the right hon. Member for Devizes a moment or two ago with an example. Paragraph 3 of the introduction to the report states:
  "To date, no material has been excluded without the Committee's consent."
  I therefore assume that any exclusions marked by asterisks arise only because there is a belief that there would be serious damage to national interests if material which would otherwise have appeared there were to be published. Perhaps we can test that proposition by looking at page 8, where there is a table setting out, under the heading "Expenditure and Resources", the resources and capital of GCHQ, SIS and the Security Service. Can it really be the case that the national interest would be irretrievably damaged if we were to know the resource and capital allocations for GCHQ? I confess that I simply do not believe that to be so.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I think that it is probably pertinent to note, speaking as one of the older members of the Committee, that it is only in relatively recent years that that table has been included at all. That is why what has been said about the Committee's assent to what is removed means that we are making some progress. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if certain of the figures were made public, they would be of use to anybody who wished us ill.
  Mr. Campbell: The argument is assuming some existential elements. Apparently, we have made progress because whereas previously there was no table, we now have a table that contains no figures.[Interruption.] It contains some figures, but it certainly does not contain them in respect of any allocation that would allow anyone to reach any judgment about the importance that the financial allocations in such matters
  586
  represent in relation to GCHQ or the SIS. I hope that the test of what goes into the report and what stays out is the issue of irretrievable damage to the national interest.
  One could also look at page 11 and paragraphs 27 to 29, although the right hon. Member for Devizes referred to paragraph 28, so perhaps I need not deal further with that part of the report. We can also look at page 10 and paragraphs 23 to 26. Exactly what information is a reasonably well informed Member of the House expected to derive from paragraph 25? It seems to me that there is very little that we can derive and which assists us in fulfilling our general responsibility of scrutiny, which is not taken away from us by the existence of the Committee.
  At paragraph 30, why is it that we should not know precisely what the bonus payment will be for the building consortium if it completes the building ahead of time? I can see nothing that affects the national interest in relation to that issue, which I am bound to say might be of interest to those who are responsible for the Scottish Parliament. Why, too, should the House, which votes on and is responsible for expenditure, not know more about the qualification that the Comptroller and Auditor General has made of the resource accounts as set out on pages 12 and 13 and in paragraphs 34 to 37?
  In paragraph 42 on page 14, the second-to-last sentence states:
  "The Security Service noted that it was *** than in the past and consequently they did not have the ***."
  What was it that the Security Service noted that was different from the past and which it does not have now?
  I suppose that such things are a source of some amusement, and there may well be issues in which the matter of national security would be prejudiced if more detail were provided, but I certainly hope that, in future, the Committee may take a robust attitude towards such material, so that the House may be as fully informed as possible.
  Alan Howarth: May I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we do, indeed, take a very robust view? For example, we take the matter of the qualification of the GCHQ accounts very seriously indeed. We think that the Government should take it seriously, and for my part, I am not entirely satisfied that quite the appropriate note of contrition is struck in paragraph 8 of the Government's response. It is a serious matter if accounts should be qualified. It is very serious in the private sector, and it should be so in the public sector, and that is the view of the Committee.
  Mr. Campbell: I know the right hon. Gentleman well and I know that he would not give an undertaking of that kind unless he meant it. However, when the report is looked at from outside by those of us who do not have access to the same information as the Committee, it does not provide us with the detailed information for which we would hope.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, if we were to publish all the figures in place of the asterisks, both year on year and in terms of the resources and capital featured in the table, and all the other paragraphs to which he referred, not only Members of Parliament, but

  587
  people in general, would be able to construct or deconstruct ideas about where things are moving in terms of resources and money going into the different agencies? While it may not be clear to us here, the fact is that many people around the world might like to know that information, to our disadvantage.
  Mr. Campbell: My only answer is that the United States has just as much to keep secret as we do—some might argue that it has rather more—and it seems to me that it has a greater degree of transparency. Of course, we will find out about that higher transparency in the two investigations that are being conducted in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think that I have made my point and that members of the Committee have had an adequate opportunity to respond.
  Let me draw to the attention of the House a matter to which the right hon. Member for Devizes also referred. On page 21, in paragraph 67, the Committee was moved to say:
  "GCHQ has reduced analysis effort in a number of possible trouble spots. These developments confirm our belief that the problem of collection gaps has worsened and therefore risks are being taken with national security."
  Knowing the members of the Committee as I do, and in the light of the observations that I have already made, I imagine that that charge was not lightly made and that it represents and reflects a very serious concern on the part of the Committee. I very much hope that that concern will have been understood and acted on by the Government.
  It is inevitable that the most topical feature of the Committee's report is its continuing examination of the role of intelligence in relation to Iraq, which is dealt with on pages 24 and 25 and in paragraphs 80 to 83 in particular. There have already been some exchanges about those paragraphs, and I do not think that I need seek to repeat them. It would be quite wrong of us to anticipate the Committee's conclusions, but it is notable that it was moved in paragraph 82 to make what I first thought of as implied criticism, but is perhaps more correctly described as express criticism, of the dossier of February 2003. Some might say that that criticism was muted; the dossier has certainly not been described, in colourful language, as a Horlicks. None the less, I have no doubt that the Committee will wish to return to that issue in the light of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and in its own evidence taking.
  I cannot pass by the opportunity to say that the mistake of February 2003 was no minor mistake of process, but a substantial error. I believe that the dossier must have been influential. Indeed, it was no doubt issued because it was thought that it would be influential. The report highlights two errors. First, it points to the use of unattributed material from the work of a PhD student, which was apparently 12 years old. Secondly, it refers to a failure to check with the relevant agency or the Joint Intelligence Committee. It was that which gave rise, in that rather inelegant phrase of Mr. Chris Patten, to something of a double whammy. It was more than simply an error of process.
  I hope that the right hon. Lady's Committee will examine precisely and in detail how that occurred.
  588
  I hope also that the Committee will seek to determine the provenance of the 45-minute claim. I want to pose some questions that are not hypothetical, but relevant to the Committee's continuing investigation. Where did that 45-minute claim come from in the first instance? What qualifications, if any were attached to it? Through whose hands had the information passed, and who first took the decision to insert it into documents passed to No. 10? Who in No. 10 took the decision to give it the prominent position that it occupied in the dossier, particularly to put it in the foreword?
  We should not allow the somewhat artificial exchanges between Mr. Alastair Campbell and the BBC to obscure an issue that goes right to the heart of the Government's position, and which I hope the Committee will also examine in detail. It is this: was the intelligence sufficient in volume and quality to sustain the decision to go to war? In other words, as it has been put recently, did policy dictate intelligence or did intelligence dictate policy? How reliable was the 45-minute evidence, which we now understand—on the basis of what the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces said—to have come from one unsupported source? Would that normally be acceptable on an issue of such significance?
  I have two further questions for the Committee. What significance will it attach to these two facts: first, that no weapons were launched at 45 minutes' notice; and secondly, that some weeks after the cessation of hostilities no weapons have been found that are capable of being launched at 45 minutes' notice? I hope—indeed, I am confident—that the Committee will not be distracted by the froth of charge and counter-charge that has to some extent obscured those issues, which I regard as being of fundamental importance.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I fully concur with the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking, which are very important, especially those concerning the role of Mr. Alastair Campbell and whether he availed himself of the special powers to instruct officials that were granted to him on his appointment, and which no previous press officer in No. 10 has ever had. Does he think that it might fall within the Committee's remit to judge whether the information passed to the Attorney-General might have affected the opinion that he eventually gave to this House, which was so instrumental in swaying the House's opinion?
  Mr. Campbell: That issue was canvassed on a previous occasion when we debated these matters, and I offered some professional experience to say that when one is shown the opinion of counsel, one should always insist upon seeing the statement of facts that was presented to counsel before he issues that opinion. In relation to the Attorney-General's opinion, which we all know to have been material and influential, it would be a matter of some interest to know precisely what set of facts was presented to him before he reached the conclusions that he felt constrained to utter publicly.
  Of course, Mr. Campbell, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, is no shrinking violet, and he gave no impression at all of being intimidated by the Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope that reports suggesting that

  589
  the Committee may split along party lines will prove to be unfounded, because that would be deeply damaging to the reputations of the process of parliamentary scrutiny, the Select Committee system, and in turn, I suppose, the House of Commons.
  Let me return, if I may, to the main issue. The House and the country are entitled to know whether the Committee that is chaired by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury, which is charged with the responsibility of scrutinising intelligence-gathering agencies, is satisfied that the material placed before the Government by those agencies and, in turn, before the House by the Government, was sufficient to justify military action. That question goes right to the very heart of the Government's position, since there is no doubt that they based their justification on the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the imminence of their use. It is true that Foreign Office Ministers now say, no doubt correctly, "We never used the words 'imminent' or 'immediate.'" However, one has only to cast one's mind back to remember the atmosphere of the time, particularly after the enormously powerful speech that the Prime Minister made, with passionate certainty, in the debate that led to the vote of the House endorsing military action.
  Mr. MacShane: I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of this statement from the September dossier:
  "the threat from Iraq does not depend solely on the capabilities we have described. It arises also because of the violent and aggressive nature of Saddam Hussein's regime. His record of internal repression and external aggression gives rise to unique concern about the threat he poses."
  We must take that, combined with his failure to comply with resolution 1441, into consideration. I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes simply to focus on the political points that were made, quite improperly, by the right hon. Member for Devizes.
  Mr. Campbell: I propose to focus on my own points. If anything, the Minister's quotation supports the point about imminence and immediacy.
  I ask hon. Members to consider a hypothesis. Let us suppose that the Government had said, "Saddam Hussein has failed to implement some 17 Security Council resolutions on weapons of mass destruction. We believe that he still has such weapons and he may be capable of using them, but we do not believe that their use is imminent or immediate. Notwithstanding that, we want to take military action before Dr. Blix has finished his inspections." Let us suppose that those criteria were put before the country and the House. Would anyone judge other than that they were less than persuasive?
  I began by acknowledging Committee members' contribution. They are good men and women and true. I have no doubt that, in normal circumstance, they are able to effect the necessary and responsible scrutiny of the security services.
  Going to war is not normal. Doing so in circumstances in which there is such public controversy over intelligence cannot be regarded as normal. Indeed, the extent of public anxiety, which brought more than 1 million people on to the streets of London, over proposed military action, was hardly normal.
  590
  In such circumstances, we require an inquiry that is answerable not only to the Prime Minister or the House, but to the public. Notwithstanding the efforts of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee, the proper form of inquiry would be independent of the House or the Prime Minister, and led by a member of the judiciary; otherwise, I do not believe that the questions of trust can be properly answered.
  3.26 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). Hon. Members of all parties value the interest that he takes in the matters that we are considering and his contributions to our debates.
  I join colleagues in paying tribute to the intelligence and security agencies and to the many dedicated and skilled public servants who work for them. The agencies are important to our country, and we all know that those in the front line put their lives at risk every day.
  Let me consider the Intelligence and Security Committee annual report. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who chairs the Committee, has already referred to one of the most forceful points that the report makes. It relates to the ministerial committee on the intelligence services, which has not met. My right hon. Friend sets out the position starkly in the letter that prefaces the report. The Committee made the point in four consecutive annual reports that CSI has not met. In November 2000, the Committee expressed surprise that CSI had not met since 1995. Imagine how much more surprised our predecessors would have been if they knew that, three years later, it still would not have met.
  The point is not purely mechanistic. We do not say that CSI has to meet simply because it exists. We believe that working only on a crisis-led basis means that Ministers on the CSI are not sufficiently engaged in setting requirements and priorities for secret intelligence. Rather than simply endorsing officials' recommendations individually, those Ministers should meet and discuss the longer-term requirements and priorities before collectively agreeing to them. They should also examine the work of the services across the board. The democratic process requires that. Ministers' contributions and decisions would be enhanced if they regularly participated in a continuing process through CSI.
  The Government's response is most interesting. Paragraph 10 states:
  "Every year the Intelligence Requirements and Priorities Paper is formally submitted to CSI."
  That means that it is formally submitted to a CSI that does not meet. The paragraph also states:
  "The Government agrees that CSI has an important function especially in relation to the resourcing and future prioritisation of the Agencies' work, and should meet when appropriate to consider this work."
  It continues by saying that
  "under the new arrangements,"
  Ministers
  "will be involved at the beginning of the annual process as well as in authorising the final requirements."

  591
  In response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), the Minister specifically said that the Prime Minister had accepted that recommendation. That is progress. However, I emphasise that, in my view, the recommendation means that CSI should meet regularly. I do not specify every week or every month, but regularly.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury referred to Bali, but did not have time to say much about it. Perhaps it would be useful if I said a little more. In October, the Committee was asked to report on the Bali bombing and a debate was held in the House in March—unfortunately, for family reasons, I was unable to be present. As hon. Members will recall, the ISC produced a report that criticised the security services' assessment of the risk in Indonesia and the Foreign Office's consequent advice to British visitors. We also proposed a change in the threat levels used by the service. While the Security Service did not agree with the Committee's conclusion on its threat assessment, we were told that our recommendations informed its review of the threat assessment system, and that the definitions of threat levels were now more informative to customer departments.
  The Foreign Affairs Committee also issued recommendations on travel advice, and the Government have reviewed the policy and the mechanisms. Travel advice should now give a clearer indication of the situation in a country, and the likelihood of a terrorist attack there. Advice given to travellers should not differ from that given to British residents in the country. Our annual report welcomes those improvements, to which the Minister referred.
  I think the Bali report illustrates that when the Intelligence and Security Committee has criticisms to make it is free to make them, and does so. That point is worth making in the context of the work we have been doing, and will be doing, on Iraq.
  We completed our annual report in the first half of May. By then, as the report says, we had agreed that we would examine in more detail the intelligence and assessments available and their use, and would publish a further report dealing with Iraq. Our commitment to such a report was, of course, given more prominence by the subsequent argument about the Government's use of intelligence.
  On 4 June, the Prime Minister told the House that the ISC would conduct an investigation, and later that day its investigation was approved by a vote in the House. The Foreign Affairs Committee is currently conducting an investigation of the decision to go to war in Iraq, and I look forward to reading its report. I am sure that our Committee will also produce an assessment worth reading, given its access to information that is not available to other Committees. On 4 June, the Prime Minister told the House that he would give the 1SC all the assessments of the Joint Intelligence Committee. That information, among other sources, will inform the conclusions of our report.
  In conducting its investigation, our Committee will operate just as we did during the Bali investigation: we will take oral evidence and examine documents. We will, I am sure, investigate how human and signal intelligence resources were deployed to obtain information in recent months and years. As was pointed out by the right hon.
  592
  and learned Member for North-East Fife, quality is important, but so is volume. We will consider the intelligence provided, and its reliability; we will also analyse the degree of co-operation with the United States and others as the UK Government reached their conclusions on the situation in Iraq. Our report will be subject to debate in both Houses.
  The relationship between the Government and our Committee has been misrepresented in some quarters. Some have argued that Ministers can amend ISC reports before their publication. For obvious reasons, highly sensitive security or financial information is redacted, just as information is redacted—for reasons of national security or commercial confidentiality—from Select Committee reports. However, it is not true to say that Ministers amend our reports at will. As we say in our introduction,
  "To date, no material has been excluded without the Committee's consent".
  The Foreign Secretary has said that if he, the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary tried to amend a judgment by the Committee, that would, in his opinion, be a resigning matter. He gave a categorical undertaking that—security or financial redactions aside—there would be no attempt to amend our report.
  As we consider these issues, I find myself drawn into wider questions about the legitimate use of intelligence. Governments use intelligence all the time. Obviously, intelligence data are crucial in informing many ministerial decisions, but Governments can also refer to intelligence in explaining why those decisions were made.
  There must be restrictions on how intelligence is used publicly. It is clear that publication must not jeopardise national security or the work of the agencies, and must not put those who work for them at risk. In terms of procedure and presentation, a good example of what not to do is provided by the so-called dodgy dossier: intelligence was mixed up with all sorts of other material, material was not attributed, and the document was not properly cleared.
  Dos and don'ts must be laid down on the publication of intelligence. Key questions arise in that context. First, it must be recognised that in drafting documents for publication, any Government will tend to favour intelligence that supports their overall policy. The question is, should we accept that? Should we endeavour to remedy it or should we discourage Governments from publishing intelligence material at all? One could argue that, in the interests of democracy, we should aim for the maximum openness.
  The use of intelligence in the public domain is a difficult and sensitive subject, and should be approached with caution. The Committee may want to consider it further in the coming year and perhaps comment on it in our next annual report.
  When the Intelligence and Security Committee was set up in 1994, I was one of those who was rather sceptical about its value, because it depended entirely on information provided by Ministers and the heads of agencies. Having served on the Committee for two years, I believe that it plays a useful role. The fact that it operates, as it must, within the ring of secrecy, enables it to give the House greater confidence in the work of our

  593
  agencies. Clearly we have important work ahead of us next year, and I am sure that the House will be interested to hear the results of our inquiries.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Michael Portillo: I join others in thanking the Committee for its extremely useful work. Paragraph 82 of the report refers to the dodgy dossier. In a way, this is water under the bridge, as the Government have conceded that errors were made, and apologies have been issued. I do not know whether they yet realise the immense damage that they did to themselves and to the intelligence services. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister realises the extent to which the reduction in his reputation and in his trustworthiness rating in opinion polls is attributable to the dodgy dossier.
  It seems absolutely extraordinary that the dossier came into the public domain apparently without either Alastair Campbell or the Prime Minister understanding its nature—the fact that it contained plagiarised material. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was absolutely right to dwell on what the Prime Minister said to the House on 3 February at column 25. There was no hint in what he said at that time that he had any understanding that the dossier was, as it were, adulterated. That in turn seems strange, because even if Mr. Campbell did not know that it contained adulterated, plagiarised material, he clearly did know that it had been prepared in a way that was quite different from the dossier that was prepared in September 2002. The processes were quite different, as he has said in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  The dodgy dossier was prepared by a team working on information. It was prepared by an organisation called the communications and information centre. There remains a question, which I add to the list already supplied to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), about how the Prime Minister could want to commit himself unequivocally, and without caveat, to telling the House that he had published a new intelligence document, when at the very least Alastair Campbell knew that the document had been prepared in a way that simply would not allow such a description of it to stand up to further scrutiny.
  The Committee's report also refers to the famous 45-minute claim in the September 2002 dossier. The Minister for the armed forces has said that the claim was substantiated by only a single source—it was not corroborated by further evidence—and as far as I know, there has been no attempt by the Government to row back on that. The Government maintain that it was derived from intelligence and was not invented by politicians or people dealing with the media, and that there was no objection to its being in the document, but I am not sure that I have had an explanation of how it got into the foreword, which was signed by the Prime Minister and constituted an Executive summary, thus giving it tremendous prominence.
  I questioned the Foreign Secretary in the House about that, and he made it clear that no member of the intelligence community had objected in any way or
  594
  proposed that the 45-minute claim should not be included in the foreword. Of course, I have to take the Foreign Secretary's word for it, but if it is true that no intelligence official objected to the claim's being given that level of prominence, the Government ought to be extremely angry with intelligence officials for failing to make that point. The Government were clearly riding for a fall by putting a point that relied on only a single source of evidence into the prime ministerial foreword, standing above his signature. Indeed, the special advisers themselves—who, I am afraid, do not appear to be a very distinguished group in this Government—should have urged that this point be not included in the foreword. They should have had regard to the importance of the integrity of the Prime Minister's word, as the Prime Minister was leading the country on a course that might involve us in military action, as indeed it did.
  Another point, made by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in his opening statement to the Foreign Affairs Committee, is that the 45-minute claim was not then used in this House during the debates in March. That leads to another question that I should like to add to the list provided by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, and which has been raised by the right hon. Member for Livingston: whether the Government already had cold feet about the 45-minute claim before troops were committed, and, if so, why they did not say to this House that they no longer had the confidence in that information that they had when the Prime Minister decided to put his signature to it.
  The broad point, if I may suggest, for the Committee is to look in its future deliberations at how on earth such things can happen. The Committee says that it has been assured that such things cannot happen again, but I should like to broaden the issue by pointing out that a climate has been established in government that makes it difficult to accept the degree of assurance that has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). It is clear that there was a breakdown in the machinery of government, but I would go further and say that there exists in this Government a strongly politicised atmosphere at the top. Many roles and decisions are taken by people who are not accountable to this House, and the feverish state in which information is dragooned for the cause—the point applies not only in this case—certainly pushes officials to the limits of what is proper. Perhaps it is for the Committee to decide whether it sometimes pushes them further.
  It might be rather surprising to hear me say that one needs also to look into the degree of pressure that was exercised in a situation in which the British Government were determined, for understandable reasons, to be in step with the United States, and felt that they had to be a strong rhetorical contributor, at least, to the case that was being made for action.
  Mr. Mates: What matters is not the assurance that my right hon. Friend got from the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) that this will not happen again but the assurance given to us by those who gave evidence in Committee that they had made certain—and that

  595
  through that, the Prime Minister has made certain—that it will not happen again. So if it does happen again, we must question not the word of the right hon. Member for Dewsbury, but that of the entire Government.
  Mr. Portillo: That is a useful clarification, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the broader point that even if the Government can say that they have changed their procedures so that this exact sequence of events cannot occur again, they have not dealt with the broader, feverish climate at the centre of government, in which officials are being pushed very far indeed.
  Paragraph 80 of the report states:
  "Intelligence … played a key role in the military action",
  as indeed it did. That is why the issue is so important. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that he was raising a hypothetical question in asking the right hon. Member for Dewsbury what would happen if the information proved to be wrong. However, I do not think that my right hon. Friend's question is hypothetical. It must now be clear—this is certainly the opinion of the right hon. Member for Livingston—that at least some of the information has already been proved to be wrong.
  That fact that that question is no longer hypothetical matters very much, because the Prime Minister based his cause for going to war very firmly on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. In this case, he contrasted himself somewhat with President Bush. The President was quite happy to talk about regime change being a cause for war, but the Prime Minister said no, that was not what it was about. Indeed, he told this House that as long as Saddam Hussein gave up his weapons of mass destruction, the regime could remain in place. That is why it matters so much to establish precisely how that intelligence was derived and whether it was plain wrong. In my view, it has already emerged that the intelligence was not of high quality. That should be of immense concern to the Committee, which I am sure will want to pursue it further in future.
  The Prime Minister then told us—I refer particularly to what he said to the House on 4 and 5 June—that we should not worry so much about the causes of the war that he had advanced before, because we got rid of a barbarous regime, for which we should all be grateful and proud. We are grateful and, speaking for myself, I am proud of our role in getting rid of that barbarous regime, but that is not the case that the Prime Minister made to the House before going to war. He specifically said that the regime, barbarous though it was, would be allowed to remain in position as long as it gave up its weapons of mass destruction.
  There are other examples of the Prime Minister's shifting from one argument to another. In the build-up to war, he told us that he was very worried—I remember his hands expressing the fact—about the day on which WMD on the one hand and terrorism on the other would come together. Paragraph 75 of the report alludes to that. However, when the Prime Minister returned to the House in June, he seemed to argue rather that the search for WMD was not particularly urgent. The priority, he said, was to restore law and order. The
  596
  House of Commons should understand perfectly well, he claimed, how long it would take to establish a proper team to get looking for WMD. For goodness sake, that argument is implausible from a man who had said that he was terrified that WMD would fall into the wrong hands. Was he really telling us that al-Qaeda had given us a three-month breathing space so that we could get our teams organised, and that in that period they would no longer go shopping for WMD in Iraq?
  Hans Blix used to criticise Saddam's regime firmly on the basis that it was always changing its story. It would say one thing one day, another thing another day. That is why Blix felt that the regime was unconvincing, suggesting that there might be a real problem. All I can say is that it is a good job that Hans Blix is not around today to apply the same high standards to the stories used by the Prime Minister, which also shift from day to day.
  For the avoidance of doubt, let me make it clear that I was supportive of the war and that I still believe that there was a good reason for it. However, it was not the reason on which the Prime Minister rested most heavily. The stronger argument was that there had been 12 years of steady defiance of UN resolutions by Saddam Hussein, which was intolerable in any case. After 11 September, however, when we saw the consequences of ignoring the steady escalation of terrorism, it became clearer why we should not ignore the steady escalation of defiance by a thoroughly hideous rogue state represented by Saddam Hussein. That was a perfectly strong argument.
  A book recently published by Sir Peter Stothard, who spent some time in Downing street during the period of the conflict, reveals that the Prime Minister was not happy with the WMD argument and that he longed to move on to the argument that I have just outlined or President Bush's argument for changing the regime. It demonstrates that he was uncomfortable about relying on the WMD argument, but that he believed that it was the only one likely to get through the UN.
  Mr. George Osborne: Has my right hon. Friend seen the interview with Paul Wolfowitz, which reveals that WMD became a sort of bureaucratic reason to bring together the different agencies in Washington to make the case for war against Iraq? That supports my right hon. Friend's argument.
  Mr. Portillo: I have not seen it, but it does indeed support what I have been saying. We now have two sources for this view, which makes it relatively quite reliable as a view! It was under those circumstances that tremendous pressure was applied to officials.
  I do not want to overstate the case against the Prime Minister. It appears from what we know now—it will be supplemented by further reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee—that the Prime Minister put more weight on to the intelligence than it could properly bear. That has done immense damage to the Prime Minister, to his Government and, I fear, to the intelligence services because it puts a question mark over their work. It will be much more difficult for people to take intelligence seriously when it is presented to them in future. That is the really serious point: there will be circumstances in

  597
  the future in which a Government or a Prime Minister will need to persuade this country to do something very unpalatable in order to defend our best interests. Such an action could be of a pre-emptive nature that is judged, on the basis of intelligence, to be important and necessary. The appalling debacle in which the Prime Minister and Mr. Campbell have been involved will mean that it will be much more difficult for a future Prime Minister to make a case for such action, even though it might be very urgent and important for this country.
  4 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: First, I want to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member. She praised the staff who work in the different agencies, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world, under circumstances that are sometimes incredible, and I echo those sentiments.
  I shall not speculate about what the Committee will find out in the next few weeks and months in respect of the matters that have dominated the debate so far. We issued a press release a few weeks ago, in which we stated that we would not give a running commentary on our work. I intend to stick to that, and I am sure that other members of the Committee will do the same.
  However, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) suggested at the end of his speech that there was a difference between our Committee and its counterparts elsewhere in the world, especially the US. I want to point out that the Committee recently met both of the US oversight committees to discuss how they have conducted their inquiries. Hon. Members will know how our Committee works, and will be aware that our inquiries are not held in the open. The idea has been around in the media for quite a while that the US committees will hold their inquiries in the open, but that is not true. They will take the vast bulk of their evidence—if not all of it—in very much the same way that the UK Committee does.
  It is true that public hearings are sometimes held as the US committees near the end of their inquiries. I believe that that is more of a bit of grandstanding for the benefit of television cameras, the public and possibly even the egos of the politicians involved. In the six years that I have been on the Committee, that has never happened. My instinct is that we should not follow the US example, but in the end it will be a matter for members of the Committee to decide. It is up to us to determine how to take evidence, what witnesses to call, and what conclusions we reach in the next few weeks.
  I want to raise two matters that have not been mentioned so far. If they are not of interest to the House, they certainly are of importance to the public at large. The Committee does not exist merely to draw up an annual report that is published and debated in the House. It is a parliamentary oversight Committee, but it looks after another major interest—how intelligence may or may not affect the British public.
  598
  In each of the six years that I have been a member of the Committee, our interest in the use of intelligence in law enforcement has grown. It has been very much a moving picture. We have argued in earlier reports that more resources ought to be devoted to that area, as there are large gains to be made in relation to serious crime. We have worked with national law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community helps them in all sorts of ways to protect the interests of the British public.
  In the past 12 months, for the first time since I became a member of the Committee, we have looked beyond Customs and Excise and the National Criminal Intelligence Service and extended our consideration to the work of special branch. We make no recommendations in that regard. I was pleased that we decided to inquire into special branch activities, and that we received the necessary co-operation. As the report makes clear, we had meetings with the special branch of the Metropolitan police. We also visited my local special branch in south Yorkshire, and we took evidence from the chief constable. I was reassured about the work of the special branch and its co-operation with the intelligence services, especially MI5, which does not always share locally everything that it finds.
  We also looked at the structure of the special branch, which is not coterminous with Government regions. The report noted that Yorkshire and Humberside shares its special branch with the north-east region. We made no recommendation about that, but it is something that could be examined in future.
  I think that the House and the public would be happy to know that we had examined other aspects of intelligence work.
  Simon Hughes: I note that the report includes no recommendation on the special branch. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we would do better with fewer special branches, possibly organised as they are in London, on a regional rather than a local police force basis?
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman answered his question when he said that the Committee had made no recommendations. I think that there are issues arising from special branch funding, as currently constituted, because it comes from the chief constable's budget. There are many pressures on such budgets and that may affect the efficiency of the local special branch. In our discussions with special branches, we were assured that resources were found if necessary. The Committee was happy with what it found, but it is for other people to decide whether the special branch is properly resourced. We made no recommendations; we stated the facts.
  My other major point is about imagery intelligence, and it, too, relates to budgets. Paragraph 61 refers to our report last year and expresses our concern that imagery intelligence purchasing and decision making come under Ministry of Defence resources. Last year, we concluded that that should be reconsidered. Although the armed services are the main users of imagery intelligence, there are many other uses for such systems. Their use is growing in other fields. We were concerned that budgeting was through the MOD rather than through the JIC or the single intelligence account.

  599
  Paragraph 61 notes:
  "Last year, the Government response to our report stated that 'the necessary levels of finance will be made available to meet this important national requirement'. We are concerned that the MoD has only been able to provide limited funding—'what we could afford'—to buy into"—
  imagery intelligence. We hoped for a better response than we received last year, but sadly, in paragraph 4, on page 12 of the Government's response, they use the same words as last year:
  "the necessary levels of finance will be made available to meet this important national requirement".
  In the view of the Committee, the MOD budget, with all its pressures, which, as we know, increase monthly, is not the best way to fund something of that importance. We will ensure that we keep our eye on that since it is crucial that the development of imagery intelligence in the United Kingdom is not held back because its budget or the resources for it are capped by more urgent needs elsewhere.
  Before I finish my speech on our annual report—I hope that more Back Benchers will be able to make speeches—I wish to say that I am satisfied, as a Member of the House, that nothing is hidden from us and that the duty on us, now and in the not-to-distant future, will be to report everything to the House, as we did on the Bali issue, so that it can be debated and the public can judge whether or not intelligence is used properly by our agencies and the Government.
  4.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: I start by echoing the words of my fellow members of the Committee in our praise for the security services—all of them—on the way that they do their job. I should like to add one point, which we mention in the report: so much of what they do successfully can never be told. We have heard of amazing intelligence successes that cannot be reported to anyone, but when they do make mistakes—they are humans, so they do err—we hear about their failures; they tend to be rather more spectacular. We must understand that so much of what they do is so vital to our security that, when we do criticise them, it must be read in that context.
  I wish briefly to try—I doubt whether I shall succeed—to help the House over the vexed question of the asterisks, the deletions. Every year since such debates started, we have had to take a fair amount of ridicule on the subject, and we do so with very good nature. Every year, when we have a press conference, we get a cynical reaction from the members of the press, which we have to bear as well as we can. However, it is very important that we should be able to report in full to the Prime Minister on the conclusions and the intelligence that we have received, because we are different in that regard from a Select Committee. Therefore, because of the nature of our work, there should be no cynicism about the fact that people outside the House are not told things. They cannot be told about them because of their very nature.
  Some years ago, I had the good fortune to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence. Every year, because the Trident programme was being developed, we had to report on that and, every year, quite a lot of what we reported was not allowed to be
  600
  published and had to appear as asterisks, but because it came under the heading of Trident and the replacement of our ballistic warhead, nobody minded; they understood that that was secret.
  By the same token, I believe that it would be fair if people did not take quite so much mickey out of us over the asterisks, but remembered that almost everything that we hear comes in the same category as Trident, and that therefore we have to be very careful. Let it be said, however, that the asterisks are the Government's, not ours. They are the people who say that disclosure of the information would be damaging. As the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) said, we robustly challenge such things, and I can tell the House that quite a number of suggested deletions have been overturned, after discussion, which is why we are able to say that nothing has been deleted without our consent. Perhaps, next year and in the coming years, we can be excused the ritual humour about the things that we have to leave out, although I very much doubt it.
  I want to make one point only about the report because the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) covered the main points excellently, and my other colleagues have done the same. There is one item that I feel particularly strongly about for reasons that I shall tell the House. In paragraph 89, we report very briefly on our concerns about the possible threat to us from the ability to transmit firearms, drugs and other dangerous goods through the post.
  I happened to come upon that issue in the other job that I do, which is chairing the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. During our inquiry into the financing of terrorism, we discovered a most appalling breach, which came out in the court case of the three IRA people who were arrested in Florida. They had sent firearms through the post to the IRA in the Republic of Ireland. That channel was chanced on, and within three days more than 100 weapons and weapons parts were found to be going through it. I know that the Committee, as we say in the report, is concerned about that, and we are looking into it in much more detail. From further work that I have been doing with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which is in the public domain, I know that we have not got this right. I hope that the House will be reassured to know that the Committee will look at this as soon as we have dealt with the question of the intelligence and the Iraqi situation, which is what concerns us now.
  I believe that it was said on "Newsnight" last night that those in our Committee were on rather light duties. May I say, therefore, that we are meeting eight times in the next two weeks and at least three times in the recess? I do not say that to receive a wave of sympathy from the rest of the House but to state the fact that we are working all the hours that we can to report on this matter as soon as possible.
  In response to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), both of whom made very thoughtful comments and asked extremely pertinent questions, I am sure that every single one of their questions will be addressed by us and that we will want to provide answers that will convince the House as to all the reasoning. Unlike the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will not be grandstanding or making public statements

  601
  while we have our inquiry. We will be able to report objectively on the facts as they have been shown to us, and as they will be shown to us over the weeks to come. When the House has had a chance to see all of that, I hope that it will realise that we are nobody's poodle and nobody's puppet. The fact that we are on the Prime Minister's Committee is irrelevant to that, but will help us enormously in the work that we have to do.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the short years between his retirement and his death, I used to gossip with the late Sir Maurice Oldfield. He told me that in March 1974, he had gone, as C, to Jim Callaghan on his second day as Foreign Secretary. Jim Callaghan had said to him, "Tell me, Sir Maurice, what is the Security Intelligence Service for?" Sir Maurice Oldfield said that he replied, "My job, Secretary of State, is to bring you unwelcome news." Some months later, I checked with Jim Callaghan, and indeed it was a factual not apocryphal story. In a sense, it encapsulates the fact that the key to the success of the JIC system is the firm separation of analysis and policy. Indeed, that conclusion was drawn both by Noel Annan in his best book, "Changing Enemies", and by Harry Hinsley in his official account of intelligence during world war two.
  If the Prime Minister is convinced, as all his predecessors have been since 1940, that the singular virtue of the British JIC system is the determination that held throughout the second world war and the cold war that its analytical product must always be kept separate from the policy implications to be drawn from it, does he not therefore accept that his signed preamble to the September 2002 dossier must be treated equally separately from the JIC analysis that made up the bulk of that document? If so, does the Prime Minister appreciate, and does he not wish the British public to appreciate, that it is possible for knowledgeable people inside Whitehall and beyond to place different weightings on aspects of the JIC analysis from the conclusions that he drew? Is it not possible, therefore, that concentrating on one journalist and one intelligence source fails to reflect the range of anxieties on the part of several intelligence professionals about the weightings and thrust of the Prime Minister's crucial preamble? I am confident that the Intelligence and Security Committee, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), will bring the necessary skill, scepticism and detachment that are always needed during the careful evidence-driven analysis of kaleidoscopic intelligence at a time of tension, anxiety and uncertainty.
  Finally, because all hon. Members should have the opportunity to speak, Hans Blix says that he was getting the highest quality intelligence from Washington, yet his inspectors could find nothing of significance. Therefore, the coalition must have known that its intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction simply did not provide its Governments with justification for war. Indeed, that point is eloquently made in the letter to The Times yesterday that was written by Field Marshall Lord Bramall.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot: The report speaks for itself. I must especially stress the point, which has been well made in a number of quarters, that we are well served by our intelligence agencies.
  There is no need, and no time, for me to comment on every aspect of the report. However, on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, the Intelligence and Security Committee recognises that it has a heavy responsibility. I am not controlled by the Government but neither are the rest of the members of the Committee. The Committee is excellently chaired by the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who is no Government poodle.
  On ministerial oversight, I was extremely pleased that the Minister for Europe said that the ministerial committee on the intelligence services would meet in due course. However, he gave us no indication that such meetings would be regular. The ministerial committee will be effective only if it meets regularly to build up the expertise and relationships needed for proper ministerial control.
  The main point that I want to address is terrorism and the treatment of terrorists. We are told that we are at war and that the battle against terrorism is beginning to look long lasting—I think that that is right. The casualties have been dreadful but that should not make us flinch from the task. The Duke of Wellington once said:
  "Nothing except a battle lost can be half as melancholy as a battle won."
  We have not yet won the battle and it is, indeed, a melancholy business. However, as we fight the battle, we must remember what we are fighting for: the values of freedom, the right to govern ourselves according to our liberal principles and the rule of law. In fighting for those values, we must not ourselves abandon them or the terrorists will win.
  That is why I was pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said about Guantanamo bay. Nearly two years after 11 September, our coalition partner, the United States, continues to hold people in legal limbo, with no end in sight, in a place, and a manner, that are subject to no nationally or internationally recognised law or process. What justifies that? The United States says that information from intelligence gathered from those at Guantanamo bay is an essential tool in the war against terrorism. But there is disagreement in the United States Administration about whether the intelligence product is nearing its useful end.
  As a result of Guantanamo bay, the United States has been subjected to accusations of torture and inhumanity. I am sure that those accusations are unfair and untrue. Those who make them undermine their more valid arguments against Guantanamo bay. The United States tells us that the detainees are not prisoners of war and are not subject to the Geneva conventions. It bases that view on its theory that the detainees from Afghanistan are illegal combatants. Presumably, the same view would, or should, be taken about the Northern Alliance fighters. The difference appears to be that the Northern Alliance fought with us while the Taliban fought against us. That is an uncomfortable position to adopt.

  603
  The United States tells us that despite the fact that the Geneva conventions do not apply to the detainees, they are being treated in accordance with those conventions. But in one very important respect they are not. The conventions require that once someone is identified as a suspect in a crime, he has a right not to be questioned in the absence of a lawyer of his choice. No detainee has been allowed a lawyer of anyone's choice, and they have all been questioned. The United States has made it clear that it intends to use the confessions taken as evidence against the detainees in their trials. I do not believe that confessions taken in such circumstances should be admissible.
  The Pentagon tells us that the procedures for trials by military commission, issued in March, will include the presumption of innocence. That is, of course, good to hear, but the day before it issued those procedures, President Bush, the man in charge of them, said:
  "Remember … the ones in Guantanamo Bay are killers."
  That was no passing remark. He and Secretary Rumsfeld have said the same thing on several different occasions. It would be good to be able to believe that the United States thought that the presumption of innocence was more than just a phrase used by those lawyer folk. When President Bush, who is, as I say, in the end in charge of the military tribunals set to try the detainees, tells us that they are extremely dangerous terrorists, he may well be right, but surely that conclusion should be the result of an assessment or investigation independent of its victim, the United States, or, at the very least, independent of the Executive of the United States.
  Some people ask: what else is the United States to do with the detainees? It may well be true that some, if released, might immediately return to terrorism. How on earth can we expect the United States to put up with that? The answer is that of course we cannot. However, I am certain that the international community would be eager to use its many tribunals to try those detainees according to an internationally recognised process. The question then would be whether the United States would be prepared to accept the outcome.
  Let us not forget that there will be prisoners as a result of the war in Iraq who will be motivated in precisely the same way as those detained from Afghanistan, yet the United States recognises them as prisoners of war. To treat the Taliban differently from the Iraqi Fedayeen is clearly wrong in principle. We were once accused of doing the same during the period of detention in Northern Ireland, but at least recognisable rules applied and those detained had access to advisers. More important, when we put a stop to detention, we increased our moral authority in a way that the United States could do now if it chose.
  So far, the focus of the British Government has been on the British detainees. Perhaps that is understandable, but it misses the point. The real point is that the decision to treat the detainees differently is wrong in principle. By appearing to condone one law for the United States and another for everyone else, we are feeding resentment against the United States and hence against ourselves throughout the world.
  I have three questions about the matter, which I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would answer when he replies. First, do the British Government accept
  604
  the United States view that the Geneva convention does not apply to the detainees of Guantanamo bay? Why are they keeping so quiet on so vital an issue? If any other country behaved like this, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, both the United Kingdom and the United States would be protesting vigorously.
  Secondly, on 17 June, the Foreign Office Minister with responsibilities for trade and investment stated:
  "The status of the detainees under international law depends on the facts of each individual case and is ultimately a matter for the US, as the detaining power."—[Official Report, 17 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 142W.]
  Does international law have nothing to say about the rights or wrongs of any decision made by the United States? If, as the Minister then said, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment, what international obligation is it, other than the inherent humanity of the United States—which is undoubted, at least in my mind—that gives it that entitlement?
  Thirdly, do the British Government believe that the intelligence product from Guantanamo bay is still valuable? If so, for what? Is it limited to the purpose of the prosecution of the detainees?
  The United States is, and always has been, the world's greatest supporter of freedom. Time after time, it is the United States that comes to the rescue of individual countries and of the world. However, freedom rests on the observance of the rule of law, and the United States would win itself many friends by establishing beyond doubt that it was bringing the detainees within the scope of a process of law that was internationally recognised.
  4.32 pm
  Andrew Mackinlay: I have some difficulty. I have declared in the Chamber many times before that I think that the current arrangements for our parliamentary oversight are not satisfactory. Indeed, I do not see the Intelligence and Security Committee as being a Committee of Parliament. That is of great importance. I do not think that it is a distinction without a difference that the Committee is made up of parliamentarians. It is a creature of statute passed by Parliament.
  I hesitate to amplify upon that because good friends and colleagues can often take offence that is not intended when we criticise an institution of which they are a member. They think that that is a criticism of their conduct and stewardship. On the contrary. I was interested to hear what the my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and other Members have said about the diligence to service which the members of the Committee are giving. That is highly commendable. I endorse what my right hon. Friend said about the high level of attendance and concentration.
  One of the things that I learned as a trade union official is that one should be at the beginning of a meeting and at the end. That is extremely important. During my period on the Transport Select Committee and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was surprised when some of my colleagues found—it is a matter for them—there could be other compelling matters that took them away from a Committee's deliberations, and sometimes quite frequently. In my view, if someone is serving on one of these bodies, that

  605
  should be seen as the primary commitment in giving service to the House. They should be present for as much time as is humanly possible.
  I shall criticise the nature of the Intelligence and Security Committee. When I read the membership of the Committee, I noticed that the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) was the only non-Privy Councillor. When he goes to bed tonight, I hope that he will dream that such a grave omission will be remedied by the Mackinlay Government after I come out of my wilderness years. That demonstrates that the Committee is composed of people who have given distinguished service. I hesitate to use the phrase "the great and the good" but, nevertheless, those people are deemed satisfactory by the Prime Minister. Of course, the qualities that they bring to the Committee make them a satisfactory choice, but in any other Parliament, people selected by their peers will also have given distinguished service and will be capable of fulfilling that role. In the US Senate and Congress, people chosen to serve on comparable committees to the Intelligence and Security Committee are regarded as qualified for their important role and having sufficient discretion to fulfil it.
  Mr. Mates: Which parliamentary Committee is not selected by its peers? The Committee of Selection selects members of Select Committees through the Whips. It is the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, who selects us, and that, too, is done through the Whips. What is the difference?
  Andrew Mackinlay: There is a substantial difference. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, although the selection process is seriously flawed, needs to be developed and is subject to the party system. However, there are occasions when the trend is reversed. During my first weeks in Parliament we were told by the Whips who to appoint as Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, but we chose another Member. More recently, in the lifetime of this Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) were selected as Chairmen in contravention of the initial process of selection. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, for whom I have the highest regard—contrary to her better judgment, I hope that she still has some regard for me—was selected by the Prime Minister. Under the rules of selection, it is not possible to say, "No, we will not have the right hon. Member for Dewsbury, we will have the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) instead."
  Public perception of the independence of Committees is extremely important. The ISC would probably prefer to be treated as a Select Committee, and in the next Parliament it may merge into the system and its members undertake the same contests and arguments that other Select Committee members undertake. I hope that ISC members have some sympathy for that idea. However, when it became known that the ISC and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs were going to look into the question of Iraq, I was disappointed by the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. I listened to him carefully, and
  606
  while he said that he welcomed and/or invited the ISC to look into the question of Iraq, he did not make any genuflection to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and did not give a nod or wink of acknowledgement that it should look into the matter, which was a deeply regrettable mistake. At the very least, the work of the two Committees could be complementary rather than competitive, and could inform the work of the House and public opinion, which everyone should welcome.
  I dare not go into the question of Iraq. Over the past few days, I have told numerous journalists and even parliamentary colleagues that the deliberations of the Foreign Affairs Committee are private—[Interruption.] I am speaking for myself, and will not even comment about people who have commented, allegedly, on our deliberations. However, on behalf of colleagues I shall give a trailer. At 10 o'clock on Monday, our report will be published, and I hope that Members will find it valuable reading. However, picking up a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), there could be a more mature and sensible way of producing the ISC report without the extensive use of dots and asterisks. There could be negotiations with No. 10 to produce a report that has some flow. Its present form is woefully inadequate.
  If, as I accept, the Committee is putting in a tremendous amount of work behind closed doors, the report could and should be fuller. I do not accept that it must be so thin. One of the deficiencies of the Committee is that it always, always deliberates and holds hearings in private. There is no reason why that should be the absolute rule. Because of the nature of its work, the pattern may be that the Committee meets in private session, but that should not be the presumption. That is why the work of other Select Committees is so important. The Prime Minister overlooked that. Matters that would not have been aired if they had been considered solely by the Intelligence and Security Committee have been brought into the public domain by the Foreign Affairs Committee and it is clearly appropriate that they should be viewed under the television lights, reported in the Official Report and so on. I hope that next year the Intelligence and Security Committee might improve on the written production of its report and explain to the House the work on which it is embarked.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley spoke about the aspects of the report relating to the special branch. That was extremely important. I am troubled by the fact that our special branches are woefully inadequate in many areas, particularly at our ports of entry. I have raised the matter in the Chamber before. I am amazed that the Government have not addressed security, particularly at our seaports. They must also undertake a comprehensive review of the policing of our airports.
  The seaports are more or less open. I can show hon. Members ports around the United Kingdom where there is no immigration official, no Customs and Excise and no special branch. They are open. It is breathtaking that that is tolerated. I have said to the House and I will say it again: what are required are dedicated police forces for our seaports. The British Transport police should be brought back in—they used to be at some of

  607
  our ports—or a parallel force should be set up. That would be the sensible thing to do. The special branch officer in a portakabin responsible for many miles of river or coastline is woefully inadequate. That is the present position, and I am not prepared to acquiesce in it by my silence. It leaves us open to organised crime, people-smuggling, and the dangers of terrorist groups bringing in facilities and materials or taking those out to other locations. They could be deterred, if not detected, by high-profile dedicated transport police in our seaports.
  Mr. Letwin: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, he is not alone in that view. Every word of what he says is true. We, too, have been complaining about the position persistently for the past two years, and it remains a matter of astonishment to us that nothing has been done about it. I know that Liberal Democrat Members share his views.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am much obliged. Perhaps the Government might reflect on the fact that, across the House, there is some sympathy for the matter to be addressed. They should do so urgently and not be persuaded by the chief constables. I know what chief constables are like. They are decent fellows, but they want to maximise their resources and are jealous of their territories. They do not want another police agency in their parish. It has always been thus and always will be. The Government should put aside their protestations, which is well-trodden ground, and do what is right—create proper policing, which could be partly funded by a small top-slicing on every container's tariff or every person's fare passing through the port of entry or exit.
  My final point relates to paragraphs 90 and 91 of the report and the Wilson doctrine. If I misread the document, I apologise, but the point I want to make is still valid. It is a matter of fact that the telephone conversations of Mo Mowlam, when Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) were recorded. The Wilson doctrine makes it clear that, unless and until Parliament is told otherwise, there will be no eavesdropping of the conversations of Members of Parliament. There was a clear breach in that regard and I think that we have a right to be told what happened. In any event, the Wilson doctrine is somewhat old and technologies have moved on. It is no longer necessary to attach a physical attachment to a telephone line to listen to what is being said. It is possible to eavesdrop on conversations and to investigate e-mails and other technologies at some considerable distance. The Wilson doctrine is important to our parliamentary democracy, because Members of Parliament, as legislators, should not be subject to such intrusive surveillance by the executive branch of government. In any event, the doctrine needs to be revisited to bring it up to date with current technologies. I urge colleagues to address the issue with some seriousness and vigour, and I repeat that, if they do so, it should be in the public domain. In my view, that area should be discussed.
  Mr. Barron: It is.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I shall be pleased to give way if my right hon. Friend can clarify the point.
  Mr. Barron: Without wanting to go into detail, I point out that paragraph 91 explains what the Committee has done in the past 12 months and what the current situation is.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am not satisfied about that. Nothing that has been uttered today or that features in the documentation reassures us that Members of Parliament are not subject to unauthorised surveillance either by the security and intelligence services or special branch. Regardless of the political persuasion of any of the people to whom I referred, it is fundamentally wrong that what happened should have taken place. I suspect that those involved overlooked the Wilson doctrine and that one of our colleagues, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, who had not taken his oath, did not feature on their radar screens as a Member of Parliament, so they assumed that they could proceed. I suspect that that was the case and/or that the Northern Ireland Office had, as a matter of practice, recorded the telephone conversations of the Secretary of State without thinking that he or she might be talking to a Member of Parliament.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I should like to put to the hon. Gentleman a hypothetical scenario. What does he think the security and intelligence services should do if they have reason to believe at some future stage that someone who has been elected to the House of Commons is secretly in contact with an extremist, fundamentalist terrorist organisation? Does he believe that such people should be off limits purely because they are Members of Parliament?
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful for that intervention, as the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I have said that the matter should be revisited, as the Wilson doctrine needs to be updated and could take such issues into account. In the particular cases that we know about, however, national security, by definition, could not have been at issue because they involved the Secretary of State, who was talking to a Member of Parliament, and the Prime Minister's man. If Mo Mowlam or Jonathan Powell were threatening national security, we might as well pack up and go home, but that was demonstrably not the case. Therefore, those conversations demonstrably should not have been bugged or subject to surveillance, and we need to be reassured and told what the position is. As I said, if there is some validity in the scenario that the hon. Gentleman postulated, it should be considered so that we know exactly what the ground rules are.
  I make no apology for again raising that matter in the House. Clearly, there have been some very unsatisfactory goings on. The Prime Minister has refused, failed or felt unable to clarify the position on repeatedly being asked in the House specifically about the Mo Mowlam and Jonathan Powell conversations. The issue cannot and should not go away, and he should make a statement to clarify it. In the meantime, our colleagues in the Committee need to deal with the issue with some vigour and come back to the House and set out in their next report precisely what has gone on and what they recommend to the Prime Minister for the future.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made as lively and constructive a contribution to the debate as he has to the Foreign Affairs Committee's deliberations on Iraq. I agree with him that the work of the two Committees can be complementary.
  In the light of what he said about the Wilson doctrine, I have changed the order of what I was going to say to address his comments at the beginning of my speech, without dealing with the detail of the case to which he referred. The Wilson doctrine means that if there is any change in the policy that MPs' communications will not be intercepted, the Prime Minister will, when it seems compatible with the security of the country to do so, make a statement to the House about it. The Committee spent some time considering that matter, and there is a paragraph in the report relating to it, which merely records that the Prime Minister has not advised us of any such change in policy; and it is clearly common knowledge that he has not told the House of any such change.
  The problem about the Wilson doctrine is that we could at any time be in the position that the policy had been changed, but it had not been deemed to be compatible with the security of the country to make an announcement. That is not an abuse of the doctrine. In that situation, it would be an entirely proper application of the doctrine for the Prime Minister to have relaxed the policy, for some overriding reason of national security, but not yet to have made an announcement to the House. That leads me to wonder whether the Wilson doctrine is a good basis on which to rest the general presumption that MPs' communications will not be intercepted. If an MP's communications were to be intercepted, of course, it would still have to be by means of a warrant issued by the relevant Secretary of State. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether we should have a system whereby no interception of the communications of a Member of either House could ever be undertaken unless it was approved by someone at a very high and manifestly independent level, such as the Lord Chief Justice.
  Knowledge that MPs' communications are not intercepted is an important safeguard for our constituents, and I am not convinced that the Wilson doctrine provides an unambiguous assurance that no MP's communications will be intercepted unless there are compelling grounds to do so, relating to threats to national security or evidence of involvement in serious crime. The time has come to look for a better basis than one whereby, in effect, the doctrine might be in general abeyance without our knowledge until such time as it was reasonable, in the circumstances of the case that had given rise to the problem, for the Prime Minister to tell the House that he had had to do that. The hon. Member for Thurrock raises a perfectly reasonable point, but he slightly misunderstands the present position and certainly underestimates the amount of attention that the Committee gave to it.
  Let me express my wish, as others have, that the Foreign Secretary will soon be recovered from his indisposition, and suggest that next time he goes to Kandahar he takes his own sandwiches with him.
  610
  Let me also echo the Chairman's tribute to all the work that is done by the agencies and pay tribute to the very small but immensely hard-working staff of the Intelligence and Security Committee, without whom we could not achieve what we do. They deserve great credit for their work.
  I want to touch on a subject that was raised by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), as well as by the hon. Member for Thurrock, and which is mentioned in the report—namely, special branch. I co-operated with the right hon. Gentleman in his enthusiasm to ensure that we spent some time on considering special branch, which has some important responsibilities, including port policing. My noble Friend Lord Carlile referred to the issue in his reports on the prevention of terrorism Acts, and more attention and resources need to be given to it.
  The right hon. Member for Rother Valley mentioned an important point that I need to clarify. There is an important reason why special branch does not and should not share all its intelligence with the security service—namely, that it has a different job. One of its jobs is to protect public order. It has to collect intelligence on public order in order to know whether there is going to be so massive, and possibly so uncontrolled, a demonstration that police resources will be needed for the purpose. People who may need to be the subject of surveillance for that reason are not, by that mere definition, threats to national security and properly the subject of investigation by the security service. There is a distinction, and it is right that it be maintained. Whereas special branches provide a very important executive arm for the security service, it is right that they recognise the difference between work that they do on their own account, for the purposes of their own responsibilities, and work that they do for the security service.
  The right hon. Member for Rother Valley mentioned the regional intelligence cells that have been created for special branch—they are not regional special branches, but regional cells—and the fact that the one in Yorkshire serves two whole Government regions. That happens to be the Association of Chief Police Officers arrangement, but we were given to understand that the cells were structured in that way primarily for resources reasons. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and I are not happy with that.
  Joyce Quin: I believed that regionalisation made a lot of sense for effective organisation throughout the country. However, I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's point that in the north-east, it is important that a regional organisation corresponds to existing regions and regional identity.
  Mr. Beith: The right hon. Lady and I are at one on that. I continue to have doubts about the merit of organising special branches into regional special branches as opposed to intelligence cells. If county based police forces—in some cases, multi-county police forces—continue to form the structure of our policing, regional special branch forces would be divorced from

  611
  the accountability structure of our current system. Although there are problems about allocating budgets to special branch, I would not be happy if special branches existed in limbo and were not part of local accountability. There are arguments for and against regional police forces, but if they existed, my point would fall.
  Let me briefly consider paragraph 67 of the report, which deals with collection gaps, warnings and the suggestion that the services' ability to warn us of dangers in future could be impaired by the stresses on their resources. One of the lessons of Afghanistan is that the west collectively had not maintained adequate intelligence on what was happening in that country. For specific reasons, the intelligence that we received was perhaps better than that of some of our partners. Nevertheless, an overall intelligence gap allowed a failed state to become the headquarters of an organisation that carried out the horrific destruction of thousands of lives as well as many other terrorist incidents. We must learn from that.
  Al-Qaeda is regrouping in other countries and there are failed states all around the world. We have only to consider a country such as Somalia to ascertain the extent of the danger that could be lurking. Other states are at risk of tipping over into failed state status. All that makes heavy demands on the intelligence effort. Things are much more complicated and difficult than the cold war effort of simply seeing what the Russians were up to, to put it crudely. Our intelligence effort was never limited to such an extent, but the focus was much clearer. Nowadays, there are all sorts of trouble spots throughout the world. They are precisely the places where international terrorist organisations go to find a safe haven in which to carry out their activities. If we cannot keep a careful watch on those trouble spots, and keep between the nations that ally themselves for intelligence purposes, we shall not get other sorts of warning.
  We have much work to do on Iraq. We deal with the dossiers in paragraphs 81 and 82. The Foreign Affairs Committee discussions will give us much more detail about who said what to whom and when. However, we left hon. Members in no doubt that the February dossier—although we did not use the Foreign Secretary's terminology—was a dreadful mistake and that systems had to be put in place to ensure that that did not happen again. We were confident that that had been done.
  However, there are many other questions beyond the dossiers, not least the issue of whether the intelligence was strong enough to support the assessments that were made throughout that period. That is a more fundamental question. Was the intelligence reliable enough to bear the weight that was placed on it? We should examine that question closely.
  We shall do the job thoroughly and without fear or favour, and we shall take the time that is necessary to get at the truth. That is why we make no promises about the date of the report's publication. Our only promise is that, to the best of our ability, we shall do a thorough job without fear or favour. We hope and believe that we shall have access to all the available information that we need. If we do not, we shall say so, as the Chairman pointed out earlier.
  612
  I want to consider the nature of the Committee and its operation. To some extent, I am responding to the point of the hon. Member for Thurrock. Hon. Members have often said that it would be much better if the Committee were a Select Committee of the House. Indeed, some Committee members have expressed that view. If that happened we would lose one feature of the Committee, in that it now comprises hon. Members of both Houses. A very able and helpful peer serves on the Committee, and other valuable contributors have come from the other end of the building.
  However, while I have a good deal of sympathy with that view, Members should not exaggerate the difference that would be made to the Committee's operation. In many respects, it would operate in much the same way. It would need its own secure accommodation, like the comparable congressional committees in the United States; it would meet mostly in private, like the American committees. The vast bulk of their work is done in private. They see certain benefits in occasional open sessions, and I do not disagree with those who think that that could apply here; but there is no escaping the fact that the bulk of the work on which the Committee's value depends would continue to be done in private.
  Unless the House changes its system of appointing Select Committees, which it conspicuously declined to do last year, the system according to which this Committee is appointed will not differ greatly from the system governing the appointment of most Select Committees—with the significant exception that, just occasionally, the House can overturn the Whips' recommendations in regard to Select Committees. The Prime Minister, and earlier Prime Ministers, did not appoint this Committee on the basis of picking their friends; they went through the usual processes by which all three parties and their Whips' Offices submit their nominations, and the mechanisms were strikingly similar to those that apply to Select Committees.
  The Committee would not be all that different in another important respect. Material would be excluded from its reports, just as it is excluded from Select Committee reports and, indeed, reports produced by committees of the United States Congress. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and others about asterisks. Some of our reports are spattered with them, and I wonder that the printer does not run out of them—although, of course, we are past the days of old fashioned typesetting.
  The statement in the introduction to the report to the effect that the Committee consents to the redactions, or exclusions, should be seen in context. It means that something we consider essential to the House's knowledge of whether we are making a critical judgment has not been excluded. But I think that some of our consent has been given with reluctance, and some of us, at least, feel that the agencies could be a little more relaxed about some of the material that they seek to exclude.
  First, we insist that omissions be marked with asterisks and not achieved by changing the text or disguising the fact that something has been omitted. We believe that it is part of our responsibility to the House to enable it to know that we have obtained, for instance,

  613
  a figure in a column that is missing—that we have looked into the matter, and that the work has been done. We do not want our reports to be disguised or sanitised in a way that denies our coverage of the issues involved.
  Secondly, throughout my time on the Committee—and I have served on it since its creation—no criticism made by it of the agencies or anyone else has been excluded through the redaction of information that is sensitive for security reasons. I hope that I shall be able to give that assurance for as long as I remain on the Committee; I can certainly give it now.
  Thirdly, our statutory basis does not allow us to substitute our judgment for that of the agencies on whether detailed information, if released, would damage their operations. That is the problem that we have: at the end of the day, the agencies are responsible for deciding whether revealing how much they are spending for a particular purpose, how many staff they have transferred from one branch of activity to another or what mechanism they have found uniquely valuable in obtaining intelligence would be damaging to their effort. It is not for us to decide. We may have a view, and on occasion we express it quite strongly; but it is an understood condition of the basis on which we were created that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agencies and say "Hard luck, but we think it would be much better for everyone to know how you obtained this piece of intelligence, and what is more we are going to tell them".
  That would be to put the essentially amateur scrutineers and overseers of intelligence into the position of the professionals who have to do their job and perhaps risk their colleagues' lives. They are not right in their judgment in every case, but we have those arguments with them, and it is very difficult to avoid that.
  If it seemed that the continued concealment of a piece of information was likely to cause real harm and prevent reasonable criticism, we should at least draw attention to that, even if we could not state the precise reasons and the details. Our first step would be to alert Ministers and the Prime Minister to the fact that we were being impeded by the continued concealment from being able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on something that we considered very unsatisfactory.
  Again, we have not found ourselves in that situation. There are times when we might set aside a matter in the belief that we could deal with it in more detail later, when immediate operational requirements would no longer be relevant. That is a mechanism that I have certainly advocated.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.6 pm
  Alan Howarth: I want to attempt to develop the case for a full and sustained ministerial engagement in determining the agencies' appropriate priorities. I very much welcome the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) has already told the House, the Prime Minister intends that the ministerial committee on the intelligence
  614
  services, the CSI, should meet, but I am not entirely sure that the full reasons why it is important that it should meet have been properly taken on board in the Government's response to our report. We are told that the Committee should meet when appropriate, and that Ministers will be involved at the beginning of the annual process as well as in authorising the final requirements.
  After the cold war, after 9/11, after the telecommunications revolution, we live in radically different circumstances. We are no longer in the world of set-piece, ritualized confrontation of superpowers and permanent alliances. There is no likelihood that tanks will roll across the north German plains, nor, I desperately hope, will we ever again face anything like the Cuban crisis. We live instead in a world where money, technology and people move rapidly across the globe, the most dangerous threats arise—I think—from cultural clashes, and the targets of our enemies are most likely to be parts of the critical national infrastructure, such as banking networks, water supplies or computer systems. The agencies will be crucial to our capacity to defend ourselves and to counter such threats. If they are to be able to do their work effectively, Ministers must be continuously and thoughtfully engaged in their tasking and in the Government's collective response to intelligence findings.
  What we say in the report about collection gaps, and what the Government say in their response, is hugely important in this context. The threat to our national security is ubiquitous. I think I am correct in recalling—and this is a miserable statistic—that 60 per cent. of the world's countries now have a gross domestic product per capita lower than it was 10 years ago. The misery of the world is growing, and the anger that that breeds in turn breeds the pathology in which terror takes root.
  As the Government fairly note, it takes time to build up new capacity in different parts of the world, to develop human intelligence and train recruits to their full ability. It is also, of course, extremely expensive. I take the view, however, and I think that my fellow members of the Committee would agree, that intelligence still represents extraordinarily good value for money, certainly when compared with the cost of military hardware.
  We must keep our priorities under continuous review and ensure that our dispositions are genuinely up to date. We will need to be more and more ambitious in the scope of our intelligence.
  We will also need to revisit some of our inherited and most cherished orthodoxies in relation to civil liberties and international law. Here, I enter perilous territory and speak with great reluctance and apprehension. All my instincts are to be suspicious of big government and of armed government, but we should consider the nature of modern threats to our security. Let us consider, for example, what threats to the critical national infrastructure might involve; let us and our Government assess our vulnerabilities honestly and courageously.
  Cyber-assaults could be perpetrated on crucial institutions and organisations by aggrieved insiders, criminals, hackers, industrial rivals and, of course, by terrorists or military opponents; in fact, they could be carried out by small groups equipped with laptop computers. It would be very difficult indeed for Governments to know how to respond. I know that the

  615
  Government are giving a great deal of active thought to these topics, and that Ministers and officials are working on them, but let us suppose that there was an assault on our banking system and the networks that enable it to operate. Which would be the lead Department: the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence? In fact, all those Departments would have a contribution to make, which suggests that we need the engagement of a wider group of Ministers and a wider range of interests within government if we are to ensure that our defences match the nature of modern requirements.
  There is a difficulty, in that these days the critical national infrastructure is provided mainly by the private sector, which is naturally unwilling to share information. Its culture and practices are not such as to make compliance with our security requirements a natural reflex, whatever the patriotism and good will of individuals within such organisations. This issue requires fresh thought across government—for example, from Ministers in the DTI. Their customary mantra about burdens on business would not necessarily be helpful in such circumstances.
  In future, our security will depend increasingly on the informed good will and good sense of many people in many different organisations—private, as well as public. That also raises questions about the need to know. How do we appropriately apply the need-to-know principle in a world in which the private and public sectors and a much greater variety of organisations need to have intelligent and constructive involvement? How does a person in one organisation actually know what a person in another organisation needs to know? Answers can no doubt be found to these questions, but they do need to be thought through.
  So if we are serious—as we have to be—about defence and the protection of our security in these modern circumstances, we may well need to think again about the balance between liberty and security, and between market efficiency and security. We will need to reconsider the orthodoxies of international law in relation to pre-emption. It is not much use waiting until one has been attacked by weapons of mass destruction before acting in self-defence, but the terms of the United Nations charter give rise to difficulties in this regard. I question whether the dispensation that was formulated in San Francisco in 1945 for the 20th century meets the needs of the 21st.
  We must ask questions about the circumstances in which it will be legitimate to intervene in foreign countries not only to protect against direct threats to ourselves, but to sustain democracy and human rights. Where democracy and human rights are not sustained, new threats may well emerge further down the line. After all, this is not an entirely new and contemporary issue. Would it seriously be argued that, if Hitler had not invaded Poland, it would have been appropriate for the international community to stand aside while he perpetrated genocide of the Jews within Germany alone? Under international law, it is not acceptable to intervene in the affairs of another country on the grounds of disapproving of what goes on in it. We must think again about all these wide issues, which take us across the whole realm of defence, foreign policy and homeland security. Intelligence matters obviously arise in respect of all of them.
  616
  Ministers are going to have to engage with those issues. It is unrealistic and inappropriate to expect officials and agencies to formulate the answers. All we really know about the world's future is that it will be radically different from the past. In that light, it is difficult to develop a vision for the future. We have to ask the right questions, which needs imagination and originality. By and large, bureaucracies do not do originality or challenge orthodoxies, but Ministers must. They should lead our thinking; our security depends on it.
  5.16 pm
  Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to add to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said. He concentrated on foreign affairs, whereas I shall seek to highlight issues relating to home affairs, in line with my usual responsibilities.
  I am conscious that we have had two intelligence debates in this Parliament. The first reflected back on the events of 11 September. We were concerned last year to make sure that the intelligence services were able to make an adequate contribution in response to those events. The report produced last year pointed out that we were somewhat overstretched in delivering the desired intelligence capability. One issue was whether enough people were recruited, trained and around—not least in some of the trouble spots of the world—to do the job properly.
  This year, it is interesting to note that reflection has moved on to consider how we organise ourselves to collect, manage and process the information, and to make an examination of the effect of that oversight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that there may not be a huge difference in practice between having a Select Committee or a Committee appointed by the Prime Minister. Our party has always taken the view that the scrutiny should be done by a Select Committee and I pay tribute to those Committee members, including my right hon. Friend, who serve and assist us greatly.
  We appear to have made some progress this year—indeed, on this very afternoon—on the question of how the Government are to get their act together. The Government's written response to the strong view of the Intelligence and Security Committee that the ministerial committee on the intelligence services should meet regularly acknowledged that it was appropriate to have that committee, but gave no commitment to call it. As others have pointed out, it was helpful when the Minister for Europe pointed out that the long-existing committee would now meet. We have one further step to go. The Minister put it on the record that it would meet in due course, but I invite the Home Secretary to confirm in his winding-up speech that it will meet soon, and then regularly. That would reassure us all.
  That is not a technical or a party-political point. The country and parliamentarians of all persuasions in both Houses would be reassured to know that our intelligence information was regularly presented to the appropriate group of people, led by the Prime Minister and supported by other Ministers, and was thus subject to regular oversight. That would support the existing role

  617
  of the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary and it might undermine the arguments for appointing a Minister for homeland security or a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Cabinet Office dedicated to security. Such an appointment would not be as strong or effective as the current proposed arrangements, which make for proper governmental control. I hope that we are offered that final commitment either from the Home Secretary tonight in a few minutes' time, or as soon as possible from the Government or the Prime Minister himself.
  This is terribly difficult territory for any state to manage, as has been noted by the right hon. Members for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) and for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). It is about the interface between the liberty of the individual, and the power of the state to intervene in that. The most sensitive issues are involved.
  If things go wrong, we criticise the authorities for not reacting fast enough, or for underreacting. Sometimes it looks as though there has been an overreaction when something goes wrong, and that there has been a compensation in the other direction. Although the Committee has not yet done its work on Iraq, the report makes it clear that it is not acceptable that reports that draw on the work of intelligence professionals—to whom we pay tribute—are not treated properly, quoted accurately or reported in a politically responsible way.
  Paragraphs 80 to 82 make very clear the Committee's view on those matters, which Liberal Democrat Members endorse. Paragraph 82 states:
  "We believe that material produced by the Agencies can be used in publications and attributed appropriately, but it is imperative that the Agencies are consulted before any of their material is published. This process was not followed when the second dossier was produced in February 2003. Although the document did contain some intelligence-derived material it was not clearly attributed or highlighted amongst the other material, nor was it checked with the Agency providing the intelligence or cleared by the JIC prior to publication."
  Huge amounts of intelligence come in. If the Government and politicians of the day put information into the public domain, that information must be authenticated by the people who are its source. One criticism that we can make already is that that was clearly not done properly earlier this year in relation to Iraq.
  I shall reinforce the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire briefly but firmly. It is unacceptable that people who are thought to have broken the international rules on warfare and military behaviour should not at least be brought to a place where they can be charged and processed according to the normal rules of civilisation.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife said that such people were effectively stateless, but they are not. They have fewer rights than stateless people in some ways. They have states, but no legal process applies to them. That is unacceptable. There can be nowhere on this earth where people are outwith the judicial process. The Government must do far more, for the sake of British citizens and others, to ensure that that injustice is ended.
  618
  I turn now to the matter of special branch and the security services. I am grateful that the Committee investigated that matter. I encourage those responsible to do two things. First, they should pick up what hon. Members of all parties have been saying—we must have a better common border force around this country. That recommendation has been made by the Home Affairs Committee. We cannot continue to have three different agencies—the police, Customs and Excise and the immigration service—and also have the special branch in a particular role.
  Andrew Mackinlay: The special branch is never there.
  Simon Hughes: The special branch, as the hon. Gentleman says, is often not where it is needed. Lord Carlile of Berriew made that very point about many airports and seaports.
  My second point concerns something that arises out of reading between the lines of the report. Perhaps the Committee could not agree on the matter, but we need to review whether every police force has a special branch. It seems to me that the time for that has come. Some forces are small, some are very big, as the report notes. Only the Metropolitan force has special dedicated funds for its special branch. Other forces have to take account of the other pressures that they face. If the special branch forces do a special job, we need to allow them to do that job in a proper and guaranteed way.
  We may need to have a further debate to work out how regional special branch forces could be set up. Accountability is essential, but it is possible that regional assemblies will be set up in the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside in the next five years. Perhaps regional special branch forces should be set up in those places first. We in London have a regional special branch, and regional government. I believe that the present regime, in which police forces have a special branch but no guaranteed funds for it, is beginning to fail the country.
  An interesting point was made about Foreign Office official advice. That advice is important; it is now up to date and adequately updated. However, as I have said to the Foreign Secretary, if we tell people that they should not visit countries because they are unsafe and there are civil disturbances and difficulties, it is inconsistent that such countries are placed on a white list and their citizens cannot be treated as necessarily having a prima facie case for leaving and seeking asylum elsewhere. We cannot have it both ways. If a country is not safe for us due to internal disorder, it cannot be safe for its own citizens either. We cannot continue that inconsistency.
  Lastly, on recruitment and retention, vacancies and training, it is worrying that, although we appear to have recruited most of the people we need, especially for difficult areas of the world, there are still gaps in intelligence in certain parts of the world, as the report highlights and as my hon. Friends have pointed out. If we are deficient in collecting, analysing and assessing intelligence from key areas of the world that are necessary for our national security, the resources needed to deliver that must be produced.

  619
  Some of us argue that we may need to look again at the Government structures that deal with these and other matters. My plea is that we learn the lessons of this year, last year and previous years. If there is to be major restructuring of Government, let us not do it on the back of an envelope, driven by personalities and on the basis of three days of turmoil and a year of regret and recrimination. Let us do it in an orderly way: take evidence, proceed carefully and get it right. The intelligence and security services and the Departments that administer them deserve nothing less.
  5.26 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Hon. Members may be interested to know that when the Joint Intelligence Committee was founded in 1936, it was as a sub-committee of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, although even at that time—as in later years—it had a Foreign Office Chairman. In 1976, in the course of researching Chiefs of Staff Committee material, I came across a JIC document, which—if only, if only—might have been the research discovery of a lifetime. That document, a copy of which I have before me, was entitled, "Use of Special Intelligence by Official Historians", and had been lying undiscovered in the Public Record Office files for four years, having been inadvertently released with a mass of other material in 1972. It did nothing less than reveal the entire Ultra secret.
  The document explained that when official historians came to compare captured German documents with the timings of orders given to allied forces in our own records, they would come to the inescapable conclusion that this could have been done only as a result of our being able to read the enemy's ciphers. As a result, the following instructions were given to the head historians in the Cabinet Office and in each of the three service Ministries:
  "It is imperative that the fact that such intelligence was available should NEVER be disclosed—(a) even though European hostilities have now ceased"—
  the document was dated 20 July 1945—
  "(b) even after the conclusion of the far eastern war."
  The historians were instructed:
  "Not to probe too deeply into the reasons for apparently unaccountable operational orders being issued … To observe absolute and complete reticence concerning these matters even amongst themselves."
  They certainly did that.
  Why was that never quite the research discovery of a lifetime? Because two years earlier, in 1974—two years after the document had been inadvertently released to the PRO, but two years before I was lucky enough to discover it—F.W. Winterbotham blew the lid off the Ultra secret by publishing his book on that subject. So my little moment of glory as an academic historian was, in a sense, snuffed out before it even began.
  Churchill described the work of Bletchley Park as having been carried out by people whom he characterised as:
  "The geese that laid the golden eggs and never cackled."
  How things have changed. What we are concerned about now is not whether Alastair Campbell wins, or Andrew Gilligan wins, because the real losers of the
  620
  present controversy will be the intelligence services themselves, given the damage that has been done to the ethos of the JIC.
  I took the trouble to use a bit of modern technology, called LexisNexis, which is a newspaper database that hon. Members can access through the Library. I did a little search for the words, "Joint Intelligence Committee", and I have to tell the House that, in the 10 years from 1982 to the beginning of 1992—which includes the first Gulf war—there were just 99 references to the JIC in British newspapers. Even in the 10 years from the beginning of 1992 to the beginning of 2002—which includes the events of 11 September—there were only 431 such references. However, in the 18 months from January 2002 until now—in that year and a half alone—there have been a massive 502 references, of which 347 were in the past six months. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What is your point?"] My point is that, as a result of the misbehaviour over the dodgy dossier, the JIC has become a matter of common currency and political controversy.
  I refer to a brief and apparently well-informed report in The Guardian on 1 July, which states:
  "Downing Street's determination to publish a dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction provoked serious divisions in the intelligence agencies, senior Whitehall officials disclosed yesterday … The trouble, say officials, is that No 10 wanted to use intelligence as a trump card for war."
  Worse than that is the report, published by the BBC on 6 June, which states that No. 10 sent back the weapons dossier to intelligence chiefs no fewer than six times for alteration. I quote from that report:
  "A source close to British intelligence has told BBC diplomatic correspondent Barnaby Mason that Downing Street returned draft versions of the dossier to the Joint Intelligence Committee 'six to eight times' … Responding to Barnaby Mason's report, Mr Blair's office again said no pressure had been put on the intelligence services to change the document."
  That is not saying, of course, that the document had not been sent back on that number of occasions.
  Indeed, on Friday 27 June, the Foreign Secretary stated in his evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that Mr. Campbell was preparing
  "a detailed summary of the exchanges between him and the JIC—saying 'Can I suggest this? What about that?'—and the response from the JIC, which will give you, as it were, the most complete and accurate running commentary on that process."
  The idea that the JIC should have to bandy words with a professional propagandist, such as Alastair Campbell, about what should go into its reports is deeply subversive of the integrity of the intelligence services. It contrasts very clearly with the work of the information research department, which was set up by the Attlee Government and used during the cold war to put into the public domain information that could be used publicly, although it had been gathered from intelligence sources. The IRD gave that information to the Government and journalists for them to use without reference to the fact that it had come from the intelligence services in the first place. In other words, the information stood or fell on its own merits and on the reputation of the people who published it. I am afraid

  621
  that the result of what has gone wrong with the undermining of the independence of the JIC is that nobody will believe the Prime Minister again when he cites intelligence sources; no one will trust him next time military action is needed; and it will become harder for the Opposition to take at face value Government assurances on intelligence matters in the future as we were content to do in the past. The Joint Intelligence Committee should have approved what facts could be used by the Government. The dossier or dossiers should have been published as the position of the Government. In my view, the name and the status of the Joint Intelligence Committee should not have been compromised by being referred to in these dossiers in any way, shape or form. When a secret intelligence service is treated in such a fashion, it is in danger of losing both secrecy and intelligence on one hand, and its ability to provide a service on the other.
  Whatever the answers were as to whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and as to whether the stocks that were made were destroyed, concealed or exported, they would more easily have been found had the proper steps been taken to secure secret documentation immediately after the fall of Saddam.
  In the brief time that I have left, I shall turn once again to the testimony of Ibrahim al-Marashi, the researcher, as I said in an earlier intervention, whose work was plagiarised in the second dossier—popularly known as the dodgy dossier. You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that his testimony was that 90 per cent. of that second dossier came from his article, and from two other articles in Jane's Intelligence Review. On the question of documentation, he was asked by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee:
  "Is it fair to say that the Iraqi regime was extremely meticulous in its bookkeeping?"
  In reply to that question—question 721 on page 51 of the uncorrected transcript—he stated:
  "Any incident, no matter how minuscule, was recorded in the Iraqi intelligence files. I will just give you an example. A solider deserted to Saudi Arabia. They even knew he had six bullets in the cartridge of his Kalashnikov rifle. This is how minutely Iraqi intelligence kept track of matters. If they could keep track of how many bullets are in a Kalashnikov rifle it is most likely that key documentation or evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme or any other kind of programme or human rights abuses were documented in Iraq. It was a bureaucracy that kept a record of almost anything that was of any significance or insignificance in Iraq."
  I conclude by reminding the House once again what I stated in successive questions to the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister. It is an appalling breach of competence, common sense and the normal arrangements made for any invading army that the coalition did not make it their top priority to go into the Iraqi intelligence headquarters and the Iraqi Foreign Ministry to get those documents that could have resolved these questions. We now know that 13 days after the fall of Baghdad those headquarters had still not been secured, and that the BBC,The Daily Telegraph and other reporters were going in and rifling through files that anybody could take away. That level of incompetence is totally incomprehensible. An
  622
  intelligence objectives sub-committee should have been in place to ensure that those documents were targeted. If the Government are suffering now from their failure to find what they are seeking in Iraq, they have only their own incompetence to blame.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: In response to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) just made, which has been coming at us throughout the debate in repeated ways, I want to add a brief observation before turning to the other issues that have concerned us. The point was at least heavily implied by the powerful contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
  We all await the outcome of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report on Iraq. We, and certainly I, have all been considerably reassured by the statements made by members of the Committee of all parties that they have no intention of allowing themselves to become an instrument of the Government to the remotest degree when producing the report. However, we know something now without having to await that report. We know that what the Prime Minister told the House about that infamous dossier was not correct. We know that he said that it was an intelligence document because Hansard shows that, and we know that it was, in great part, not that.
  We hope, and expect, that that was a case of the Prime Minister inadvertently misleading the House. A remedy is always available for a Minister who inadvertently misleads the House and the House will always generously accept it. Such a Minister may come to the House, apologise and explain. That is now necessary because it is of the utmost importance that it should be known that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom takes seriously the question of whether Parliament has been correctly informed about a matter of vital national interest. I do not want to go any further, but that vital point will continue to be raised until the matter is resolved.
  I am grateful to hon. Members who expressed the concern felt in this country about events at Guantanamo bay, including my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who made an extremely poignant speech, and Members of all parties—members of the Committee and others. I do not complain for a second that the Home Secretary was outside the Chamber for much of the debate because he has an enormous array of duties, but if he inspects Hansard later, he will read statements about Guantanamo bay that will worry him because he is concerned about the protection of rights, as I and other hon. Members have cause to know. I am sure that he will share the worries that were expressed today, and I hope that answers will be provided to the carefully judged and important questions that were asked about what is going on. If this debate stands as the moment at which the House first registered that concern, it will be of some historic significance.
  A third aspect that became apparent during the debate, which was expressed especially clearly in the important contribution made by my hon. Friend the

  623
  Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), was the value that the House attaches to the Committee's work—notwithstanding the trenchant critique made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). We all recognise the significant constraints under which the Committee necessarily operates, and I take to heart the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire about not being too ready to poke fun at the asterisks. We all understand that it is inevitable that what the Committee may publish will be restricted to an extent.
  Perhaps the very existence of the Committee is its most important feature. The fact that the intelligence community knows that there is a serious group of people—they are chosen because they are serious Members of the House—to whom it has a responsibility to be rather open acts as the constraint that the House needs to exercise on it to ensure that, above all, it acts properly. It is a notable feature of this report and the two previous reports—the only three that I have had the pleasure to read—that there is no criticism of the propriety of the security and intelligence services' operation. I take it that one of the main reasons why there is no such criticism is that the services consider themselves to be accountable to the Government, the House and, above all, the Committee.
  I want to raise a matter that has not been mentioned, except in a glancing reference by the Chairman of the ISC, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor). I hope that the Committee will consider it in its succeeding deliberations. I must admit that everything that I am about to say is based on the profoundest ignorance. I cannot know that about which I am about to speak. Indeed, I do not want to know that about which I am about to speak. However, I hope that the Committee will put itself in a position where it can know and reassure itself about such matters.
  Let us assume that with the new joint terrorism analysis centre arrangements and the JIC, which is above it, the intelligence that will hereafter be gathered and analysed in relation to terrorism will be perfect. I do not assume that it can ever be perfect, but for the purposes of argument, let us assume it to be so. Nevertheless, the agencies will not fulfil the role that the Chairman, rightly, led us to believe is its most important—warning of and preventing events—unless something else occurs.
  The intelligence itself, and the perfect analysis of that intelligence, is useless by itself. If it sits in a file in Whitehall, nothing flows from it. If we are, as the head of the Security Service publicly warned us recently, likely to face an unconventional attack, it is critical that we know how to respond. The Home Secretary will complain that for the past 18 months, I have persistently rabbited on about the fact that I do not believe that our preparedness to contain and deal with the after-effects of such an attack is at a sufficiently high level. However, that is not my concern today.
  My point is that when the intelligence is amassed and analysed, it must be effectively conveyed to the people who are responsible for containment and protection thereafter. Those people are numerous. They include the many hospitals in the national health service; the many fire services around the country, which are the front line
  624
  of containment and protection; the many police forces; and the ambulance services. A large number of people are involved in those services.
  I know, the Home Secretary knows, the Deputy Prime Minister knows and anyone who has either to shadow or to run any of the Departments that relate to those people knows, that the systems of communication within the services are highly imperfect. I do not level that as an accusation against this Government or previous Governments. The fact is that when one deals with hundreds of thousands of people, it is extraordinarily difficult to find near-perfect methods of communication.
  I do not know, and I do not want to know, what is happening, but I do want to know that the Committee knows what is going on and that it is sure that an adequate transmission mechanism is in place. When and where we find relatively detailed and specific intelligence about the possibility, above all, of an unconventional attack, I want to be sure that that information is conveyed in a useable and effective form—fast—to the places where it needs to be used to protect lives in this country.
  I hope that when we consider the report next year, we find that the Committee has investigated that enormously important subject. It alone has the capacity to do that. We clearly cannot allow the House to debate those matters openly. To know that there are gaps in the transmission mechanism and where they are would be an open invitation to terrorists. That is why only the Committee can investigate that matter. I hope that it takes on the task. If it does, it will earn the plaudits that it rightly gained this year and last year.
  5.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I reiterate the thanks of and the comments made by hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who has gone off to Gibraltar. He was standing in for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who I hope is a great deal better than he was at lunchtime.
  I, too, pay tribute to the Chair and members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, who have done another first-rate job. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I only have a short time in which to reply to the many questions that have been raised. In thanking those in the intelligence and security services; those in the counter-terrorism branch and the police; those who have established the new Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, which we launched a couple of weeks ago; and those who have been working diligently behind the scenes, including those in the Cabinet Office, I want to make it clear in response to the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), that over the past two years we have been moving to a more joined-up system. That is why JTAC has been established. It is why lessons have been learned. It is why communication, as in the case of a committee that I chaired earlier this week, involves the police, the fire service, the ambulance service and those representing the nations and regions of Britain. It is why we need to ensure that as well as highly effective intelligence that is well analysed and properly assessed and disseminated, we also have in place measures that provide resilience. I

  625
  am pleased to welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will be assisting me on counter-terrorism and resilience issues. I am not entirely sure who the new shadow homeland security spokesman will be reporting to, but I welcome him as well and hope that he assists the shadow Home Secretary as effectively as my hon. Friend will assist me.
  Today, we have issued an updated statement building on the reports that I gave to Parliament on 3 and 20 March and the report on my visit to the United States on 2 April, all of which sought to reinforce not only the steps that we have been taking but communication to the public. We have today updated the website, which has already had about 326,000 hits, as they say, since we put it online in March. I hope that we shall be able to build on that effectively for the future, as we are doing with hard copy in libraries throughout Britain. That is to meet a point that has legitimately been made about access to the internet by those who do not have such facilities readily available to them.
  A number of Members, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), spoke about the Guantanamo bay prisoners. We take that issue extremely seriously. It is not my intention on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a detailed announcement this afternoon. However, it must be said that we have been making detailed and constant representations, that we are aware of the real concerns that exist and that we know that we must find a solution. In response to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire, it is important that we are establishing the basis of the continuing custody. It is not simply a matter of the Geneva convention; it is about whether the detainees form a particular category that would be covered by the Geneva convention, and there is a difference of opinion across the world between the United States and other countries. We need to be clear about that, but it is a serious issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) both raised the issue of border security, as did the shadow Home Secretary. We have received a report on the reorganisation of the special branch throughout the country that that involves the question of regionalisation, and that accountability will be important in that area. We know that we must get this right. However, there is a strong difference of opinion, including that between the police and others, as to whether a unified border control taking in special branch, immigration controls, Customs and Excise and those involved in the surveillance of our coastline, would be more or less effective. If I am convinced that it would be more effective, I will recommend to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we take that course. We are setting up a Cabinet Committee on organised crime, which I believe should have a hand in determining the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. What we do not want to do is to disrupt existing activity, which is proving extremely effective, as has been demonstrated in recent months, in doing just that.
  626
  I turn to what is probably the most contentious issue of the afternoon. I am not dismissing the points made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). I accept that the controversy about the 45 minutes has dislocated the trust necessary right through the system. The way in which that has been delivered by one journalist on the basis of one supposed contact has made a difference to people's perceptions. We have been clear about that. We need to clear that up, and the two Committee reports will be crucial in doing so. I wish that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) had been here this afternoon, because at least he was honest enough in The Times this morning—and he used to be a Minister at the Ministry of Defence, instrumental, I would think, in these particular matters—that he believed absolutely what the head of MI6 said. I just wish that other people would believe the assurances. I give that assurance, on the behalf of Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of the security service for which I am answerable to the Prime Minister.
  Let us be clear about what has been said this afternoon. An allegation has been made that the Prime Minister, in the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary, duped the House. An allegation has been made about the House being duped or misled—inadvertently or otherwise was added as an afterthought—on the basis of what was said in the Prime Minister's statement on 3 February. Much reference has been made to it, but little has been read out. On 3 February, the Prime Minister began a paragraph by talking about the issues of further intelligence over the previous days, and concluded:
  "In the dossier that we published last year,"—
  the September document—
  "and again in the material"—
  not the details of what the security services provided—
  "that was put out over the weekend,"—
  the so-called "dodgy dossier"—
  "it is very clear that a vast amount of concealment and deception is going on."—[Official Report, 3 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 25.]
  It was. That was indeed going on in the September dossier—that is not being questioned—and was also going on in the material published or put out the weekend before the statement by the Prime Minister on 3 February. What is it in that paragraph in that statement of 3 February that so misled the House that it has taken the Opposition four weeks since spring bank holiday a month ago—that is when Andrew Gilligan made his allegation just before 7 o'clock in the morning on the "Today" programme—to decide that the Prime Minister had duped the House? They made a cause célèbre of it this afternoon because they wanted to stage a publicity stunt around our debate. I consider that a disgrace, and an affront to the House and to the intelligence of Members and to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has done diligent work, and continues to do so, in getting to the truth and presenting it to the House and the nation.
  Mr. Ancram: The Home Secretary has accused us of only raising that this afternoon, but I have raised it in every interview that I have given since I heard evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee where, for the first time, it was disclosed that that document was not an

  627
  intelligence document. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not noticed that is, I am afraid, his fault—it is not my fault for not having raised it.
  Mr. Blunkett: There was no doubt whatsoever about the status of that document, which has been debated time and time again. It was questioned on 18 March when the House debated the issue of whether we should commit ourselves with the United States to conflict in Iraq, and it has been questioned over and over again. The sources were absolutely clear, and people have commented on that. I commented on it myself two months ago on the "Today" programme, so I am taking no lectures from the shadow Foreign Secretary about what he did, or did not, pick up from the Select Committee's investigation. There was a stunt this afternoon, and a pretty poor one at that.
  Let me turn briefly to the critical issue raised by the ISC. Intelligence is critical to our safety, and for 30 years we have relied on it to deal with attacks from Ireland. It is important that the intelligence services are able to look ahead, and not merely at the immediacy of firewalls and ensuring that we are protected at the moment. We need to take a long-term view, and we both need and rely on the intelligence services. They have done a first-rate job, and so has the ISC, and I commend its report to the House.
  Mr. John Heppell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITION

  Community Pharmacies
  6 pm
  Jonathan Shaw: It is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 3,500 of my constituents, who have signed in Pydens pharmacies in Chatham, Larkfield and Snodland. I express my thanks to all the staff for their hard work, in particular Mr. Barrie Smith.
  The petition states:
  That local pharmacies should be preserved and their continued services to local communities safeguarded.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the Government reject proposals in the Office of Fair Trading report that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions and replace them with proposals which will retain pharmacies at the heart of the local community, playing a key role in primary care services.
  To lie upon the Table

  Scotland Office
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate a current political mystery. It may not be as important or as mysterious as the dodgy dossier or other aspects of the Iraqi issue, but it is none the less a mystery that has been with us for the past two weeks—that is, the role, function and purpose of the Scotland Office. I welcome to the debate the Scottish and Welsh Members who have stayed behind for an Adjournment debate on a Thursday afternoon.
  I quite understand why the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot be with us. He has many other responsibilities.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) says more important responsibilities. That is one of the points that we might want to develop during the debate. We welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Constitutional Affairs—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady adds to the confusion by saying the Scotland Office, but in the Government own publication released 10 days ago, the hon. Lady is designated an Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is no mention whatever of the Scotland Office in the document.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): To clarify the matter, the title of the Department is the Scotland Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs.
  Mr. Salmond: That certainly clears things up. This is the first time that I have heard the designation Scotland Office, Department for Constitutional Affairs. It did not appear in the official publication. The parliamentary Labour party helpfully released a list of Government members, where the Secretary of State for Scotland is listed as a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I do not understand how a Cabinet Minister can be a Minister in another Department.
  I start the debate by speaking about the chaos, confusion and complete disarray of the Government as a result of the reshuffle effect in Scotland and Wales. I shall challenge the concept of a Scotland Office, citing in my support the current Secretary of State for Scotland in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and then I shall suggest a way forward out of the morass that the Government have left us.
  In the reshuffle announcement of Thursday 12 June, there was no mention of the Scotland Office and the post of Secretary of State for Scotland continuing. The statement issued on 13 June by the Scottish Affairs Committee, which appeared in Hansard, stated that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) and Mr. David Crawley, Head of Department at the former Scotland Office would appear before the Committee.

  629
  We were told by the Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales that that designation was the responsibility of House officials, but I know now for a fact that the House officials took the advice of an official in the Scotland Office in order to make it.
  Hon. Members should think about that. We are talking about a Government reshuffle affecting who has responsibility for Government Departments and the Ministers and Secretaries of State who carry those burdens of responsibility. It is not a small matter when a reshuffle takes place without even people in those Departments knowing the designation and responsibilities that they are meant to have. That is not a small matter and I think that it is unprecedented in Government reshuffles. I have already stated that we have two conflicting definitions of what has happened in terms of the official list of Her Majesty's Government and the parliamentary Labour party publication. I have heard a new version from the Under-Secretary in the past few minutes. All that I am saying is that there is a great deal of chaos and confusion, which is not helped by the Scotland Office homepage on the internet, which still states:
  "This site is currently under redevelopment."
  My impression of the reshuffle—it is no more than my impression, but I suspect that something like this happened—is that it was indeed the Prime Minister's intention to abolish the Scotland Office and the post of Secretary of State for Scotland. At some point on the day after the reshuffle, it was discovered that there was a parliamentary difficulty in the abolition of the post of Secretary of State for Wales, as it is named in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Secretary of State sits, ex officio, on the National Assembly for Wales. As a result, given the confusion that had already surrounded the attempted abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, the Welsh Secretary was kept. Subsequently, we ended up with the retention of the Scottish Secretary.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation that he has outlined underlines the currently asymmetric nature of devolution in the United Kingdom? Wales and Scotland were treated in exactly the same way in the reshuffle, but the constitutional relationships and tax-varying and legislative powers in Wales and Scotland are very different. Surely, the only way in which the reshuffle could have worked, even by the Government's own standards, would have been if devolution had been advanced to Wales to at least the same level at which it is already available in Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government are now encountering some of the difficulties that were implicit in what they say was a devolution settlement, but what most of us would see as only an intermediate step in the process towards something all together more rational in Scotland and Wales.
  I was interested in the version of events given by the new Scotland Secretary when he eventually appeared before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 17
  630
  June. It may surprise some hon. Members to hear that I agree with the tenor of the way in which the new Secretary of State approaches his post. In speaking about the problems that can arise and have occurred in the past in the operation of the Scotland Office post devolution, he said:
  "If you have to come through me, or Anne for that matter, then it just puts an extra barrier in the way and it is not necessary."
  He also said:
  "basically what I would like to move to is a situation basically where the two administrations work very closely together in partnership … I would like to get to a situation where, frankly, the ministers in the Scottish Executive and the ministers in the United Kingdom government talk to each other as colleagues … and they get on with it without us holding hands."
  In those statements, I think that the new Secretary of State for Scotland was pointing out in an acute way what had not been happening through his predecessor in the previous Scotland Office. A catalogue of blunders or mistakes occurred where the Scotland Office, instead of operating as a helping hand to the Scottish Executive, was an impediment to the contact that should have been taking place between Scottish Executive Ministers and Ministers of the Crown in this place. If we follow the logic of the Secretary of State's argument, we must accept that the best way to arrive at a sensible relationship is to cut out the unnecessary middle man—previously the middle woman—all together and put the responsibility where it should lie.
  My second point concerns a problem with the whole concept of the Scotland Office, whether it is a full-time or part-time office and whether it is in a Department or a Department on its own: it sits very uneasily in relation to what responsibilities it has and where they should lie in politics. The Scottish National party has published a dossier—Alastair Campbell has had nothing to do with the document, which is a genuine dossier of factual information—that shows the extent of the Scotland Office's failure and its inability to defend Scotland's interests on issues such as tourism, inward investment, trade promotion and hepatitis C compensation, and in many other ways.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: All the issues in the hon. Gentleman's list appear to be devolved. I do not understand their relevance to this Parliament.
  Mr. Salmond: Then the hon. Gentleman has not been following Scottish affairs with his usual intimate knowledge. Take hepatitis C, for example. He should know that the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament voted for compensation for hepatitis C sufferers, but that compensation is being blocked by the Westminster Department.
  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made the point, however, because I am about to go on to give one detailed example from the list of how things are not working at present. What is happening, in my view, is that many UK Departments that still have residual responsibilities affecting Scotland are focusing on English responsibilities and treating themselves as English Departments. In December 2002, an interesting article by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert was published in the Fraser of Allander Institute paper. They examined the Department of Trade and Industry in enormous detail, looking particularly at the development of the

  631
  knowledge economy, including the Innovation sub-programme, which is a £211 million reserved programme, and expenditure on research councils, which represents a £1.8 billion programme. They show that in relation to such UK responsibilities the DTI focuses on English expenditure, and conclude that the Link and Faraday programmes are not operating fully to the benefit of Scottish firms.
  I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point, because I can give similar examples for each of the subject areas that I raised. UK Departments with residual Scottish responsibilities are not operating as UK Departments, and the Scotland Office in its previous manifestation did absolutely nothing to counterbalance how Scotland is losing out in those circumstances. If it could not work as a full-time Department with a full-time Secretary of State, how on earth is it expected to do that job as a part-time Department with a part-time Secretary of State? It is truly amazing. Having attended every Scotland questions since the last election, I am still unable to understand how the Department can have increased its staff from 73 in 1999 to a projected 130 full-time equivalents this year and nearly doubled its budget to accompany that increase in staff. What on earth have all those people been doing during that time? I agree with the new Secretary of State for Scotland that it is far better to charge Ministers in the Scottish Executive with the responsibility of representing Scottish interests by building the relationship with their UK counterparts and arguing their case directly, without having to go through—to use his word—the obstruction of a Scotland Office operating on a full-time or a part-time basis.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how Scotland's interests can be better served by taking away Scotland's voice in the Cabinet, given that his preferred option of an independent Scotland is further away than ever because the majority of the Scottish electorate do not want independence? In view of the reality of the situation, how can he justify scrapping Scotland's voice in the Cabinet?
  Mr. Salmond: That is a bold statement from a member of a party that has just had its worst result in Scotland since 1931, at 34 per cent. of the vote. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should not dwell too much on recent election results in Scotland.
  I am trying to detail, subject by subject, how the Scotland Office has failed to represent Scotland's interests. In each of the areas that I listed, which are UK responsibilities with residual Scottish responsibilities, the Scotland Office has failed to deliver. If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) or the Minister can detail one triumph of the Scotland Office in representing Scottish interests in the Cabinet over the years, I will be amazed. I represent a fishing constituency, and I should have thought that the recent fishing crisis in Scotland might be one matter on which a Cabinet Minister would have made a decisive intervention to represent Scottish interests, but the Minister concerned did absolutely zilch for the fishing communities of Scotland. The Scotland Office's failure to deliver shows either that there is something deeply
  632
  wrong with the people who occupy those positions or there is something conceptually wrong with a Scotland Office that, in the Secretary of State's words, operates as a barrier to representing Scotland's interests.
  Scotland currently gets the worst of all worlds. Scotland and Wales appear to have privileged access, but in reality, have second-class service and status.The Observer is normally a balanced newspaper, and Andrew Rawnsley—journalist of the year—is usually an erudite commentator. However, 10 days ago, he wrote a piece that I can describe only as near racist. It was full of comments such as "whingeing in the hillsides from Scotland and Wales". He also believed that members of my party were arguing for retaining the Scotland Office; he got that bit wrong. However, the article shows the way in which even the most reasoned commentators can be led into an outpouring of bile because they believe that Scotland and Wales have privileged status and access. The reality, which the facts support, is that we suffer from second-class status and second-class government. I shall allow substantial time for the Under-Secretary to reply. There is much to explain about what is happening.
  Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman is approaching the close of his remarks. If my memory serves me correctly, he said at the beginning that he would provide some answers. Yet we are 15 minutes into his speech and I am waiting to hear some answers and about what his party would do.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman should pay closer attention. I said that I agreed with the argument that the Secretary of State for Scotland expressed in the Scottish Affairs Committee. He argued that, rather than have the Scotland Office as an obstacle to contact between Scottish Ministers and their United Kingdom equivalents, it should get out of the way. He wants to do that on a part-time basis, whereas I believe that if the logic applies to some issues, it applies to them all. Responsibility should be given to Scottish Ministers; that is where it should lie.
  The Scotland Office has been a failure as a full-time Office. I believe that it will also fail as a part-time Office. The clear and obvious solution to the devolution conundrum is to give the Scottish Parliament the financial power and authority to raise and spend revenue. We would then not have to hold such opaque debates about who is responsible for what.
  When the Under-Secretary replies, I am sure that she will answer some simple questions about what happens in the Scotland Office, which is part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. If there is a policy disagreement between Lord Falconer and the new Secretary of State for Scotland, from whom do the civil servants take their guidance? Why did not Lord Falconer consult the Scottish legal Minister on the initiative on the constitutional court, which could impinge on the integrity of Scots law? Why is there no contact between Scottish Ministers and their counterparts in the UK? Why cannot Scotland have the normal status that is afforded to most nations and the self-respect and efficient government that comes from raising and spending one's own revenue?
  6.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The answer to the last question is that the Scottish people do not want that. First, I offer my formal congratulations to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on securing the debate. He does not often venture into the Adjournment zone—he has secured three Adjournment debates in the Parliament. It is therefore gratifying that he has been successful this evening. I believe that that is the last time in my remarks that I shall be nice to him.
  I was somewhat disappointed that, in spite of the fact that I had a preview of the hon. Gentleman's comments, he addressed the detail of very little. He highlighted some of the examples that he was allegedly going to raise and I shall deal with them shortly. However, we all know where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. Every comment made by him, his party and his colleagues from Wales is predicated on the simple fact that they do not accept the devolution settlement. His clear agenda is to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. He does not want a smart, successful Scotland within the UK; he wants Scotland to lose its seat at the top table, to lose its seat in Cabinet and to lose its seat at the heart of Government in the United Kingdom.
  Let us carry out a reality check. Let us see exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants. I admit he is an honourable man. He says that he wants
  "all of the powers held by London over Scotland … transferred to our democratic Scots Parliament in Edinburgh".
  That is the bottom line and the top line.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him that it was my party, along with the Liberal Democrats and other political parties and movements in Scotland, that delivered a Scottish Parliament to the people of Scotland, with their endorsement. Even when it came to what the hon. Gentleman describes as an incremental step, the Scottish National party could not take part in coalition-building, which continued for so many years. I note the presence of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on the Opposition Front Bench. The only other group in Scotland that did not see the value of devolution at that time was, of course, the Conservative party.
  According to various analyses, there is very little support for independence in Scotland. From 1997 onwards, there has been increasing support for the option that is closest to the current devolution settlement—a Parliament in the United Kingdom with tax-raising powers.
  It would be foolish of me to say that the Government need not continue to play their part in explaining what devolution means to the people of Scotland—and, dare I say, to some of our colleagues south of the border. If that means speaking to journalists such as Andrew Rawnsley, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in doing so. Such discussion is at the core of the Scotland Office's activity. I think that the Labour party is in tune with the Scottish people when it comes to the benefits of a devolved Scotland, and it is on that basis that we have developed a Scotland Office that works within the politics of devolution.
  634
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained a few weeks ago, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, now that devolution has bedded down successfully the time has come to encourage even more direct communication between Whitehall and the Scottish Executive. That is not a new development; it is a continuation of a process that has been going on since July 1999. It is a credit to all concerned that the transition between a centralised United Kingdom and a decentralised system in the UK has occurred so smoothly.
  Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. McGuire: Not at this point. I am about to reveal the rest of what the Secretary of State said to the Select Committee. This is the bit that the hon. Gentleman did not reveal to the House.
  My right hon. Friend said
  "they speak to each other. If you have to come through me, or Anne for that matter, then it just puts an extra barrier in the way and it is not necessary."
  That was building on the good relationship that we had established. My right hon. Friend continued
  "What is necessary is to make sure that, were that relationship not to be working or, as can sometimes happen, and I see this across Whitehall never mind Scotland and the United Kingdom where you get two departments where officials for one reason or another are not working with each other, it sometimes needs … intervention to make it happen. That is why it is important to get the Scotland Office there."
  That is what the Secretary of State said—not the truncated version given by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Salmond: Another dodgy dossier.
  Mrs. McGuire: Probably the only dodgy dossier that is floating around Whitehall is the one that was not revealed by the hon. Gentleman this evening, but was previewed in his press statement on the debate.[Interruption.] Flattery will get you nowhere. I am not taking an intervention at this point.
  The hon. Gentleman quickly flicked over some of the issues that he told the press he intended to raise this evening, one of which was tourism.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the Under-Secretary may be confused about what Department she is in, but in any Department, when a Minister is replying to an Adjournment debate, it is the normal courtesy to give way to the hon. Member who sought that debate. I think that it is unprecedented for that not to happen.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That really is a matter for the individual Minister concerned.
  Mrs. McGuire: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I did say "at this point", and we still have five minutes to go.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has said, tourism is a devolved matter. One of the charges that I expect to see when the dossier is eventually published—we were promised it before this evening—is that Scottish interests were not represented

  635
  at the tourism summit. I do not see how that can be an issue for the Scotland Office. If tourism is devolved, responsibility for representing Scotland at tourism summits must fall to the devolved Administration, and Alasdair Morrison, the then Deputy Minister for the Highlands and Islands and Gaelic, attended the inaugural summit in 2000, and both Elaine Murray MSP and Mike Watson MSP were involved in the tourism summit in 2002, representing Scotland's interests.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to trade and the Department of Trade and Industry. Certain aspects of trade are also devolved.
  I will now, generously, give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Salmond: The Under-Secretary has just admitted that there was no one representing Scotland at the 2001 tourism summit, which was the point I was making.
  The Government are meant to have concordats for exchanging information. "Prior notification" is meant to be given to the Scottish Executive of changes in UK policy that affect them. Why, then, was there no prior notification of the changes in the constitutional court, and the substantial implications that they will have for Scots law?
  Mrs. McGuire: Both the Lord Advocate and the Lord Chancellor have said that these issues are matters for consultation. The Scottish Executive and the First Minister yesterday robustly rebutted some of the ludicrous charges floating around about the Prime Minister having to engage with the First Minister every time there happened to be a change in his Cabinet. Indeed, the First Minister firmly stated that if the charge was the other way round—that the First Minister had to speak to the Prime Minister every time he wanted to make a change in his ministerial teams—people such as the hon. Gentleman would be up in arms, saying that Westminster was attempting to make Scotland toe a line that it did not want.
  The hon. Gentleman protests too much. There is still a need to have a Scottish Secretary in the Cabinet, and most hon. Members—certainly those from parties with
  636
  Scottish interests—would agree. That is certainly the case with the Conservative party, and I understand that even Liberal Democrat spokespersons have accepted that the way in which we have adjusted the work load of the Scotland Office is the correct way forward in the light of the devolutionary settlement. The only ones ploughing this very narrow furrow are SNP Members—although tonight they clearly have the assistance of their Welsh colleagues.
  Time is winding on, and I just want to say a couple of things by way of conclusion. Earlier this week, all manner of statements were made about the Scotland Office not delivering. According to certain press reports—including in the local press of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—the Scotland Office is a dead parrot, but there are no dead parrots in our Department. All that we get from the Scottish nationalists is spam, spam and more spam; that is the sort of Monty Pythonesque world they want us to live in. For most people in Scotland, the devolution settlement has delivered. It has delivered for the thousands of people in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency who are getting the winter fuel allowance and the working families tax credit, and it has delivered for those now in work who did not have jobs in 1997.
  Let me set the record straight once and for all: the Scotland Office continues to function as part of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. Its essential work continues in advocating Scotland's interests in the Cabinet, as does the role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Quiet, careful work is going on behind the scenes that does not often grab the headlines. I know that the hon. Gentleman likes to judge events in terms of how many headlines he can get, but I suspect that the real reason for this debate is not that the Scotland Office is as dead as a dead parrot, but that the hon. Gentleman is a sick as a parrot because devolution is working.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Badgers and Bovine TB
[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Session 2002–03 HC 432 and the Government's response thereto, Eighth Special Report Session 2002–03 HC 831.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
2.30 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am pleased in this debate to be able to deliver the report of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Sub-Committee. I should like to start by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new portfolio. As I am sure he has already realised, his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)—now the Minister for the Environment—never had a dull moment. If it was not fishing, it was bovine TB. That, of course, pre-supposes that we do not have another case of foot and mouth. The Minister's portfolio is very broad, and I am sure that it is full of problems. Nevertheless, we welcome his appointment. His predecessor eventually managed to get out, even if only to the same Ministry. We will have to see what that does to his further promotion prospects.
I want to thank all those who helped to compile the report, including members of the Sub-Committee itself. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) has now also acquired an important position. This is probably not the best day on which to hold this debate, as it clashes with the sitting of the Hunting Bill Committee, of which several colleagues are members. It is fair to say that a few more of the usual suspects might have taken part if we had chosen a different day.
I also want to thank those who participated in the process—the National Farmers Union, the National Federation of Badger Groups, and Dr. Chris Cheeseman from the Woodchester park research station—and those who gave evidence on behalf of those taking action, including the independent scientific group on cattle TB, and my hon. Friend the Minister.
Last but not least, I thank our Clerk, Gavin Devine, and in particular Richard Kelly, who will be shortly leaving us. Richard Kelly has always served us to the best of his ability, both in his previous incarnation as an adviser to the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Committee, and more recently in his dealings with the agriculture and food aspects of the work done by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We will miss him. We were somewhat taken aback by the bizarre rules of this place, which mean that he cannot reapply for his job, but we wish him well wherever he chooses to go.
The Committee published its report on 9 April, and we received the Government's response on 24 June. This is the third time that bovine TB has been investigated,
148WH
whether by the previous MAFF Committee or the current Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which shows the seriousness with which we treat the issue. Members come to the debate with their own perspective and experiences gained from their constituencies, but we make no apology for trying to analyse what is going on and to try better to understand what we can do about this dreadful disease.
It is important to place on record that all those affected by the breakdown of bovine TB have our utmost sympathy. Although the disease pales into insignificance compared with foot and mouth, it is just as devastating in its own way. It affects particular parts of the country, including my own, which is where my interest comes from. We must do everything in our power to try to bring an early end to the suffering.
Several hon. Members have pushed for bovine TB to be the topic of an inquiry because there is a continuing and growing problem, although the degree of incidence is controversial. The figures appear to show quite a steep increase, but there is some argument about them. Anyone who follows the progress of the regular parliamentary questions on this issue will know that that has yet to be resolved. However, it is fair to say that, although we did not want to get bogged down in statistics, we thought that the overall picture was getting somewhat worse.
Sir Michael Spicer: Is not the reason that the data are controversial the fact that they do not exist—that the Government will not publish the data? As the hon. Gentleman says, many parliamentary questions, including my own, have been designed to get them to publish the data, but they will not. That seems to be the position and the reason for the controversy.
Mr. Drew: I am not sure whether that is true. I look at the relevant website regularly, and there are figures on it, but I agree that there is a question about whether the figures are up to date. It is not only collecting the data, but the collection methods and what is published that is important. There is without doubt controversy over that.
I emphasise that this issue gives rise to a great deal of emotion. People have strong opinions on what causes bovine TB and what may be a transmission method. One thing that came across clearly in the written evidence, and even more starkly at the oral inquiry, was that there were two sides to the argument. The National Farmers Union preceded the National Federation of Badger Groups, and we could see a clear difference of opinion. We must all try to bridge the gap, because we want to take a degree of consensus forward, even though people passionately believe that their own position is the right one.
The science behind this issue has not yet found the answers. It is no good pretending that we can wave a magic wand and find an early and easy solution to the problem. The science is not in place, and we must do what we can to help to put it in place. As I have said, many of us come to the debate with our own perspective. We see the hardship in our local areas, and there are things that we need to do at both local and national level.

149WH
We approached the report against the background of foot and mouth disease. We all know what happened with that. As some of us warned, the Government were bound to take their eye off the ball, to some extent, so far as bovine TB was concerned. Testing ended, and people could not get access to the trials, so we were at best treading water. It is worth re-examining where we were coming from. I shall not read out in detail the terms of reference for the inquiry, but we approached it against the background of the foot and mouth problems.
We considered in particular the Government's autumn package of measures, which in the main we welcomed. The Minister will want to make a few remarks about that. We wanted to see what progress was being made on developing a vaccine and to know what was happening with the Krebs-Bourne trial. We also wanted to pick up on some of the recommendations that we made in our previous guise as the Agriculture Committee. We were uncertain as to where the Government were with those recommendations and whether they had parked them somewhat. All those matters needed to be examined.
The Government's control strategy consists of five points: protecting public health; developing a vaccine; researching into how TB is transmitted; detecting and preventing the cattle-to-cattle spread of the disease; and continuing with the badger culling trial. Obviously, the last is the most controversial aspect of the strategy, but I think that all members of the Committee saw the sense in carrying it through. In the main—this includes people from the NFU, who might have a slightly different perspective from that of the Committee—people wanted that to be completed.
Let us consider the issues that arise from the report and the ongoing work that is being undertaken by the independent scientific group. We were quite impressed by that group. There were some areas of tension between it and DEFRA, but again that was a good reason for the inquiry. Among other things, we highlighted the fact that, when the autumn package came out, the independent scientific group felt that it had not been properly consulted. Given the sensitivity of the matter, issues such as those must be properly identified and dealt with.
We examined the autumn package and welcomed the tightening up of movement restrictions. We also saw the value of the new gamma interferon test, which we hope will be a replacement for the blood test. I have always argued that the blood test is an inaccurate way of measuring the incidence and potential incidence of TB in a herd.
The question of husbandry was highlighted on both previous occasions on which this issue was examined, but I make no apology for revisiting it. We believe that husbandry and biosecurity are an important part of any strategy. It was partly on the insistence of the then MAFF Select Committee and its report that a husbandry panel was set up to examine some of the practical ways in which farmers could assist in preventing the disease. We accept that that will not be the entire solution, but it is an important aspect. We thought that there was a role for continuing education in that area.
150WH
We were given a figure of £36,000 per breakdown. I know that there is some controversy over that figure, and that the Government do not necessarily accept it. However, regardless of animal health and welfare issues and the impact on farmers, a cost of £36,000 per breakdown, or more when the breakdown is larger, is a significant economic factor.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: In the Government response to the Select Committee report, they seem to be at pains to point out that £36,000 was an industry estimate. When the Minister responds to the debate, will he tell us the Government's estimate of the real cost of a breakdown to a farmer?
Mr. Drew: That is a perfectly fair intervention; if there is another figure to be put on the table, we should know it and be able to discuss it.
There is an ongoing discussion about issues related to consequential loss and whether it is possible for farmers to obtain insurance. We did not spend much time on those issues, because things had not moved on very far from the previous position. However, other hon. Members may wish to pick up on those points.
We made quite a strong argument for the fact that the industry as a whole needed to be tougher in its approach to husbandry and biosecurity, rather than expecting the Government to deal with the problem and pick up the bill. We then discussed testing. As I have said, we were keen for the experiment with the new tests to be introduced as soon as possible. However, we also recognised the pressure on the testers. I shall not say much about that, because we are also examining the future of the state veterinary service and the local veterinary inspectors, and will be producing a report on that soon. However, I will say that we had some reservations about the pressure on vets to deal with the high incidence of breakdown in particular parts of the UK; they will need support and help to do that. We were also keen to explore the idea of lay testers, given that it is widely acknowledged that testing needs to take place earlier than is currently the case. In cases of massive breakdown in a herd, earlier testing could mean that action could be taken to stop the spread of infection within the herd.
The scientific study attracted the headlines—the triplet trials in particular. We are trying to test the spread of bovine TB from a reservoir—principally the badger—in three ways, using proactive, reactive and leave-alone zones. In his evidence, Professor Bourne from the independent scientific group restated the importance of the trials as the only way to determine whether badgers were an important feature in the spread of bovine TB. As he said, they will also provide quantitative data for a cost-benefit analysis of the different strategies, including that of no culling, so we set great store by that inquiry. Despite the controversy and delay, it is the main show in town, and we must see it through as soon as possible. I know that the deadline is 2006, but we still hope that there will be some interim results and meaningful dialogue before we reach the conclusion.
Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has just said that he wants meaningful dialogue before the conclusion is reached. If so, we must have meaningful data on which to base that dialogue. I asked the then Minister on 1 May what the incidence of TB in badgers was in England and Wales. The answer was:
"The ISG has asserted and reinforced the need for total confidentiality of these data until such time as they can be safely released with a considered analysis."—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 720W.]
Does that not go against the hon. Gentleman's recommendation on behalf of the Committee that there should be meaningful dialogue before the conclusions are reached?
Mr. Drew: It is fair to say that we are all walking a tightrope. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might go on to talk about the experience in Ireland, where they are also carrying out a major scientific examination. I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), because he clearly wants to bring that up later. I might have to respond to that, so I will not say too much at this point.
Given the sensitivity of the information, if we get half-cocked thoughts coming from people within the testing and trailing activities, it could be counter-productive. However, I would argue, as I have done before, that it would be useful to have meaningful interim results that were not misinterpreted but which would show where we might need to spend more resources. As I will say later, the worst-case scenario would be if, at the end of the trials, we did not get a clear outcome or if people immediately denounced it as fixed or wrong and we took the issue no further forward. We must use the trials as the vehicle to sort out the disease, one way or the other.
Most of the National Farmers Union's time was spent discussing the issue of the spread outwards. I am sure that other hon. Members will have received correspondence about that, both before and after the inquiry, and it is clearly one of the more worrying aspects of bovine TB. We supported the Government in holding the line and not going for culling experiments outside the triplet areas, but, as we have said on several occasions, there needs to be a plan B. We worry about what will happen if the situation at the end of the process is not as clear as we would want it. We support the triplets and the trialling. We see the sense in using science and not conducting other experiments that are not so well thought through—I will say a little more about that later—but we still call for a plan B.
On epidemiology, we are clear that the data collection methods are not good enough. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) made a point about that, and if he reads the report—which I am sure that he has done—he will see that we call for a simplification of the TB99 form. We also considered the road traffic accident surveys, which have been greatly delayed and annoyed us for many reasons. They are all within the responsibility of DEFRA, and they could have provided some definitive evidence of where the disease had spread. That is by far the best way of working, so we were a tad disappointed by the slowness in getting it geared up.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman mentioned road traffic surveys. Is it not true that some of those whom we use to call MAFF officers have been keeping their own unofficial log? I have talked to MAFF officials from Worcester, and there is apocryphal evidence that many of the badgers that have been caught or killed on the roads were suffering from TB. The disease had slowed the animals down and made an accident more likely. Can we check whether that sort of resource is already available, without waiting for the formal trials to start?
Mr. Drew: I agree. As I said, we were disappointed with the slowness of getting the study fully up and running. To be fair, the Health and Safety Executive somehow got involved in considering the efficacy of operatives picking up dead badgers, in case it affected the human spread of bovine TB. We thought that that was a little far-fetched, but it caused a delay. However, in its own way, it was an important part of the studies that have been undertaken.
I do not want to say more about testing and vaccination, but we want to see it brought forward as soon as possible. We spent some time considering vaccination. Those who think that it will be a panacea, as Chris Cheeseman was quoted as saying in the report, will be somewhat disappointed. Nevertheless, if a vaccine were available, it would help.
In other studies, we asked other countries that have bovine TB what they were doing. When we went to New Zealand a couple of years ago, we asked what they were doing about vaccines and whether they had found an answer to the possum link with bovine TB, but we were not terribly impressed. The BCG vaccine that has been experimented with in New Zealand and Ireland has some merit, but the results are not conclusive. The problem with vaccination is whether it will lead to the same arguments that we had with foot and mouth—about which animals should be vaccinated, and whether vaccination would lead to people trying to pretend that they had bovine TB-free status. All those things contribute to making vaccination more problematic; it is not a matter of simply believing that science needs to come up with a vaccine.
Other features that I shall touch on deal largely with other theories. I have always been one of those—in that respect, I was alone on the Committee—who say that there is some merit in looking at the idea of trace elements.
Mr. Wiggin indicated dissent.
Mr. Drew: I was alone on the Committee, but the hon. Gentleman seems to support my position. I have always had the sneaking suspicion that trace elements—perhaps from the earth, and so on—could have an impact. However, the hon. Gentleman may have more influence over the Government than I do, because they are not at all interested in my suggestion that they should pursue that line. However, were the Minister to tell me that real resources would be allocated to the problem, I would be overjoyed.
Mr. Wiggin: The suggestion is that the absence of selenium in the cattle diet can cause the immune system in cows to become so weak that no antibodies are produced, and it is the antibodies that are needed to create a positive tuberculin test. The cattle that carry the disease will not show as positive reactors because of the mineral deficiency. That may or may not be true, but that is the science to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it would be helpful if the Government would research the matter properly.
Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman may have shaken his head a moment ago, but he has put the matter much more succinctly than I could. I have the support at least of the Opposition. We need not only to consider cattle but to examine the potential reservoirs of bovine TB, including badgers. I shall pursue that as a hobby horse.
I shall finish with the Committee's conclusions and the Government's response. We believe that the TB forum is the only vehicle by which the two sides can be brought together to listen to the evidence from the independent scientific group. We see merit in revisiting the structure and operation of the forum, but it is literally the only way of bringing the sides together. Even though meetings have not been that consensual, we see the sense in keeping it in operation. As for the future, the main thing is to keep going, not to veer off course, to look for a plan B and to learn what other policies might need to be put in place.
I turn to the Government's response. To be fair, they are considering carefully their strategy—the Minister might say something about that today. Later in the year, they will bring out their response, which will deal with the ongoing work on the matters that we highlighted. The Government said that there was a need for agreement on husbandry between the industry, DEFRA and the independent scientific group. We are pleased that that is now receiving more attention than was previously the case, and hope that it will link in to the biosecurity plan. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire has made the point about the need for proper data to be put into the public domain, even if that is done through parliamentary questions.
On testing, we were pleased that the Government responded by recognising that there was a problem and saying that they wanted to explore and progress the use of lay testers. We hope that any consultation on that will come sooner rather than later. We were surprised at their terse response to recommendation 9, which deals with the core issue of the trial, saying that we want to keep going with the triplets but do not want to extend culling outside the areas concerned. The Government said that they had noted our recommendation, but we were hoping for a more definitive indication from them as to the direction in which they might go. The Minister still has plenty of opportunity to comment; perhaps he totally agrees with the Select Committee. We were pleased about the comments on both TB99 and the RTA survey, even though there seemed to be a question mark over resources. Resources need to be put into those areas, because of the data issues that have been identified in this debate.
We welcome the growing consensus on vaccination, despite the problems. The Minister might wish to allude to the chief veterinary officer's vaccine steering group, which could be an interesting topic for discussion, and
154WH
should be debated in the public domain. We would ask DEFRA and the ISG to be open-minded about alternative scenarios in a number of the areas that I have mentioned, including trace elements, and for plan B to be debated, as we recognise that the Krebs-Bourne trial does not yield all the things that we want it to.
Given that nobody has put on record what plan B should be, here is my suggestion, having taken evidence from a number of sources. We should be looking at improved diagnostics; better cattle testing regimes; an agreement to use both cattle and badger vaccines when and if they become available; better biosecurity and farm husbandry; and, possibly, a link to a new compensatory or incentive payment system, to try to get people to work in a slightly different way. Those are my ideas. Some argue that one could go further and say that, with the incidence of bovine TB being what it is, one cannot deny the regularity with which cattle breakdowns take place in the parts of the country where there are hot spots. I do not concur with that; we must find a solution, rather than surrendering to the disease.
In conclusion, we were somewhat overtaken in our handling of the matter by rumours and myths about other solutions—in particular, in relation to the Irish experiment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hereford will want to say something about that. It is said that a culling policy there has cracked bovine TB. We looked superficially at that, and I have subsequently considered it further in relation to our inquiry. It is claimed that bovine TB in cattle could be reduced by as much as 90 per cent, if badgers were culled more proactively.
The problem with the research is that it has not been published; we are working on rumours because the group has not produced a full paper. We do not know what the control strategy was. The research seems to be similar to the Thornbury experiment that happened not a million miles from my constituency in the 1970s. Many badgers were removed, and the incidence of bovine TB fell, but we did not know why it went down. When the badgers came back, the incidence of bovine TB rose again. Does that prove that badgers could be a reservoir of bovine TB? We already know that. We must be careful; this is an emotional subject and we must get the science right. If people have more evidence, the debate is a good opportunity to explain it.
Mr. Keetch: On the Irish experiment, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that no material has yet been published. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will liaise closely with the Irish Government to see if there is anything that we can learn from the Irish project. The systems of agriculture in the UK and Ireland are similar, and there are things that we could learn. The sooner we can eradicate the problem from our stock, the better. If we can learn from the Irish, we should do so.
Mr. Drew: I quite agree, but there are differences. The research evidence must be made public and there must be international action, particularly on research. It would be daft to pretend that this island has got all the answers. To my knowledge, no country has yet pretended to have beaten bovine TB. If anyone can do that, we will be eternally grateful. However, I recognise that research—let alone solutions—may not always

155WH
travel well. On a positive note, we all signed up to the report. An enormous amount of effort is going into the long-overdue work to find a solution. It is important to support it, even if there is controversy over the actions to which the eventual results may lead.
3.2 pm
Bob Spink: I am not a Member of the Committee and I am certainly not an expert on this complex area, so I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has tackled the debate in a balanced way, and I congratulate him on that.
The focus of the debate is rightly on cattle, but badgers can come into contact with human beings. The National Federation of Badger Groups wrote to me and said that the chance of a member of the public catching bovine TB is about one in 2 million, which is very low indeed. Nevertheless, badgers can come into contact with human beings and can encroach on people in a residential area. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that DEFRA should do more to support and to finance a proper solution to that problem. I shall leave that point before I get out of order. I accept that there is no TB health risk to human beings in those situations, but there are many other risks to human beings and to badgers.
Clearly, the scientific evidence remains unproven. I share concerns that the evidence, particularly on the incidence of TB in badgers to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) referred, has not yet been divulged. That evidence is needed and should be put into the public domain as soon as possible. We need DEFRA to give clear reasons why it rejected the independent scientific group's advice on a robust trial of the gamma interferon tests. There also needs to be more financial support for farmers to help them to implement the necessary biosecurity measures, and more effective pre- and post-movement cattle testing.
I congratulate the Committee on its work on a subject that is important not only to people living in rural areas, but to those in every area of the country who love badgers. Badgers are one of the most wonderful British wild animals, and they deserve our care and protection, but farmers also need to make a living. I welcome the excellent report and its recommendations, which the NFBG also largely welcomed.
3.5 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I, too, welcome the new Minister to his post and to many happy debates such as this.
Like the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), I was not a member of the Committee but I read the report and the Government's response to it with interest. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on his clear presentation of the report. It was a helpful illustration of the Committee's work, for which I thank him.
In my preparation for the debate, I discovered that the least that can be said about TB in cattle is that there has been an incidence of it in this country for most of the 20th century, although we managed virtually to eradicate it completely in the 1960s, only for it to re-
156WH
emerge in the 1970s and to become what seems to some people to be an avalanche. The National Farmers Union believes the situation to be very serious. Some hon. Members present may have received its latest briefing in preparation for the debate, in which it describes the situation as the single most serious animal health issue facing the industry.
Clearly, some people believe that the situation is very serious. There is concern in Staffordshire, where hot spots for bovine TB are developing. The disease seems to be creeping through the county, mostly from the east across the border with Derbyshire, although there is a little similar activity from the Cheshire border to the north-west of the county.
My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for Burton (Mrs. Dean) have been very active in drawing the Government's attention to the spread of bovine TB in Staffordshire. They are not present for this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands is a Whip, so would not be expected to speak in the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton has a royal visit to her constituency today. Good grief, she chose the royal visit rather than this debate. I cannot understand that. I praise the hard work of my two hon. Friends. Thanks to their efforts in the first few years after Labour was elected in 1997, and given the nature of the hot spots in their constituencies, the Government relented and allowed Staffordshire to be included in some of the Krebs trials. Unfortunately, while trials continue, the situation in Staffordshire appears to be getting worse. The incidence of the disease is spreading towards my constituency of Stafford, the county town and the area around it, which is virtually in the centre of the county. It is significant that we have this growth in the disease from the north-west and from the east, and that it is getting closer to Stafford all the time. Farmers in my constituency have naturally expressed their concern to me that Stafford will be next if something is not done to stop this spread.
I have been forming a picture from DEFRA records of the incidence of bovine TB. In a written answer to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), now the Minister for the Environment, listed the number of new herd TB incidents for the calendar year 2002. That list is based on animal health offices, rather than strict counties. At the top came many of the areas that hon. Members would expect: Devon had 508 incidents, Cornwall had 426, Hereford and Worcester had 295, Gloucester had 273 and Dorset had 105. Staffordshire was coming up on the rails during that time. The Stafford office was the fifth most-affected area, with a total of 263 incidents, of which 162 were judged to be new incidents.
I shall give the figures for the next three months—the quarter to March 2003. Stafford division's number of TB breakdowns increased by 47 per cent, compared with the same quarter in 2002, and more than half were confirmed as new cases, so the statistics bear out farmers' fears that the situation is getting worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud did not mention this issue and I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to deal with it, but farmers have raised with me an interesting question about what statistics are available for the growth in the badger

157WH
population. Anecdotally, they say that there was a huge increase in the number of badgers at that time, which leads them to conclude, or perhaps to conclude more firmly, that there is a link in terms of transmission from badgers to cattle. It would be interesting to know the statistics for the badger population.
Mr. Keetch: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the map of the United Kingdom showing that population? It clearly shows a tide spreading up from the south-west, through Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Wales, and heading towards his area. Given the movement of cattle around the country, that suggests that the effect has been on the ground. Does that not give some credence, at least from a layman's point of view, to the idea that the rise in the badger population may in some way be linked? The map, and the spread that one can clearly see, point to that.
Mr. Kidney: I have seen that map and I know that argument, because my local farmers have put it to me. However, I have also heard the countervailing argument from the National Federation of Badger Groups, which says that the map shows the movement of cattle round the country, not the movement of badgers round the country. That is part of the argument to which my hon. Friend referred earlier.
The Krebs report was published at the end of 1997. The Government accepted the Krebs recommendation of no culling of badgers outside the areas subject to the trials. I remind hon. Members that at that time Professor Krebs found substantial evidence for an association between TB infection in badgers and cattle, but no direct evidence that badgers transmit TB to cattle. The trials were to be the response to the lack of any prior experimental study to enable firm conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of badger culling.
I read the Government's response to the Krebs report. Oddly enough, I could not find a date anywhere on the document, so I returned to Hansard to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands had again asked a question on the subject. That just shows how active she has been. Lord Rooker, who was then a Member of this House and the Minister responsible, answered it on 16 December 1997. He announced the publication of the Government's response. That is how I found the date.
Paragraph 17 of the response states:
"The Government has for some time been issuing advice to farmers on keeping badgers and cattle apart."
The Government say that it will be important for the industry to take the lead, but they will make available advice from MAFF and the independent expert group, and they call on farmers to take some responsibility. The response says that the Government
"agrees with Professor Krebs that this advice has not always been heeded, and that farmers should be encouraged to take ownership of this issue."
I was interested to read in the Committee's report about the attitude of farmers since 1997. There was a warning in 1997 about their share in this matter. Recommendation 3 states:
158WH
"We are therefore surprised that farmers have not more urgently sought Government help in testing better husbandry methods, in line with the Krebs Report. We urge the farming industry to come forward with proposals for improved husbandry methods."
Clearly, I want to help farmers, but they must also help themselves if they want us to take them seriously.
Mr. Wiggin: Does the hon. Gentleman see that if farmers are held responsible for the biosecurity of their herds and believe that the disease is the exclusive responsibility of the badger, their response will be to slaughter the badgers? There is a real danger that by insisting that farmers are responsible for biosecurity, they will take matters into their own hands.
Mr. Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman not see the opposite? As long as farmers convince themselves that the disease is the fault of badgers, they will not take husbandry more seriously. I am not saying that biosecurity is the responsibility only of farmers, and I will move on to the Government's responsibility for aiding testing at the right times and putting greater efforts into research. I accept that responsibility is shared between several groups, but I do not think that we should let farmers off the hook. They have a responsibility, but for the past six years they seem not to have taken it as seriously as they should have done. We can help them only by telling them the truth.
Some farmers want the authority for a cull of badgers, particularly in hot spots outside the trial areas. However, that will not happen, and it is important to say that. The Select Committee supports the Government in not allowing culls outside the trial areas during the trials.
There are delays in testing, and the Government must buck up their ideas. Their response to the Select Committee's report tells of some improvement and prays in aid the fact that the movement restrictions are focusing minds. However, they still talk of 4,511 overdue tests at the end of March 2003. In the meantime, no effective vaccination is in prospect, and the Committee is undoubtedly right to urge that planning should continue as a vaccine is a long way off.
I want to mention the cost of bovine TB. The Government did not accept the figure of £36,000 that was quoted in the report. In a briefing for this debate, the NFU mentioned a 1999 estimate of £36,000 per affected farm, but in evidence to the Committee an NFU representative gave the figure of £36,000 as the average cost of a TB outbreak. That might be an updated figure as an incident estimate rather than a farm estimate. The Government's response makes it clear that they do not accept the industry estimate, and the Minister has already been asked to give his estimate today. However, there are clear costs, including the payment made to the farmer from the public purse each time that cattle are slaughtered as a result of the disease.
There are also concerns about the effect of the incidence of bovine TB on the countryside, for example on an area's reputation. The disease will affect farmers' ability to sell and export their produce at a good price and, insofar as they are involved in tourism, to attract people to the countryside. The Government should bear in mind those hidden costs, particularly after the

159WH
forceful reminder from the foot and mouth outbreak of the effects on farming of a damaging incident. The whole of the rural economy is affected, and more.
In March this year, the industry planned its response by holding a TB conference. I pay tribute to all those who took part, including many organisations and, as prime movers, the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association. They came up with an action plan, and I noticed that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) referred to some of the recommendations in his brief remarks. I know that the report has been sent to the Government, and it makes it clear to them that there is more to the problem than improved husbandry—I made that point earlier in response to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). All agree on the desirability of reducing TB in cattle, and eventually eradicating it, and all agree that particular urgency is required in tackling TB in the hot spots. I do not want to read out every item, but the industry forum's report is detailed, with a large number of recommendations, mostly to the Government.
I turn now to the desirability of testing badgers that are killed on roads. In their response, the Government agreed that that would be a good project, and they are in favour of it in principle. If so, why are tests no longer carried out on badgers killed on the roads in hot spots in Staffordshire? I asked staff at my local state veterinary service office why that was, and they pleaded resources, saying that they could not afford the cost of the post mortems and of transporting animals from the roadside to the lab. Much as they would like to carry on with the tests, they cannot do so at present. It is a serious indictment of the Government that they tell the House that they are in favour of the tests, when staff on the ground tell me that they cannot carry them out. Such tests are particularly important in hot spots.
Farmers in Staffordshire would like the backlog of tests and the delays in confirming positive results reduced. I am told that no tests are carried out on badgers that are killed on roads. When can they restart? As a result of staff shortages, the state veterinary service in Stafford could do no tracing work for several months at the end of last year and the beginning of this. Mention was made of the desirability of recruiting farms for the new gamma interferon trial, but the office in Stafford did not have the resources to play its part even though it was willing to do so. It is no wonder that the Government's response talks of a slow take-up for the trial when offices such as that in Stafford cannot afford the staff time to go round recruiting volunteers.
I would not like any of my comments to be thought of as a criticism of the staff at the state veterinary service office in Stafford. From my contacts with them, I know that officers and support staff are hard working and have helpful contacts with local veterinary inspectors. They are held back by the lack of local resources, but farmers still find that they are as helpful and as co-operative as they can be. Indeed, when I held a conference on the future of food and farming in Staffordshire earlier this year, staff from the office ran an advice clinic throughout the day for people attending the conference. That showed excellent commitment on their part.
I reiterate that there is pressure from farmers to permit some culling of badgers outside the trial areas, although it is resisted by the Department and the Select
160WH
Committee. The National Federation of Badger Groups is applying pressure from the opposite direction and calling for improved testing and research, more movement restrictions on cattle and improvements in cattle health and hygiene. I think that we can all agree that our short-term aim must fall between those two extremes. We must get on top of the demand for testing and be effective at least in administering the testing regime. In the longer term, our aim must be to eradicate bovine TB, and it makes sense to start by driving down incidents in the hot spots.
I urge the Minister to give attention to the resourcing of the state veterinary service office in Staffordshire so that testing can be brought up to date, tracing work can be properly pursued, testing of badgers killed on roads can be renewed—especially in hot spots—and participation in the gamma interferon trial can be assured. We are all waiting for Krebs and for the outcome in the trial areas, and we all expect a definitive answer to our questions about transmission. The Select Committee asked a sensible question: what happens if the result of the Krebs trials is inconclusive and calls for a plan B? I echo that sentiment and urge the Minister to act on it.
The Government's response says that the Department is drawing up a TB strategy, and I have one final helpful suggestion for the Minister. Last year, when Members of this House and of the House of Lords were discussing illegal meat imports, the Department held a useful seminar to take their views. That was part of the Government's preparations for dealing with illegal imports. We are now confronting a sufficiently serious incidence of bovine TB, which commands sufficient interest among hon. Members, that a similar seminar should be held in the not-too-distant future, as part of the Government's preparation for that strategy. I hope that that is helpful.
3.24 pm
Mr. Roger Williams: First, I congratulate the Minister on taking up his new appointment. If I may mix an agricultural metaphor, I have no doubt that he finds himself in a thorny thicket, but I am sure that he will manage to extricate himself from it soon. I hope that the Minister will preside over a period in which animal health in the UK improves, and that Britain can return to its former position as the paragon of animal health in the world. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) on his new appointment: that is a move that I have prophesied for a long time and, at last, sense has prevailed.
Before I begin my remarks, I draw hon. Members' attention to my entries related to agriculture in the Register of Members' Interests.
At one time, Britain had a high status in the world with regard to animal health. That led to a huge export trade in pedigree stock—in Hereford, Aberdeen Angus and Beef Shorthorn cattle, for example—to south America and to countries throughout the world, particularly Australia and South Africa and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere. People could import stock from Britain, confident in the knowledge that their imports had been subject to the highest level of security in terms of animal disease. Unfortunately, Britain has

161WH
slipped from that high standard over the years and, although it is not part of the debate today, it might be useful at some point to consider why that has happened. I need only mention the outbreak of foot and mouth disease for the first time in 30 years and, in my area, the problem with sheep scab, which used to be a notifiable disease and which is now prevalent in all the sheep-rearing areas.
Mr. Drew: I would not like us to be too pessimistic. One of the advantages of going round the world is that one finds the same problems everywhere. Wherever one talks to farmers, one finds that they all have a problem with the spread of disease, even when they are somewhere such as New Zealand which, as I mentioned earlier, has oppressive health controls on humans as well as animals. However, farmers there live in fear of disease coming across their borders and expect that that will happen at some point.
Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. In my list of congratulations, I forgot to congratulate him and the Committee on the work that they undertook on the report, and on the way in which he introduced the debate.
I draw attention to the need for the UK to export. There are proposals to abolish the over-30 month scheme, which will lead to a huge amount of beef that was traditionally exported to Europe and elsewhere being placed on the UK meat market, a large amount of which would previously have gone to France and Germany. We are having great difficulties in exporting to those areas at present, and those difficulties would be compounded if there were a perception that TB was endemic in the UK.
Several hon. Members have already pointed out that although we can debate whether there is an increase in bovine TB in Britain, because tests that were delayed or did not take place during the foot and mouth epidemic are only now being caught up with, the perception of the farming and rural community is that TB is increasing. It is essential that we deal with the TB problem, to maintain a decent commercial market for beef in the UK.
TB also causes suffering in individual cattle and badgers, although, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said, it cannot be detected by examining the animals' symptoms. Earlier in the debate, it was said that the chance of human beings catching bovine TB was one in 2 million. However, the figures from some of the Krebs recordings gave that chance as one in 200,000. Of the 40 cases of bovine TB reported in humans in this country last year, a number occurred before the milk had been pasteurised, which is obviously a prevalent way of transmitting TB from cattle to humans. Some of the other cases involved people who had returned to this country from places abroad where, for instance, the pasteurisation of milk and general hygiene conditions probably are not as good as in this country.
Nevertheless, farming people and people who work in slaughterhouses are at greater risk of catching bovine TB. We have seen that before in the case of diseases such as brucella and brucellosis, when such people bore the
162WH
brunt and suffered from infection. It caused great hardship for farming families who had invested a lot of effort and money into breeding cattle to see those cattle destroyed as a result of contracting TB.
However, there is evidence in the figures of an increase in the incidence of TB. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) said that it seems to have moved up from the south-west. There are cases of TB in my constituency that are causing great inconvenience for the farmers. In the Teme valley, for instance, there are a number of farming businesses that operate on a large scale, with perhaps more than 500 suckler cows. When such businesses are closed down for an appreciable length of time, it is difficult to manage. How will those animals be fed? How can one harvest when the animals cannot be sold off from the farm? Farming families are experiencing not only great logistical problems, but financial problems. They face difficulties with banks in ensuring that they can borrow what they need to take them through periods when they have no income.
We are told that badgers are a reservoir of infection in the countryside, and no one here would deny that. However, there is also evidence that a great many other animals are infected with bovine TB, and there is a possibility—although there is no proof of this—that they could transmit it to cattle or among their own species. Those species include the red deer, the sika deer, the roe deer, mink, the brown rat, ferrets, moles and domestic cats. New Zealand's climate is comparable to this country's. TB seems to be more prevalent in countries with high rainfall, low temperatures and a lack of sunshine, and there is more TB in Britain, New Zealand and Ireland than there is in Australia, because sunlight seems to destroy the bacteria quicker. In New Zealand, possums, ferrets and wild deer seem to be a reservoir of infection, and there is a scheme in the vector risk areas there to exterminate those animals and get rid of that reservoir.
Mention has been made of both the Thornbury experiment—perhaps we should say the Thornbury experience—and the Irish work that has been done, together with the evidence from New Zealand. Perhaps the Government could consider that and see whether any conclusions can be drawn. As I understand the classical scientific method, in considering a problem one should gather all the information together, draw up a hypothesis and then set up an experiment to prove or disprove that hypothesis. That process continues and continues, and there is nothing against drawing information together and using it to see whether there are common strands than can be brought together. I urge the Government to use all available information, and—as the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), who is no longer in his place, said—to publish the data when they become available. One might insert the caveat that the Government should have the opportunity to comment on the statistical significance of data, but to withhold data from the debate does nothing for people's confidence that the Government are being open and transparent in tackling this difficult issue.
In my constituency, a number of farmers are certain that deer play a part in the problem, either as a reservoir of infection or as a transmitter of the disease to cattle. Those farmers would ask—as I do—that as well as doing tests on badgers that are found dead on the road, tests should be done on deer that have died as a result of

163WH
accidents and on other deer carcases that are discovered. By doing such tests, we might get some idea of the incidence of TB in wild deer.
Mr. Wiggin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the high incidence of TB at a League Against Cruel Sports sanctuary? Very little has been done about that. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not a question of whether TB can jump species, but of how fast it is spreading?
Mr. Williams: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Baronsdown reserve at Exmoor. It is claimed that there is a considerable incidence of TB at that reserve. The League Against Cruel Sports claims that there is not. The argument between the Countryside Alliance and the League Against Cruel Sports does not hinge only on TB. Those claims should be examined in a dispassionate and clinical way.
There is a view within the agricultural and rural community that the deer population could be an element in this problem, which is so difficult to decipher. Another theory proposed by farmers in my area concerns the buying of straw in the autumn from arable areas for animal feed and litter. It has been noticed that several farmers who buy straw from one farm may all experience TB infections on their farms. Perhaps droppings from badgers, deer or even farmed animals have been bailed up with the straw and ingested by cattle on the receiving farms. Farmers would like the Government to consider whether that is a means by which the disease is spread over the long distances between arable farms and livestock farms.
It would be of great benefit if we could have some historical information on whether TB has always has been an endemic disease in badgers. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that information is available because it would help us to decide whether the increase in TB in cattle is a result of the increase in TB in badgers, or whether there is no relationship.
I turn to a contributory factor in several of the problems that I have mentioned, namely the running down of the state veterinary system over several years. The Select Committee is looking at that matter, but the outbreak of foot and mouth disease certainly highlighted that problem. We have lost local officers who were dedicated to one area and had a real understanding of the particular issues and farming systems, as well as knowledge of the local characters. All that contributes to the way that disease is either prevented or presented with an open gate. While I am worried about the state veterinary service and would like to see it strengthened, I am also very concerned about the running down of large animal practices throughout farming areas. Because of the reduction in profitability of farming, many of those large animal practices have either shut their doors altogether or turned to dealing with small animals. It is sometimes difficult for farmers to access veterinary services. It is the combined effect of having a smaller state veterinary service and a less proactive private practice that has contributed to the increase in animal diseases.
Mr. Kidney: I hear that the Committee has investigated the state veterinary service but that it has not yet reported. Is the service being run down? My experience in Stafford is that it is well supported; indeed, during the foot and mouth epidemic, the local staff were fantastic, as was the NFU, which supported them. Since then, the staff have moved to modern offices. My complaint was more to do with the money that they need to provide the service, rather than the running down of the service itself.
Mr. Williams: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that we shall have to wait for the report, but my understanding—I do not have the figures with me—is that fewer people were employed. The local element is important.
I referred to the Thornbury and Irish experiments. It was not helpful for the National Federation of Badger Groups to question the professionalism of the vets in Ireland. Regardless of which side does it, it does not help. When considering the information provided to us, we might be critical of the methods by which it was gathered and analysed, and of the conclusions drawn from it, but if we are critical of the professionalism of those who do the work—if we think that they have a hidden agenda or have other reasons for coming to a particular conclusion—we shall not facilitate the understanding and solving of the problems that face us today.
I have a list of things that the Government could do. Many of them have been mentioned before, and may be mentioned again. Releasing information as it becomes available, with a note about its statistical significance, would be helpful.
Mr. Keetch: My hon. Friend mentioned the response of some people from the badger lobby who were critical of veterinary practice in Ireland. Would he join me in being critical not of a particular badger group but of those who attempt to foil and disrupt the Krebs experiment? That has not done the trial any good. We are dealing with a long-term problem. Solving it will be good not only for the farming population in my hon. Friend's constituency and mine and in the country generally; if we can eradicate bovine TB from the badger population, it will be good also for the badger population. We should work towards that as soon as possible.
Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I have made before. We are planning a process by which we can come to a conclusion on these difficult matters, and those who interfere with scientific tests and processes do not contribute to the solution. We want a country where bovine TB is not a problem for the farming community, and as small a problem as possible for animals. It would bring us together if we were all to be absolutely committed to achieving those two aims.
The second item in my list would be for the Government to ensure that we are up to date with the testing. Although I look with interest on the suggestion that we should have lay testers, I worry once again about the large animal practices because they depend upon the income from testing to continue their businesses.

165WH
During a previous Westminster Hall debate, I asked the then Minister, who did not come back to me, for an assurance that testing for TB and brucellosis would not be put out to private tender. I did not receive that assurance, but I have spoken to local vets who have been told that that will not take place. That is a great relief to them, because they can plan their businesses with greater security, knowing that they will, at least, have an income from the tests that they perform for their clients. We would like to improve the tests. The sensitivity of only 90 per cent, is fine when the disease is widespread—one can easily pick up a herd that has an infected animal in it—but when one is down to the last one or two animals in a big herd it is easy to miss those one or two and to precipitate another breakout. Yes, we should like all hands to be put to the task of improving the vaccine and getting it out as quickly as possible but, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, that will not be an absolute solution.
I have heard a lot about farm husbandry, but I have not heard much about how it can be improved—putting fewer animals in sheds together and keeping them in drier and airier conditions has been mentioned. We are approaching the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy, at which one of the issues to be discussed is improvement in animal welfare. It seems that there will be support and encouragement for farmers to make moves. If this issue could be tied in with that, there could be some hope of making improvements.
I have made the point about persevering with the tests on badgers that are killed in road accidents, and extending that to deer killed in similar circumstances and carcases that are found, so that we can understand whether the deer are a reservoir of infection. We should work with other countries to ensure that things that are learned there are not ignored here, building on evidence and pulling it together in order to have a sounder understanding of the issues. I welcome the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) that a seminar could be held with Ministers from DEFRA. The seminar on illegal meat imports that I attended was a great help, and I am sure that a similar seminar on this issue would be equally useful.
3.47 pm
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I congratulate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on his new position, and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on having chaired a Sub-Committee that was difficult, not simply because I got so excited when sitting on it that I wanted to ask questions of all the witnesses and he kept me reined in beautifully, but because the issue is of desperate importance to my constituents. Glancing round at those present this afternoon, I think that my constituency sits right in the middle. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) represents my eastern boundary, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) is here from my southern boundary and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) from my western boundary. Looking further north, I find members such as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).
166WH
The disease presents farmers with a horrendous situation. It is a great sadness that at the end of March there were still 4,911 outstanding tests, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire pointed out.
Mr. Kidney: Before I hear South Staffordshire too many times, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that my constituency is just Stafford.
Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful for that incisive intervention. The important thing about the tests is not merely how many are outstanding, but the fact that the number of reactors has overtaken the number of cases of foot and mouth that we had. Nobody should be under any illusion but that it is a very serious disease.
The Government's response to the Select Committee was interesting in many ways, positive in some and disappointing in others. I know that the Minister is fairly new to his post, and it would be unfair to be aggressive. However, I have many questions for him to answer, so it would be constructive for me to put them. If he does not have time to answer them, I am sure that all Members who served on the Committee would be grateful for answers at a later date.
In the Government's response, they say that they want to see greater use of private or "on request" tests. How much would such tests cost farmers and how do the Government propose to increase the appeal of using them? When do the Government think that the results of their full public consultation on lay testing, which is taking place this summer, will allow them to introduce lay tuberculin testers? The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire touched on the problem of large animal veterinary practices. That is obviously a major concern, and the proposals insist on vets going with lay testers until they are of sufficient expertise to go out on their own.
When will analysis of the TB99 form be available? Following that, another point from the Government's response was about the analysis of road kill badgers. Are there plans to increase the funding for road kill badger testing? Other hon. Members wondered whether other species should be tested as well. No Member has questioned whether bovine TB could jump species easily; it clearly can, which is why it is possible—although very unlikely—for human beings to catch it. One problem with the Krebs test is in its investigation of the jump from badgers to cattle. No one doubts the cattle-to-cattle infection or the badger-to-badger infection. I know that certain people doubt the badger-to-cattle infection, and my real fear is that the tests will not answer that question.
It is difficult to administer the tuberculin test. It is a skin test and not always conclusive, as there can be both false positives and false negatives. I was strongly in favour of the gamma interferon test, but the problem is that it also picks up avian TB. Avian TB is endemic in Britain and not as serious a disease as bovine TB, but it causes the gamma interferon test to show a positive result. That has meant that farmers who have volunteered their herds for the pilot schemes have found that large numbers of their cattle get positive results. When will DEFRA decide which test comes first—the gamma interferon test or the tuberculin test? Which will take precedence in the decision on whether to cull an

167WH
animal? I was lucky enough to intervene on the hon. Member for Stroud to discuss the importance of the mineral deficiency argument that would affect those tests, and my plea is for the Government to consider any research that will either scotch or confirm that particular rumour.
Why did DEFRA and the independent scientific group not agree on the gamma interferon tests before they were implemented? We heard from Professor Bourne that he had 36 hours' notice before the DEFRA gamma interferon pilots began. When will the Government reach their target of 150 herds for the pilot gamma interferon tests? Farmers are becoming increasingly nervous about volunteering their cattle, because they expect up to 40 per cent, of them to be slaughtered.
Vaccination is my preferred option, and I do not hide the fact. Is it true, however, that most of the research into TB relates to human TB? Is it true that the Government spend about £60 million a year on such research, but only £1.6 million a year on research into bovine TB? We should bear that in mind, given that about £90 million has been paid out in compensation. I do not know whether my figures are correct, and I would appreciate some indication of the correct breakdown.
Of course, no one condemns research into human TB. We all worry about the disease, especially now that it is becoming more prevalent in the UK. However, the vaccination of cattle would be 50 to 60 per cent, effective. That is an important point, because I am sure that the Government would like compensation claims to fall by 50 or 60 per cent.
The problem with vaccinating cows at the moment is that they would show up as positive reactors in the tuberculin test. One would therefore be unable to distinguish between cows that had the disease and those that had simply had the vaccination. I would therefore like to know what progress the chief veterinary officer is making on the vaccine steering group and how much that will cost.
Recommendations 17, 18 and 19, on page 8 of the Government's response, make it clear that the Government recognise that we need a TB strategy and that the Krebs trials may not be as conclusive as we would like. They have done well to recognise the problem, but my question to the Minister is what plan B will be. Many options are available to the Government, but none of them is particularly palatable. Everyone went into the Krebs trials under Professor Bourne with high hopes, but it is highly likely that the evidence that they provide will not be as conclusive as we would like. It is therefore essential to have a plan B, and I hope that it will be a plan to vaccinate.
Following the foot and mouth crisis, the Government implemented the Animal Health Act 2002, which was designed to ease the slaughter of potentially infected animals. A little while later, they introduced the European recommendations, which related predominantly to vaccination. It was a case of vaccinate to die, then vaccinate to live—that was the preferred course. I want the Government's plan B to advocate vaccinating now, before the European Union tells us what to do. Vaccinating to live would be positive and helpful. It would also be difficult, but I hope that the Government will dedicate more time and perhaps more money to investigating the possibility.
168WH
No one in the debate has said, "It's definitely badgers" or "It's definitely cattle", but there is not much room for compromise between the positions of the NFU and the NFBG. Vaccination is the only way forward that will avoid the mass slaughter of badgers—be it official or unofficial—while allowing farmers to carry on. This is the Minister's chance—cometh the hour, cometh the man. Not enough is being done about vaccination, and the gamma interferon tests need refining. The Government have much to do if they are to tackle the disease.
Previously, there were no cattle passports. A huge amount of work has been done on traceability, so let us use it. The data were expensive to gather, so let us use them, too. A cow that has a passport can be vaccinated, and the information can go into its passport so that we know what is going on. Of course, such a system may not be perfect. In any case, I am not a scientist, and I do not want to judge how the situation may develop. After all, the science that is to be rolled out might be helpful. However, when it comes to plan B, we need to take seriously the asset allocation for vaccine research, which is where the Government can make the fastest and most effective difference.
As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, if the Government go down the biosecurity route, there is a risk that farmers will simply lose faith. Farmers have told me that they have seen 60 or 70 badgers eating cattle food in their cattle sheds. Some 10 years ago, those numbers would no; have been possible. We must therefore make much more constructive progress. I know that Dr. Elaine King has fought very hard for the badgers, and no one could have done more, but there cannot be a compromise between the farmer who wants to slaughter badgers and the badger protectors. We must therefore find middle way—I know that such a suggestion will have an enormous appeal for the Minister.
Mr. Drew: I always try to be helpful when such terms as the middle way are used. May I suggest, for the record, that the problem with culling, outside an experiment, is that bovine TB, like any form of TB, is a stress-related disease? There is a supposition that as we cull, we push animals that survive further and further out. A degree of self-preservation is therefore involved. The debate is not about furry animals, but about the possibility of making things worse, which is why we need to invest all our time and faith in the science.
Mr. Wiggin: That was a helpful intervention. There are several points to make. First, I was not talking about official culling; I am worried that farmers will take matters into their own hands. Secondly, there is a natural culling, which is usually killing on the roads. Thirdly, some badgers are immune to TB. Many hon. Members talked about badgers becoming ill from TB, and said that that might be why they are run over, but I do not believe that TB in badgers is as debilitating as it is in other animals.
Badger welfare is not the primary concern. However, some badgers have developed immunity to TB, and indiscriminate culling wipes out the immune badgers as well as the badgers that are vectors for the disease. That is why I prefer to steer away from the debate about culling, because I do not believe that it is a long-term

169WH
solution. There is BCG testing on badgers in Ireland, but I believe that, given the overall numbers of badgers, especially in the south-east of England, it would be very difficult to vaccinate them. Our prime concern is cattle, so they should be vaccinated. We should control the species that we are interested in, because it is clear that species other than cattle are vectors.
We talked earlier about husbandry. All farmers take very seriously the idea of pre-purchase and post-purchase testing. No farmer would want TB to be brought on to his holding, and we should therefore move towards assessments for individual farms. We also need to remove animals that are positive reactors, at least within the target of seven days. Delays in administration that result in the target being exceeded are unacceptable. Again, there is much evidence of administrative mistakes. We must get infected animals off the farm as quickly as possible if we are to cut this highly contagious disease.
Current support scheme rules preclude producers from claiming reactors as force majeure when the cattle in question, or the whole herd, are under TB restrictions. That interpretation may be too severe, and we should consider changing it.
Rapid improvements need to be made to the administration of the system used to deal with TB to reduce the number of errors and delays. The information booklet "Dealing with TB in your herd", which is given to farmers with a TB breakdown, needs to be updated to reflect changes in the policy. It should also be made widely available, and, if possible, discussed with a farmer when a TB breakdown is discovered.
The NFU would like to see counselling and financial advice for farmers in a bid to reduce the stress associated with a TB herd breakdown. I am sure that the Minister will take that on board.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned welfare slaughter schemes. People may not necessarily understand that there is a problem, particularly for large herds such as that in Teme valley in my constituency, which he mentioned. When a herd is shut down, the farmer still has to feed many cattle and he cannot sell any.
Mr. Roger Williams: The lower Teme valley may be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but the upper Teme valley is in mine.
Mr. Wiggin: I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman, because I hoped that he would say something helpful about large herds, rather than about his grasp of the geography of the River Teme. However, he is right that there is a bit of the, River Teme in his constituency, too. Like me, he grasps the significance of the particular problem that large farmers have with welfare.
I mentioned veterinary involvement and TB surveillance, particularly in relation to lay TB testers. The hon. Gentleman talked about their professionalism, which is so important and should not be questioned. Indeed, it must not be questioned, and every step must be taken to ensure that professionalism is always maximised.
170WH
The hon. Member for Stroud mentioned Dr. Cheeseman of Woodchester, whose evidence was particularly interesting and important. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about me. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire asked for up-to-date figures. We are all trying to achieve the same objective, whichever side of the argument we are coming from. To do that, we must consider the figures, so we need to know what they are.
There is a problem with culling one species when other species are ignored. Although the Select Committee agreed that we should not cull outside hot spots and the testing areas, other people are tempted to break those rules. I am worried about that, which is why I have drawn it to the Minister's attention.
It is clearly true that the disease is spread through cattle movement. Following the foot and mouth outbreak there was a great deal of restocking, which has facilitated the spread of this disease. I mentioned avian TB and the gamma interferon tests. I believe that the only country that managed to wipe out bovine TB was Australia, because that continent does not have avian TB. Other hon. Members have talked about the situation in New Zealand, where I believe they treat possums as pests and slaughter them. I hope that the experiment conducted by the Irish produces helpful evidence, but we will have to wait and see whether they were able to inoculate badgers. Through the dropping of chicken heads, it has been possible throughout Europe to inoculate foxes against rabies. I am not sure but I believe that the same is done with worms and badgers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point ( Bob Spink) made a supportive speech for the badger lobby, which I entirely welcome. He talked about the beauty of badgers, and I think that all farmers would agree that badgers are an asset to their farms, particularly given the importance of tourism. This issue is not about badger-haters, but about imbalance. When farmers see large numbers of any species, they worry that there is a lack of balance in the countryside, for which they feel they have some responsibility. It is worth pointing out that the badger is the most protected animal in the world through legislation. It is more protected than the blue whale and the giant panda. We must address the problem of the number of badgers, but that does not necessarily mean widespread culling. I hope that that comment is not misinterpreted.
The hon. Member for Stafford rightly talked about an avalanche of bovine TB. The numbers have surpassed those for foot and mouth, and no one wants such an epidemic to continue. He also talked about the responsibility on farmers to deal with husbandry. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made it clear that we hear about that, but we do not hear how it should be done. Obviously, at the top of the list would be pre-purchase and post-purchase testing. If the Government can do anything to alleviate some of the cost of that, or to insist on it and make it the norm throughout cattle purchase, that would be helpful, although the extra cost would damage our beef industry.
We must all pull together in tackling the disease. As a result of the difficulties that the NFU experienced with the NFBG, the Government spent less time focusing on the disease than on the argument, but I hope that that

171WH
will change. The mid-term review has passed and the Secretary of State has already spoken to the Select Committee about what that will mean. Unfortunately, there is nothing in it that will increase animal welfare significantly, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire wanted. However, that does not mean that we should give up at this point—it is just the start. Improved animal welfare and higher animal welfare standards are excellent reasons for people to buy British. I hope that the Minister, although new to the job, will rise to the challenge of tackling this significant and unpleasant disease.
4.11 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for the way in which he presented the Sub-Committee's report. I also thank hon. Members for the general tenor of the debate, which has been rational and constructive. I put on record our appreciation of the work of the Sub-Committee and of the quality of its report.
Earlier today one hon. Member likened the job to which I have just been appointed to a "thorny thicket". It has also been described in recent days as the kiss of death, and a poisoned chalice. My predecessor, when he handed over the chalice, told me, "They'll love you when you leave." In that spirit, I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) for being gentle, and if I fail to answer his questions or those of any other hon. Member in my response, I will endeavour to do so in writing after the debate.
As the Member of Parliament for a constituency in Devon, which is one of the areas in the country worst affected by bovine TB, I am well aware of how distressing the disease is, and how much economic hardship it causes to many in the farming community. I am also aware of its potential danger to human health. I share the determination of my predecessor, who is now the Minister for the Environment, that the Government, working in partnership with the farming industry and others, must get to the root of the problem.
As we have seen in the debate, the evidence to the Committee was drawn from a wide range of sources—from farming and wildlife interests, the independent scientific group on cattle TB, those carrying out research and officials from my Department. I welcome the fact that the Committee was generally satisfied with the research programme that is currently in place. However, I also accept that we cannot afford to be complacent. It is evident from the Committee's report and the tenor of many of the contributions that I have heard this afternoon that there is still much to be done. We have considered the Committee's report in depth and will take full account of its recommendations in the development of our new TB strategy and the forthcoming animal health and welfare strategy.
At the outset, I will address a couple of the specific factual points that were raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Leominster and others asked how much TB costs us as a country. The problem is that at present no one knows, although we know that the Exchequer spent £72 million on it last year. However, we have instigated a research project, which is being
172WH
conducted by a team at Reading university and will report later this year. I hope that that research will allow us to arrive at a figure on which we can all agree. However, no one is in any doubt that the economic costs both to the farming industry and to the public are significant and increasing.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), among others, asked about the reliability of the data. My Department puts the monthly updates on the DEFRA website, but it takes about six weeks to do so. As a result, the most recent figures are for the end of April It was not quite clear from the question whether the hon. Gentleman wanted data from the trials, but I shall come to that subject later in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who asked about the possibility of interim reports from those trials.
Following the foot and mouth disease outbreak the state veterinary service was faced with the task of dealing with a huge backlog of TB tests. It has worked incredibly hard over the past 18 months, with the co-operation of farmers and private veterinary practices around the country, to reduce the number of outstanding herd tests from a high of 27,000 in December 2001 to just over 3,800 at the end of April 2003. That is the backlog referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). An additional £3 million was made available to the SVS in England and Wales last year to help with this task.
The threat of impending movement restrictions on overdue herds, introduced as part of the autumn package, has acted as a powerful incentive to clear the backlog. Herds with tests more than six months overdue are now routinely placed under movement restrictions, pending satisfactory completion of the test. The end of September will see movement restrictions imposed on all herds with tests more than three months overdue. I would encourage farmers with tests becoming due over the coming months to continue to co-operate fully with the SVS to reduce the TB testing backlog still further. Dealing with TB in cattle will remain a top priority for the SVS in this financial year.
To increase our testing capability further we are pursuing lay testing—something that the Select Committee report drew out. We remain strongly of the opinion that suitably trained and competent non-veterinarians are capable of carrying out TB testing on cattle. The Committee welcomed the proposal in principle, but emphasised that it is vital that the people involved should be properly trained. We agree, and we plan to consult on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked what we meant by "soon". I shall be making an announcement tomorrow—if that is soon enough for him—on a proposal to make an order for an exemption from the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to permit non-veterinarians to conduct TB tests on cattle.
The hon. Member far Leominster tried to tempt me to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, but it would not make sense to consult if I were to say what the Government thought of the idea before consulting. He can expect us to make a judgment once the consultation is over.
Mr. Roger Williams: To make an exemption from legislation on veterinary practice would be the way to

173WH
allow lay testers to undertake that work. However, I am concerned because large animal practices feel under threat. They are worried that introducing lay testers for that work could threaten their income. Is that exemption to last for only a certain time, or is it open-ended?
Mr. Bradshaw: That will depend on what the consultation throws up and how successful it is. We do not have a firm view on that matter at the moment, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify it.
Of course, the overall increase in TB testing and the policy of targeting testing on the herds deemed to be at the highest risk of disease has led to the disclosure of many more TB breakdowns. The imposition of movement restrictions faced by farmers following a positive or inconclusive TB test result has meant that many of them face a degree of financial hardship. Consequently, following discussions with farming unions and other stakeholders, last autumn the Government and the Welsh Assembly introduced a package of measures designed primarily to help reduce the economic impact of restrictions. Our priority was to ensure that disease control was not compromised. The measures introduced included the movement of animals from and into herds under TB movement restrictions, tighter controls on overdue TB tests, a pilot of the gamma interferon diagnostic test, and the establishment of an industry group.
As a result of the autumn package, DEFRA now licenses the movement of non-reactor cattle from herds under TB restriction direct to slaughter through a dedicated slaughter market, to a finishing unit also under TB restrictions from which cattle will be sent direct to slaughter, or to slaughter via a collection centre. New procedures allowing movement of cattle between herds under restriction were introduced earlier this year. Those have provided clearer criteria for allowing farmers to introduce replacements for animals slaughtered under TB control measures.
The autumn package also introduced a timetable for the imposition of movement restrictions on herds with overdue TB tests. From January, herds with tests more than 12 months overdue have been placed under movement restrictions, pending satisfactory completion of those tests. From April, herds with tests more than six months overdue have been restricted, and the end of September will see movement restrictions imposed on all herds with tests more than three months overdue.
Another of our major objectives—and one raised by a number of hon. Members—is to find a more accurate way of diagnosing bovine TB. A policy pilot of the gamma interferon blood test began in November 2002 in Wales and six English counties. The purpose of the policy pilot is purely practical—to identify whether using gamma interferon or a more severe interpretation of the skin test would help to clear infection in herds more quickly, therefore allowing movement restrictions to be lifted more swiftly. So far, 45 herds have been recruited into the pilot. I accept that that is a rather slow rate of uptake, and we will be monitoring the situation carefully over the next few months.
As a number of hon. Members have said, the independent science group has called for significant changes to the policy pilot. We are in discussions with
174WH
the ISG about that, but some of their proposals raise difficult logistical issues. The hon. Member for Leominster asked a specific question about which comes first, the gamma interferon test or the TB test. I understand that the EU rules give preference to the tuberculin test. The gamma interferon test is permitted as an adjunct test, and selects a slightly different group of animals as positive. However, because of the low specificity of the gamma interferon test, it cannot be used on its own. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
DEFRA is spending approximately £7 million a year on research in addition to the badger culling trial—examining, among other things, how TB is transmitted, improved diagnosis, and the role played by a variety of factors in the development of the disease. Work on cattle pathogenesis studies continues. That includes a study of post-foot and mouth disease restocked herds in the field to try to find out the role that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays in transmission of TB. A quick assessment of such herds has shown that cattle-to-cattle transmission plays a significant role in disease transmission, and not just for TB. Those studies have also begun to demonstrate the complexity and cyclical nature of the immune response in cattle to bovine TB. It is the immune response that the current tests—both the skin test and the gamma interferon blood test—measure.
We have carried out a review of the non-badger culling trial parts of the research programme as part of the regular review cycle. The research is assessed as having met the policy need. A final copy of that report has been made available on the DEFRA website. The hon. Member for Leominster raised the question of trace elements in cattle. Trace elements are one factor among many that can cause immune deficiency in animals. The independent science group and other scientific advisers have advised us that that is not an area of high priority of research, because most cattle are not mineral-deficient.
Developing a TB vaccine is one of our key aims; we share that desire with the hon. Member for Leominster. DEFRA is committed to research projects costing more than £5 million designed to identify candidate vaccines, experimentally vaccinate cattle and to develop a test to differentiate vaccinated from infected cattle. One of the first questions that I asked was whether we were spending enough on that. The scientists assured me that it was not a question of how much one spends, but of how quickly the science can proceed. We are as keen as everybody else to find a vaccine solution to this terrible problem.
Mr. Wiggin: Will the Minister also ask at what point the science will become satisfactory? Even in human beings, a BCG test is only 75 per cent, effective. A judgment will have to be made on the point when cattle vaccination becomes acceptable.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am afraid that I cannot do that, because I am not a scientist and I would not want to preempt the scientific investigations, but I hope that the answer is sooner rather than later.
The long-term aim came a step closer with the sequencing of the mycobacterium bovis genome last year. Only BCG has so far been identified as a possible

175WH
practical vaccine candidate. DEFRA is part funding collaborative work on the experimental vaccination of badgers with BCG in the Republic of Ireland, and research to identify other possible candidates is in progress. Moreover, the independent science group will report to Ministers in the autumn on the results of the vaccine scoping study.
The hon. Member for Leominster also mentioned the difficulties of the TB99 questionnaires. We regret that the cumulative effect of the problems with completion of those questionnaires has meant that the ISG has not been able to carry out a preliminary analysis yet. To help overcome those problems, at the end of last year DEFRA commissioned the Agricultural Development Advisory Service to carry out work on up to 500 TB99 questionnaires, at a ratio of one case to three control. ADAS began work on that in late summer 2002, and we wish to renew the contract in the coming year, to continue to ease the pressure on the state veterinary service and to increase the flow of data to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Data from 703 valid cases and only 354 controls are available on the TB99 database. The number of controls is expected to improve as more forms, in particular those that ADAS has completed, reach the Veterinary Laboratories Agency for input to the database.
I accept that there were unacceptable delays in starting the badger road traffic accident survey after the end of foot and mouth. However, the collection of badger carcasses under the road traffic accident survey is now done under a separate contract with the central science laboratory, which has relieved the pressure on the SVS. Numbers have recently reached a level where there should be sufficient data for the ISG to carry out a preliminary analysis, which should be done before the end of the year.
I am aware there have been many representations to my Department, including some this afternoon, calling for an extension to the area covered by the survey. However, the RTA survey is limited to the counties where the Krebs trial is taking place, in order to enable the ISG to compare the data collected with data emerging from the proactive and reactive culls in the Krebs trial. Without such analysis we do not know how representative TB in RTA survey badgers is as compared with that in general badger populations.
DEFRA's wildlife unit has extremely worked hard to put the trial back on course following the disruption of foot and mouth. All 10 of the trial triplet areas are now enrolled and culls have been carried out in each of the 10 proactive triplet areas. There have been problems in notifying wildlife unit staff of TB incidents in the reactive cull areas in order to allow planning of reactive culls. However, in the last six months of 2002, there was a marked reduction in the time taken by the SVS to submit notifications, with most taking between two and three months, and the efforts to improve have continued this year.
Much concern has been expressed about delays in completion of the badger culling trial due to the disruption of field operations by foot and mouth. However, the ISG, whose chairman I met yesterday, has recently reviewed the effects of foot and mouth on the trial and advised that the full set of trial data should be gathered by the end of 2006.
176WH
I should like to address the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) asked about badger numbers and the history of TB being endemic in the badger population. There are no accurate figures available for badger numbers. Officials tell me that there are probably between 350,000 and 450,000, with the highest density in the south and west of the country. We accept the widely held view that the population of badger has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. However, the report that we are debating also contains evidence from Dr. Cheeseman, who casts doubt on the existence of a relationship between the density of the badger population and the prevalence of tuberculosis, so density of badger population is not necessarily a vital consideration.
Mr. Drew: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to learn that I have been in conversation with Dr. Cheeseman, and we should try not to use his name in vain. I know what has been going on at Woodchester, and the researchers there are currently examining some interesting findings that show that the badger population in the Woodchester area, which is the most researched group in the history of the UK, is declining. There are some interesting, even worrying, ecological findings—those are still premature, but there are problems with badger numbers.
Mr. Bradshaw: That is extremely helpful. I was not saying that that was the Government's view, but simply pointing out what was in some of the evidence in the Sub-Committee's report.
On the historical data and the question of whether TB has been endemic in badgers for ever, I can say only that the first case of bovine TB in a badger was identified in 1971, and RTA surveys carried out in the 1970s and 1980s showed TB present in badgers in almost all counties of England and Wales. Therefore it has certainly been endemic in many areas for some time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud expressed surprise—I cannot remember the exact words that he used—about the Government's non-committal response to recommendation 9. I must say that it jumped out at me, too, when I read the Government's official response. However, I have been assured by my officials that my original instincts were right. Our expression of noting it actually means that we support it, so I hope that my hon. Friend will take that assurance.
Mr. Kidney: I thought that that was a question of modesty on the part of the Department, as the recommendation said that the Committee welcomed the Minister's clear statement of the Government's position.
Mr. Bradshaw: It may be that officials are sometimes are reluctant to be overenthusiastic about Select Committees endorsing what we are already doing, so we note, rather than support enthusiastically, such recommendations.
I take seriously the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that it would be incredibly helpful to get some meaningful interim data from the trials. I am coming to the issue fresh, and that

177WH
may not be possible—there may be strong resistance from the scientists—but it is a question that I want to ask. My hon. Friend's point was extremely helpful.
I am also aware of the reports of the research that has been taking place in Ireland. The results of that research have not been published, so it would not be proper for me to comment on what is currently only speculation. However, I can reassure the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), who asked whether, when the results are published, we would see whether we could learn anything from them. Of course we will do that—the Government are extremely keen to learn whatever we can from whatever happens in other countries.
However, it is also important to recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, which is that the research in Ireland is significantly different from our trials in some important ways. Although I express willingness to learn from other experience, it is important to recognise that we may not be able to draw parallels from that research.
Mr. Williams: Surely the point is not whether the research is different, but whether the problem is the same. Perhaps addressing the problem in different ways allows us to draw a clearer idea of its causes and possible solutions.
Mr. Bradshaw: That may be the case, but if we are to make progress based on sound science, we must ensure that we do not draw the wrong conclusions by assuming that another piece of research is identical to our trials, or even that it is seeking the same information. I have already stated that I am willing to consider research that is going on anywhere in the world to find out whether we can learn from it.
That brings me to the example given by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: the possum extermination policy in New Zealand. That is an area in which it is not helpful to draw parallels. If he has visited New Zealand, as I did a couple of years ago for the millennium, he will know that possums are considered by the whole population there to be a terrible pest. There are competitions involving running them over and shooting them. Those who shoot the most are celebrated as heroes and heroines. The possums, which have been introduced from Australia, are very destructive and cause major disruption to the delicate biodiversity of New Zealand. It is not necessarily right to draw parallels between possums and badgers. However, if we can learn anything from the New Zealand experience I shall be pleased; this is a difficult, some might say an intractable, problem.
When the Irish release results from their work, the ISG will also wish to consider its implications. In April we announced the establishment of an independent scientific panel to review our badger culling trial and associated epidemiological research. It will examine the progress of the badger culling trial and the likely time scales for the results.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised the issue of human health. Although that has not been the central concern of most hon. Members, it is important, and I know that his intervention was
178WH
prompted by a constituency experience of the serious damage done by a group of badgers that moved into a residential area. We shall continue to work with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency to protect human health from bovine TB, both by removing affected meat from the food chain and through the continued pasteurisation of milk. I might be able to help the hon. Member for Castle Point in his absence: the number of cases of human tuberculosis attributable to bovine TB remains more or less constant at 40 to 50 each year. Most of those are recurrences of disease contracted before the pasteurisation of milk began; that was the main public health protection measure introduced in the 1950s.
Mr. Drew: This is a straight query, and one that I have raised before. Farmers have expressed to me their concern that the meat of animals that have been confirmed to have bovine TB can still enter the human food chain. I have never understood that, given how quick we have been to incinerate in connection with other diseases. I do not expect an answer now, but I should be grateful if the Minister would look into the matter. The last time I asked the question, research was under way, but I do not know what is happening now.
Mr. Bradshaw: I undertake to find out, and to respond to my hon. Friend in due course. I imagine that, as with many such dilemmas, decisions have been based on the best and latest available science, and that until now the judgment has been that that is safe.
An outline strategy has been developed following our recent consultation on preparing an animal health and welfare strategy. It sets out a vision for the future of animal health and welfare in Britain, the roles and responsibilities of the key players and a series of new initiatives to make the necessary change. It will be launched later this month, and the TB strategy will be one of the sub-strategies of the overarching animal health and welfare strategy.
That brings me to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and a number of others: what is plan B? My hope is that during the review of our TB strategy as a sub-strategy of the animal health and welfare strategy, that will become more apparent. It is essential that we continue our existing approach, which the Sub-Committee accepts is correct, while drawing up a plan B that will allow for the possibility that the ongoing trials will not be conclusive. I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford made the excellent suggestion that we should hold a seminar on the strategy, as we did on illegal meat imports. That will be helpful, and I assure him that we intend to do so. The exact scope of the strategy has yet to be established, but we shall hold a series of pre-consultation meetings with key contacts in the summer. That will inform the nature of the consultation material that will be issued in the autumn.
In conclusion, I reiterate the Government's commitment to tackling bovine TB with our partners in the farming and veterinary communities, with the meat industry and with wildlife interests. We shall continue to strive to develop, update and implement our strategy for a future based on sound scientific principles.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Five o'clock.

TREASURY

  Cancer/Heart Disease
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the survival rates for(a) breast cancer, (b) lung cancer and (c) heart disease for each year since 1997 for (i) England and (ii) each region of England. [122790]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Evan Harris, dated 3 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the survival rates for (a) breast cancer, (b) lung cancer and (c) heart disease for each year since 1997 for (i) England and (ii) each region of England.(122790)
  The latest available breast and lung cancer survival rates are for cases diagnosed in England in 1993 to 1995 and followed up to the end of 2000. At a national level, figures are routinely presented for men and women separately, while those at regional level are given for persons only, and are given in the table below.

  Five-year relative survival (per cent.), persons diagnosed in 1993–95 and followed up to 31 December 2000: breast and lung cancer, England and Regional Office area

  Percentage

  Breast1

  Lung

  England

  Men

  —

  5.46

  Women

  75.9

  5.48

  Northern and Yorkshire

  74.0

  4.4

  Trent

  74.0

  4.4

  West Midlands

  76.9

  4.8

  North and West

  74.8

  5.6

  Eastern

  78.6

  5.5

  London

  77.1

  6.1

  South East

  76.9

  5.5

  South and West

  75.0

  4.9

  1 Figures for breast cancer exclude the very small number of cases in men.

  Source:

  Report: Cancer survival in the health authorities of England, 1993–2000. Health Statistics Quarterly 13 (2002), 95–103. This is available on our website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/HSQl 3_v4.pdf. "Cancer survival: five year relative survival rates in England by Health Authority up to 2000"; at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D5389.xls for breast (female), lung, colon and prostate cancer.

  There are no figures available on a nationally comparable basis for survival from heart disease in England.

  Average Wage
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the statistical reliability of the calculation of average wage levels using the(a) New Earnings survey and (b) Labour Force survey. [122518]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Michael Foster, dated 2 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the statistical reliability of average earnings data from the New Earnings Survey and the Labour Force Survey.(122518)
  Earnings data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are valuable in different circumstances. The NES data are available annually and are based on a larger sample than those from the LFS. The LFS data are available quarterly and for a wider range of population subgroups than from the NES. An article describing the background and uses of ONS average earnings data was published in the February 2003 edition of "Labour Market Trends", a copy of which can be found in the Library.
  Sampling errors have been calculated for both NES and LFS estimates and are available from the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk). Given the smaller sample size of the LFS, the sampling errors tend to be larger than the equivalent NES sampling errors.
  Following an extensive quality review of the NES last year the survey is currently undergoing a significant redevelopment to further improve the quality of the estimates. The action plan for implementing the results of this review are also on the National Statistics website (www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id = 280). This will reduce known biases in the existing survey which arise principally from the fact that the sample only includes employees who are on Pay As You Earn tax schemes, but also because of differential response rates by size of business and region.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review(a) the procedures for transferring entitlement to child benefit to a surviving patient on the death of the parent with care and (b) the case of Mr. Roger Grey, a constituent. [121447]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Where a child benefit claimant dies and their partner wants to claim child benefit instead, he or she needs to make a new claim. They have up to three months to do this and not suffer a break in their right to payment. The Inland Revenue aims to do all it can, in such cases, to ensure claims are processed as quickly as possible and to maintain continuity of payment.

  I cannot comment on the specific case you mention but I can assure you that the Inland Revenue is continuing to look at how to improve the service provided to customers in this situation.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision has been made by the Inland Revenue to deal with(a) changes in payments and (b) written and telephone queries in respect of child tax credit for term-time workers during the summer months. [122880]
  369W
  Dawn Primarolo
  A term-time worker who has responsibility for one or more children will be able to claim child tax credit, which is paid direct by the Inland Revenue. Child tax credit is not related to work status.

  Tax credit awards for 2003–04 are initially based on the family's current circumstances and their income for the 2001–02 tax year. They may be adjusted during the year for changes in income or circumstances. Final entitlement for the year will be based on circumstances during the year and the income for 2003–04, if that is lower than 2001–02 income or more than £,500 higher.

  Child Trust Funds
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make the first payments into child trust funds. [122132]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: As stated in the Budget, entitlement to the child trust fund will be backdated to include children born from September 2002. We expect child trust fund accounts to be available by 2005.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish further details of his proposed child trust funds. [122133]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: Full proposals for the child trust fund will be published later in the summer.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Ms J. Knowles. [122874]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue replied on behalf of the Chancellor on 20 June 2003. The Tax Credit Office aims to reply to 80 per cent. of complaints within 15 working days and will measure their performance and report against that aim in due course.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff(a) have been and (b) will be transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Treasury as a result of the introductions of the various tax credits. [121219]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There have been no transfers of staff from the DWP to the Treasury (or Inland Revenue) as a direct result of the introduction of the child and working tax credits and none are planned. The Inland Revenue's Annual Report to 31 March 2000 (CM 5029) shows—at page 33—that the equivalent of around 3,700 full time staff were transferred from the Benefits Agency to the Inland Revenue when WFTC/DPTC were introduced in October 1999.

  Responsibility for administering the child and working tax credits rests with Inland Revenue. The DWP will continue to deliver a one-stop system of support for working age customers, including transacting their tax credits business.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) in the UK, (b) in the UK workforce and (c) of working age are classified as having a disability; and what percentage of the total this figure represents in each case. [122644]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jenkins, dated 2 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about people with disabilities.(122644)
  The attached table gives information from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), for the three month period ending February 2003, for disabled people of working age in total and for those in employment. Comparable information is not available for people younger or older than the working age group.
  The definition of 'disabled' includes those who have a current disability covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, or a work-limiting disability, or both.

  Disabled people1 of working age2, United Kingdom

  Not seasonally adjusted

  December 2002 to February 2003

  Total (thousand)

  Disabled (thousand)

  Disabled as percentage of total

  All of working age

  37,152

  7,187

  19.3

  of which:

  In employment

  27,695

  3,517

  12.7

  1 People with a disability covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, or a work-limiting disability, or both.

  2 Men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59.

  Note:

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

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.

  Equitable Life
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department has had discussions with the office of Lord Penrose since 8 March concerning his report into Equitable Life. [122361]

  Mr. Boateng
  Lord Penrose's Inquiry was established by and is supported by the Treasury. Therefore, Treasury officials discuss a range of issues with Lord Penrose's office on an on-going basis. However, the conduct of the Inquiry is entirely a matter for Lord Penrose.

  European Economic Convergence
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the rise in the tax burden necessary to offset inflationary pressures which would otherwise result in(a) a half per cent. rise in inflation, (b) a one per cent. rise inflation, (c) a one and a half per cent. rise in inflation and (d) a two per cent. rise in inflation, assuming that a decision to implement a discretionary fiscal policy was taken, as described in the Treasury document Fiscal stabilisation and EMU, and assuming a neutral monetary policy. [121556]
  371W
  Mr. Boateng
  In the event that a discretionary fiscal policy response was needed within EMU, its likely size would depend on a number of factors, including the nature of the economic shock, the degree of wage and price flexibility within the UK, and which fiscal instrument was being used.

  Graduate Earnings
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the proportion of those earning over £100,000 a year who are graduates. [121770]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Rendel, dated 3 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the proportion of those earning over £100,000 a year who are graduates. (121770)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of the average weekly pay of employees, most recently for the three month period ending in February 2003; estimates are not available of self-employed earnings. Based on an approximate conversion of this information to an annual pay basis, it is estimated that among employees of working age earning more than £100,000 per year, 82% were qualified to degree level or higher.

  Housing Market
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the potential impact on the UK housing market of increased use of long-term fixed rate mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [123200]

  Mr. Boateng
  These issues will be considered as part of the Miles Review announced in Budget 2003.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with mortgage lenders regarding the market share of variable rate mortgages in the UK. [121551]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has asked David Miles, Professor of Finance at Imperial College, to undertake a review of the UK's fixed rate mortgage market to establish why the share of fixed-rate mortgages, particularly long-term fixed rates, is so low compared to the United States and many other EU countries.

  The Review process will involve consultation with key stakeholders to establish views and inform the analysis.

  Professor Miles will deliver an interim report by autumn and a comprehensive report and recommendations to the Chancellor by Budget 2004.

  Income Tax
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost would be to the Exchequer if the 22 per cent. income tax rate bracket was increased to include individuals with yearly incomes of(a) £40,000, (b) £45,000, (c) £50,000, (d) £55,000 and (e) £60,000. [121662]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The full year cost or yield of extending the basic rate limits in 2003–04 is given in the following table.
  372W

  Full year cost of increasing the Basic Rate Limit to include individuals with annual gross income of:

  £billion

  (a) 40,000

  2.5

  (b) 45,000

  4.5

  (c) 50,000

  6.0

  (d) 55,000

  7.2

  (e) 60,000

  8.3

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with Budget 2003. They exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue impact would be of increasing the higher income tax rate to 50 per cent. and extending the 22 per cent. income rate bracket to include yearly earnings of up to(a) £40,000, (b) £45,000 and (c) £50,000. [121664]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The full year yield of extending the basic rate limits and increasing the higher income tax rate to 50 per cent. in 2003–04 is given in the following table.

  Increasing the higher income tax rate to 50 per cent. and Basic Rate Limit to include individuals with annual gross income of:

  Full year yield (£ billion)

  (a) 40,000

  8.2

  (b) 45,000

  5.2

  (c) 50,000

  2.8

  The estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with Budget 2003.

  They exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of tax payers who would be required to pay a top rate of income tax set for this financial year at(a) £100,000 and above and (b) £150,000 and above of taxable income. [122362]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of higher rate taxpayers in 2003–04 with taxable incomes of

  Numbers in thousands

  (a) £1,00,000 and above

  327

  (b)£1,50,000 and above

  158

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the Budget 2003.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue that would be raised from income tax rates of(a) 1 per cent., (b) 5 per cent., (c) 9 per cent. and (d) 10 per cent. on gross incomes in excess of £1,000,000 a year. [122624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The full year revenue yield from making these changes in 2003–04 is set out in the table.

  373W

  Full year yield of raising the higher rate of income tax in 2003–04 on gross incomes in excess of £1,000,000

  £billion

  (a) by 1 per cent.

  0.1

  (b) by 5 per cent.

  0.3

  (c) by 9 per cent.

  0.6

  (d) by 10 per cent.

  0.7

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with Budget 2003. They exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees are aged(a) 16 and
  (b) 17. [122879]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Stewart, dated 3 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the numbers of employees aged 16 and 17. (122879)
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), for the three month period ending February 2003, show 255,000 employees aged 16 and 379,000 employees aged 17 in the United Kingdom.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the appointees to the(a) Private Finance Task Force, (b) Financial Services Authority, (c) Financial Services Tribunal, (d) Board of Banking Supervision, (e) VAT and Duties Tribunal and (f) National Savings; and which of the appointees to each body are from ethnic minorities. [122991]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Financial Services Tribunal and the Board of Banking Supervision were disbanded following the enactment of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and the Private Finance Task Force no longer exists. Of the remaining three bodies the current appointees are listed below. As information about which appointees are from ethnic minorities is personal, it can be disclosed only with their individual approval, which would entail disproportionate cost.

  (b) Financial Services Authority

  Sir Howard Davies, Chairman (to be replaced by Callum McCarthy on 22 September 2003)

  Stewart Boyd, Deputy Chairman,

  Moira Black, Non-executive director

  Tom de Swann, Non-executive director

  Michael Foot, Executive director

  Kyra Hazou, Non-executive director

  Deirdre Hutton, Non-executive director

  Sir Andrew Large, Non-executive director

  Gillian Nott, Non-executive director

  Christopher Rodrigues, Non-executive director

  374W

  Dr Shamit Saggar, Non-executive director

  Carol Sergeant, Executive director

  John Tiner, Executive director

  Steve Thieke, Non-executive director

  Clive Wilkinson, Non-executive director

  (e) VAT and Duties Tribunal

  Mrs. Ann Jennifer Adams (Bureaux de Change)

  Mrs. Edith Rachel Adams FCA ATII

  John B Adrain Esq FCA

  Riaz Ahmad Esq CA

  Mrs. Mary Christine Ainsworth

  Mrs. Caroline Susan de Albuquerque

  Dr. Norma Rhoda Ball AKC, FRGS

  Mrs. Charlotte M Barbour CA ATII

  Ray K Battersby Esq

  John E Bentley Esq

  Arthur Ernest Brown Esq

  John N Brown Esq CBE FCA ATII

  Gordon Burnison Esq QBE

  Mrs. Brenda May Burrell

  John Clark Esq FTII

  Roger Edmund Cockfield Esq

  lan Condie Esq

  Bernard J Coode Esq FFA

  Richard Dudley Corke Esq FCA

  Robert Laverock Hamilton Crawford Esq

  James D. Crerar Esq

  Mrs. Marilyn Crompton

  Sunil Kumar Das Esq

  Praful D Davda Esq

  John E Davison, Esq

  Mrs. Carol Jean Debell

  Mrs. Rayna Dean FCA

  Jon P M Denny Esq

  Ms Anne Diver

  Keith Stuart Dugdale Esq FCA

  Ms Helen M Dunn

  Mrs. Sheila Edmondson FCA

  Mohammed Farooq Esq

  Mrs. C Farquharson (Bureau de Change)

  Ms Helen Folorunso

  Mr. John Freeston FRIGS

  W. Ruthven Gemmell (Bureaux de Change)

  Miss Heather Gibson

  Cranstoun Bygott Harold Gill Esq

  Kenneth Sidney Goddard Esq MBE

  Miss Patricia Gordon

  Robert Geoffrey Grice Esq

  Frank Hazledine Esq

  Anthony Francis Hennessey Esq

  Mohammed Modashar Hossain Esq FCA FCIB

  375W

  Ms Claire Elizabeth Howell

  Michael James Esq

  Roy Leonard Jennings Esq FCA FTII

  Mrs. Roberta Scott Johnson

  Mrs. Penny Jonas

  Mrs. Heather Kelly

  John David Kippest Esq

  Mrs. Marjorie P Kostick FCA ATII

  John Michael Lapthorne Esq

  Miss Karen Bruce Lockhart

  Maurice McCloy Esq

  Mrs. Elizabeth Mavis MacLeod CIPM

  Alex McLoughlin Esq

  Mrs. Rosalind Jean Mackworth CBE

  Kenneth Charles Manterfield Esq FCA

  Tymothy R. Marsh

  George Miles Esq

  Mrs. Joanna M Neill ACA (Bureaux de Change)

  Miss Sandra Christine O'Neill (Bureaux de Change)

  Norman Henry Phillips Esq

  Mrs. Heidi Poon

  Mrs. Gilian Pratt

  Roland Presho Esq FCMA

  Kenneth W Pritchard Esq OBE

  Scott Alexander Rae Esq

  Miss Kathleen Ramm FCA

  Anthony John Ring Esq FCA FTII ATT

  Ms Carole A Roberts

  Mrs. Nancy Joan Roberts

  Albert Leonard Robinson Esq FHCIMA, FCFA

  John Gerald Robinson Esq

  Ms Rosalind Rudd

  Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque MBCS

  Mrs. Lynneth Mary Salisbury

  Peter John Seward Esq

  Michael Alan Sharp Esq FCA FHCIMA, FBHA

  Cyril Raymond Shaw Esq FCA

  Michael Maurice Silbert Esq FRICS

  Mrs. Janet M Smith

  Ramniklal Pranial Sodagar, Esq FCA, ATII

  Professor R G Spector MD PhD FRCP, FRCPath

  James Thomas Brian Strangward Esq

  Ranbir Singh Suri Esq JP

  Neil Francis Townsend Esq

  Maurice William Trace Esq

  Anthony Wreford Bothwell Voge Esq

  Mrs. Ruth Alison Watts Davies AHICMA

  Ian Ronald Welch Esq

  David Wenn Esq FRIGS

  Mrs. Angela West FCA

  Peter Whitehead Esq

  Mrs. Joan Whiteside QBE

  The hon. Mrs. Angela Widdows

  Leon Guy Wilkinson Esq FCIB

  Miss Diana M. Wilson

  Miss Sheila Wong Chong FRICS

  376W
  (f) National Savings and Investments

  Alan Cook, Chief Executive

  Judy Lowe, Non-Executive Director

  James Turner, Non-Executive Director

  Richard Wright, Non-Executive Director

  Maria Stafford, Non-Executive Director

  Savings
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter the tax treatment of tax exempt saving products. [121575]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep the tax regime under constant review to ensure that it continues to deliver its key objectives. The Government have recently consulted on radical proposals to simplify the taxation of pension savings. We are now considering responses to the consultation from around 380 organisations and individuals. There are no other current plans to alter the tax treatment of tax exempt savings products.

  Sixth VAT Directive
  Mr. David
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will support a revision of the Sixth VAT Directive which will allow a lower flat rate of VAT for construction work; [122810]

  (2) what plans he has to put forward proposals for changes to the Sixth VAT Directive. [122811]

  John Healey
  The Government will carefully consider representations for a reduced rate on all building work in the context of the upcoming European Commission review of the reduced rates provisions. The Government intend to take a full and active part in this review as with all other discussions on changes to EC VAT Law.

  Small Business (Tax Collection)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the Inland Revenue policy on collection of receivables in arrears from small businesses upon implementation of the Enterprise Act 2002. [123343]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue policy will not change upon implementation of the Enterprise Act 2002. The Inland Revenue will continue to support viable businesses, which experience financial difficulties, with the aim of encouraging enterprise and promoting a 'rescue culture'.

  For a small business that goes into administration the Inland Revenue must act in accordance with insolvency law and will seek to recover no more and no less than it is legally entitled to, just as it would with any business.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has to alter the rate of stamp duty without parliamentary approval. [121443]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Tax Codes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department takes to ensure that tax codes for those(a) 65 and over and (b) 75 and over are altered in the year in which taxpayers reach (i) 65 and (ii) 75 years; and if he will make a statement. [122695]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For taxpayers reaching pension age who do not complete a tax return, the Inland Revenue will either have their date of birth in their records or find out from the Department of Work and Pensions that they are about to become entitled to their state pension. In these cases, they send the new pensioner a short form to obtain details of their income so that they can give them the full range of allowances to which they are entitled.

  Once the Revenue has received details of the person's date of birth, they will use this information to give the higher allowance once the person reaches 75.

  If for any reason the individual does not get the allowances they are entitled to, they should get in contact with their Revenue office.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 536W, on tax credits, how many tax credit claimants are being paid by girocheque. [114411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue makes arrangements to pay tax credits via giro cheque when suitable banking facilities are not available. When such facilities become available, and if direct payments are still due to be made, the arrangements are changed to make the payments direct into the recipients' accounts. Such changes are being made continually, and it is not possible to establish for which recipients we are currently expecting to pay their next payment via girocheque, except at disproportionate cost.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has(a) received from and (b) made to the Scottish Executive concerning recent problems with tax credit payments, broken down by (i) subject, (ii) date and (iii) responsible Scottish minister. [122511]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. Payments by the Scottish Executive are a devolved responsibility of the Executive.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individual appeals against working tax credit assessments are outstanding. [115805]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Award notices cover child tax credit and working tax credit together, if appropriate. At the end of May 2003, when about 3.7 million claims were already in payment, about 4,600 written appeals against tax credit decisions had been received but not yet settled. These cover disagreements about award notices that have been reported in writing, but exclude those that are effectively reporting changes in circumstances. They include both specific disagreements about elements of the award and more general observations on the level of award or the calculation method.
  378W
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of people who will(a) gain and (b) lose financially on the basis of their total income in the 2003–04 financial year as a result of the introduction of child tax credit. [119037]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to Chart 5.1 in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (Budget 2003). It illustrates that a small number of families with children in the top 10 per cent. of the income scale will receive a smaller award of child tax credit than of the tax credits it has replaced. However, it also shows that even these families are on average around £5 a week better off due to the extra support this Government have given to families with children since 1997.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 542W, on tax credits, how many (a) tax credit application forms have been sent out and (b) completed application forms have been received, in each month since February. [121276]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]:The cumulative monthly figures to the end of May 2003 are as follows.

  Child tax credit and working tax credit: claim forms issued and claims received— cumulative monthly figures

  Thousands

  Month1

  (a) Claim forms issued

  (b) Claims received2

  February 2003

  5,500

  3,200

  March 2003

  6,500

  3,9003

  April 2003

  7,000

  40004

  May 2003

  7,200

  4,2505

  1 Final Friday in month.

  2 Including received on-line.

  3 At 9 April 2003

  4 At 28 April 2003

  5 At 3 June 2003. Excludes claims assessed as being duplicates.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to(a) the tax credits figures in the third row of Table C8 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500, (b) the tax credits figures in the thirty-third row of Table C8 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500, (c) the social security benefits figures in the fifth row of Table C11 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500 and (d) the tax credits figures in the sixth row the Table C11 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500, if he will list of the types of tax credit, benefits payment and other components which comprise the quoted figures; for each type of tax credit, benefit payment and other component, whether, according to the accounting methods employed in the 2003 Budget, they are classified as negative tax revenues, Government spending or a combination of the two; and for each tax credit, benefit payment and other component, what amount the tax was refunded and Government spending was incurred in each year since 2001–02 to the latest year for which figures are projected. [121327]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The treatment of personal tax credits in Budget reports was explained in Box C2 on page 216 of Budget 2002 (HC592). The Government have adopted best international practice as set out in OECD guidelines for the purposes of calculating net taxes and social security contributions as included in Table C8 of Budget 2003. However there are some
  379W
  differences between the OECD guidelines and National Accounts basis used for calculation of other fiscal aggregates.

  (a) Row 3 of Table C8 (tax credits scoring as negative tax under OECD guidelines) includes:

  Children's Tax Credit;

  Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC)—part;

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC)—part;

  Child Tax Credit—part;

  Working tax credit—part;

  Life assurance premium relief at source (LAPRAS)—part; and Enhanced company tax credits for research and development and contaminated land clearance that reduce corporation tax liability.

  (b) Row 33 of Table C8 (OECD negative tax but public expenditure in national accounts) includes parts of WFTC, DPTC and LAPRAS, and all reduced liability corporation tax credits for research and development and contaminated land clearance.

  (c) Row 5 of Table C11 (Social Security benefit expenditure) includes II social security benefits except child allowances in Income Support and Jobseekers' Allowance, and all child benefit and war pensions.

  (d) Row 6 of Table C 11 includes:
  Parts of Child Tax Credit, Working tax credit, WFTC, DPTC and Child allowances in Income Support and Jobseekers' Allowance, (paid as part of the Child Tax Credit from 2003–04 and included here to give consistent figures over the period of table);

  LAPRAS;

  Charities transitional relief; and

  Tax relief on contributions to personal and stakeholder pensions made by non-taxpayers.

  The following table shows the available figures on tax credits. More detailed information on outturn for individual tax credits available on www.inlandrevenue. gov.uk/stats. Details of social security benefit expenditure are available on www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/expenditure. htm.

  £ billion

  Category

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  (a) C8 row 3, negative tax (OECD)

  -2.3

  -3.4

  -4.5

  Of which:

  Personal tax credits1

  -2.2

  -3.1

  -3.9

  Corporation tax credits

  -0.1

  -0.2

  -0.5

  Other

  -0.1

  -0.1

  -0.1

  (b) C8 row 33, negative tax (OECD)

  but spending in National Accounts

  0.9

  1.1

  0.6

  Of which:

  Personal tax credits1

  0.7

  0.8

  0.0

  Corporation tax credits

  0.1

  0.2

  0.5

  Other

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  (d) C11 line 6, public expenditure

  8.7

  9.8

  11.7

  Of which:

  Personal tax credits1

  4.8

  5.6

  8.0

  IS/JSA child allowances

  3.6

  4.0

  3.5

  Other

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  1 Includes the relevant elements of WPTC, DPTC, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit and Children's Tax Credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who were receiving working families tax credit in March 2003(a) received payments of child
  380W
  tax credit by the end of April 2003 and (b) had not received their child tax credit by the end of April 2003. [121970]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Not all recipients of working families tax credit (WFTC) in March 2003 qualify for a child tax credit (CTC) award. Their circumstances or incomes may have changed since the beginning of their WFTC awards.

  Of former WFTC recipients who by 31 March had submitted claims for CTC, were eligible for CTC, and for whom no further information was required to process the claim, the vast majority were in award by the end of April 2003.

  It is not yet known how many recipients of WFTC at March 2003 have made later claims for CTC, or made claims which have required further information to process.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how applications for tax credits received after the 5 July deadline will be treated; and if he will make a statement. [122226]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This year, the Inland Revenue will treat tax credits claims received before midnight on the first full working day after the deadline as qualifying for full backdating. This is to make sure that claims received by different routes are treated alike and recognises that the deadline falls at the weekend. So claims the Inland Revenue receive by midnight on Monday 7 July will be backdated to 6 April 2003, where appropriate.

  People can, of course, still claim tax credits for 2003–04 after that date. Claims received after 7 July can still be backdated for up to three months. (People should therefore make their claims as soon as possible.)

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of administering the new tax credits on the processing by the Inland Revenue of income tax returns, with particular reference to the Inland Revenue at Bootle. [122691]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The rate at which the Inland Revenue processes income tax returns varies throughout the year and from year to year. New tax credits work has had no material effect on the processing of income tax returns this year.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue would be generated if the top rate of tax were(a) 45 per cent., (b) 50 per cent. and (c) 60 per cent. for those with incomes over £100,000. [121995]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year yield of introducing an additional higher rate of tax in 2003–04 is given in table.

  Income tax yield in 2003–04

  £ billion

  (a) 45 per cent. on gross incomes over £100,000

  2.7

  (b) 50 per cent. on gross incomes over £100,000

  5.0

  (c) 60 per cent. on gross incomes over £100,000

  9.5

  381W
  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with Budget 2003. They exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional revenue would be generated if the top rate of tax were(a) 45 per cent., (b) 50 per cent. and (c) 60 per cent. for those with incomes over £100,000 and the threshold for paying higher rates were raised to (i) £35,000 and (ii) £40,000. [121996]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year revenue yield or loss from making these changes in 2003–04 is set out in the table.

  New basic rate limit (£ billion)

  The full year yield or loss (±) of increasing the basic rate limit and introducing an additional higher rate of tax in 2003–04

  (i)£35,000

  (ii)£40,000

  (a) 45 per cent. on gross incomes over £100,000

  0.3

  -1.7

  (b) 50 per cent. on gross incomes over £100,000

  2.6

  0.6

  (c) 60 per cent. on gross incomes over £100,000

  7.2

  5.2

  These estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with Budget 2003. They exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Tax Rises
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tax rises he has introduced since 1997. [123554]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All changes to taxation since 1997 are set out in the relevant Financial Statement and Budget Reports, which are available in the Library of the House.

  Taxes (Accruals Adjustments)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the accruals adjustment on taxes for each year since 1996–97 or the earliest year for which data are available, whichever is the later, with reference to the accruals adjustments on taxes figures in Table C8 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500; [121324]

  (2) if he will list the reasons for the projected rise in accruals adjustments on taxes between 2002–03 and 2003–04, with reference to the accruals adjustments on taxes figures in Table C8 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500; and if he will make a statement; [121325]

  (3) with reference to the accruals adjustments on taxes figures in Table C8 of the 2003 Budget, HC 500, if he will list for each tax for which the accrued receipts (a) differed from the cash receipts in 2001–02, (b) are estimated to have differed from the cash receipts in 2002–03 and (c) or are projected to differ from the cash receipts in 2003–04, the difference between the cash receipts and the accrued receipts for (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04. [121326]
  382W
  Mr. Boateng
  The following table summarises the accruals adjustments on taxes and national insurance contributions from 1996–97, consistent with the figures given in Table C8 of Budget 2003 (HC 500).

  Accruals adjustments on taxes and national insurance contributions

  £billion

  Year

  Customs and Excise

  Income Tax

  Social security contributions

  Other taxes

  Total

  1996–97

  -0.1

  0.6

  0.3

  0.5

  1.3

  1997–98

  -0.4

  0.3

  0.6

  0.3

  0.9

  1998–99

  0.1

  0.6

  0.0

  0.6

  1.3

  1999–2000

  2.8

  1.1

  0.8

  -0.1

  4.7

  2000–01

  0.6

  0.9

  1.7

  0.5

  3.6

  2001–02

  0.9

  -0.1

  0.0

  -0.1

  0.6

  2002–03

  0.3

  0.2

  -0.7

  -0.1

  -0.3

  2003–04

  0.6

  1.3

  1.8

  -0.1

  3.6

  These accruals adjustments are defined as the difference between taxes accruing for the year and actual cash receipts in that year. They can vary considerably from year to year and from tax to tax reflecting changes to the timing of cash payments, changes to the tax system, behavioural changes by taxpayers and the rate of growth of the tax base. A combination of these factors explains the increase between 2002–03 and 2003–04. As explained in paragraph C85 of Budget 2003, this is partly because of the effect of the national insurance contributions measures announced in Budget 2002.

  Tied Financial Advisers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) tied financial advisers operate in the United Kingdom and (b) tied financial advisers had confirmed that they have obtained professional indemnity insurance cover by 30 May. [122902]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am advised by the Financial Services Authority that figures are not available for the number of tied advisers in the UK.

  Tied advisers, that is to say advisers who can only advise on the products of marketing group associates of large banking or insurance firms, tend to be either appointed representatives of or employed by such firms. Typically those firms, which have substantial capital resources to meet the claims of consumers, do not have a requirement to carry professional indemnity insurance.

  Widow's Bereavement Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Parliamentary Commission for Admissions' observations in Equality Under the Law, Command Paper HC122, paragraph 23, on the Inland Revenue's policy towards widowers who have sought the widow's bereavement allowance. [122380]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 65 of the Court of Appeal judgment in The Queen on the application of Adrian John Wilkinson and The Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2003] EWCA Civ 814, 18 June 2003, which can be found on the Court Service website at: www.courtservice.gov.uk

  Working Tax Credit
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the take-up of working tax credit. [121823]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Lady to my answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 604W, regarding child tax credit. Since that date further publicity has included television, press, radio and on-line advertising as well as direct mail.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to check that information lines for related benefits listed in working tax credit award notices are operational; and what systems he has in place to correct inaccuracies. [121992]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working tax credit award notices do not contain the details of information lines for related benefits attached to the new tax credits.

  However, the Inland Revenue has published a leaflet, "WT6? Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit? Other types of help you may be able to get" which explains how the tax credits can help families receive other benefits. The leaflet is available from Inland Revenue Offices and Enquiry Centres and on-line at the Inland Revenue website. The details in the leaflet are regularly reviewed.

CABINET OFFICE

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117216]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office has not voted in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal since May 1997. The Minister for the Cabinet Office does not attend meetings of the Council of Ministers, as the Department does not have the policy lead on any issues debated there.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting. [117234]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has not abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal passed by qualified majority voting since May 1997. The Minister for the Cabinet Office does not attend meetings of the Council of Ministers, as the Department does not have the policy lead on any issues debated there.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year. [117252]
  384W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has not been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers since May 1997. The Minister for the Cabinet Office does not attend meetings of the Council of Ministers, as the Department does not have the policy lead on any issues debated there.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117263]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Department has not indicated dissent without registering a vote or abstention from a proposal in the Council of Ministers since May 1997. The Minister for the Cabinet Office does not attend meetings of the Council of Ministers, as the Department does not have the policy lead on any issues debated there.

TRANSPORT

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since March 1999,(a) none, and (b) on one occasion. Information for the earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting. [117228]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since March 1999, twice. Information for the earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year. [117244]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since March 1999, on three occasions. These were as follows:

  In 2001:

  Common Position adopted by the Council with a view to adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the organisation of working time for mobile workers performing road transport activities. (Written procedure completed 23 March 2001, UK abstaining.)

  In 2002:

  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the level of pollutant emissions from two and three-wheel motor vehicles and amending Directive 97/24/EC. (Fisheries Council, 11 June 2002, UK abstaining.)
  385W
  Common Position adopted by the Council with a view to adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community. (Environment Council, 25 June 2002, UK voting against.)

  Information for the earlier years is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117258]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since March 1999, none. Information for the earlier years is only available at disproportionate cost.

  Cycling
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many cyclists died on the road in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [122276]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table below shows the numbers of fatalities suffered by cyclists on the road in the UK and Sefton in 2001 and in 2002:

  Year

  UK

  Sefton

  2001

  140

  0

  2002

  133

  1

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of changes in the(a) rate and (b) severity of cyclist casualties in areas where cycling with helmets is legally required. [122277]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department commissioned an independent review of the effectiveness of cycle helmets which was published in 2002. This report included an assessment of the evidence of the impact of bicycle helmet legislation on helmet wearing rates, injuries and levels of bicycling. The report concludes that bicycle helmet legislation has been associated with head injury reductions. A case study of Victoria in Australia found evidence that post legislation there was a marked decrease in casualty rates per head of population. Reductions in levels of cycling arid other road safety activities were recorded which may account for some of the casualty reductions.

  Results of this review are available on the Department for Transport website.

  EU Legislation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his Department over each of the last five years. [120757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 30 June 2003,Official Report, columns 64–65 W.

  Freight Companies
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason traffic commissioners are referring to public inquiry those freight companies who contract their transport manager function to Trans Consult Ltd. [122292]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traffic Commissioners are independent of the Secretary of State and decisions to refer cases to public inquiry are for them.

  Graffiti
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the statutory undertakers about graffiti on their street furniture or other property; and if he will make a statement. [118088]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not held any discussions with statutory undertakers about graffiti on their street furniture or other property. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department (Ms Blears) on 1 July 2003,Official Report, columns 248W—49W].

  Green Car Fuels
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the promotion of(a) bioethanol, (b) liquefied petroleum gas and (c) hydrogen as automotive fuels. [122337]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government supports the development and use of transport fuels which offer proven environmental benefits. We do this primarily by means of fuel duty incentives, and, as appropriate, grants to offset the additional cost of alternatively fuelled vehicles. Many alternatively fuelled vehicles also qualify for reduced rates of Vehicle Excise Duty and company car tax.

  The Chancellor of the Exchequer takes decisions on fuel duty levels and other transport tax issues on a Budget by Budget basis. In doing so, he takes account of a range of environmental, economic and social considerations, building on the principles set out in the HM Treasury publication "Tax and the environment: using economic instruments" (November 2002).

  Budget 2003 announced that a duty incentive of 20 pence per litre for bioethanol would be introduced from 1 January 2005. It also said that the Government was considering how best to give further support to bioethanol produced from ligno-cellulosic feedstocks, and would welcome views on how any such support might be structured.

  Budget 2003 also announced that the Government would consult on how best to ensure that future support for road fuel gases (including liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)) continued to reflect environmental and other policy objectives. This consultation was launched on 18 June 2003, and copies of the consultation document have been placed in the House Library. In the light of this, decisions on future duty rates and other forms of support for LPG are due to be announced in the 2003 Pre-Budget Report.
  387W
  The Government has granted a duty exemption for hydrogen for the purposes of a Green Fuels Challenge pilot project, due to commence later this year. Subject to the outcome of this pilot project, the Government intends to exempt hydrogen from fuel duty for a limited period in the future to encourage further development and early take-up. The taxation of hydrogen as a road fuel raises some complex issues, however, and the Government intends to discuss these issues with stakeholders with a view to taking decisions on the fiscal framework for hydrogen in the future.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the levels of freight carried by rail since 1997; what plans he has to increase it; and if he will make a statement. [123052]

  Mr. McNulty
  The amount of freight moved by rail has grown by 24 per cent. since 1997. The Strategic Rail Authority published in May 2003 its first "Freight Progress Report", explaining the achievements to date in increasing rail's share of freight traffic and the Authority's plans for achieving the growth envisaged by the Government's 10 Year Plan for Transport. Copies of the SRA report are available in the Library of the House.

  Road Haulage
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to ensure that foreign operators in the road haulage industry in the UK are abiding by the relevant rules and regulations. [122885]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) check foreign road haulage operators, using UK roads, in the same manner as they do domestic hauliers to ensure compliance with traffic and roadworthiness regulations. VOSA use intelligence data to target those operators, whether foreign or domestic, who consistently breach regulations. They also carry out occasional random checks. Those operators and drivers who are caught offending are treated to the same sanctions, whatever their country of origin.

  VOSA report all offences, committed by foreign operators and drivers, to the licensing authorities in the countries of origin of the offenders.

  Trunk Roads
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent by his Department and its predecessors in each of the last 20 years on trunk roads in the East of England, broken down by(a) year and (b) county; and how many miles of trunk road have existed in the East of England in each of the last 20 years. [121797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information cannot be provided as requested, as detailed records are not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, I am able to provide information regarding the length of trunk road in the East of England (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk). Records for the period 1983–1997 and for the 388W
  year 2001 are shown in the attached table; there are no detailed recorded statistics available for 1998–2000. Statistics for 2002 have not yet been published.

  Year

  Kilometres

  1983

  1,195.3

  1984

  1,188.5

  1985

  1,190.0

  1986

  1,167.9

  1987

  1,187.7

  1988

  1,195.4

  1989

  1,194.6

  1990

  1,237.9

  1991

  1,245.0

  1992

  1,245.3

  1993

  1,246.2

  1994

  1,246.2

  1995

  1,242.3

  1996

  1—

  1997

  1,272.6

  1998

  1—

  1999

  1—

  2000

  1—

  2001

  1,139.0

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate how long it takes on average to(a) complete and (b) process the application form for the Vehicle Excise Duty Exemption Certificate; and whether his Department has a target for the number of applications to be processed. [121576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Veterans Agency (VA) are responsible for issuing certificates of exemption from VED for disabled people. There are no figures available on the length of time it takes an individual to complete the application form for an exemption certificate. There are no targets for the issuing of exemption certificates by DWP while VA's target is two working days from the date of receipt of a valid application.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Baljit Kaur/Jaspal Singh
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to determine the application made by(a) Baljit Kaur (S1025374/3) and (b) Jaspal Singh (S1160262) for indefinite leave. [122997]

  Beverley Hughes
  Mrs. Baljit Kaur and Mr. Jaspal Singh were both granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on 30 June 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will respond to the letter of 6 May 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, regarding Mr. R. Edgar of Peterhead, a constituent. [119584]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: I will be replying to the hon. Member shortly. I apologise for the delay.
  389W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston will respond to the letter of 25 March 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding a constituent, reference number: PO 6649/3. [119585]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The letter from the hon. Member dated 25 March 2003 was received in the Home Office on 1 April 2003 and the reply was sent to his office at the House of Commons on 25 June 2003.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation was held with members of the judiciary before, amendments were tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill in relation to sentencing for murder. [121965]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office has taken care to ensure that consultation with the judiciary has been an important part of the development of the proposals in relation to sentencing for murder, although the Government's final conclusions differed from views expressed by the judiciary. Prior to the tabling of amendments this consultation included:A seminar with senior judicary and the Lord Chief Justice on 20 January 2003 providing an opportunity to comment on the developing proposals for sentencing in murder cases.
  An informal meeting between the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Falconer on 13 March.

  The development of the proposals for setting minimum terms for murder was also discussed during a meeting between the Lord Chief Justice and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 13 March.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)(a) how many and (b) what percentage of registered bodies did not have their registration with the Criminal Records Bureau completed within the previous three week service standard in 2002–03; and how long an average it took to process applications from organisations which took longer than three weeks; [122480]

  (2) how many potential registered bodies are having their applications processed by the Criminal Records Bureau; and how many of these organisations have been waiting longer than three weeks. [122481]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: There are 4,742 registered bodies that did not have their registration with the Criminal Records Bureau completed within the previous three-week service standard in 2002–03, the percentage being 90.72 per cent.

  The average length of time to process applications from organisations which took longer than three weeks was 13 weeks. This includes time often required to seek further information from applicant organisations and for them to respond to such requests.

  There are 315 potential registered bodies having their applications processed by the Criminal Records Bureau and 191 have been waiting longer than three weeks.

  Deportations
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Chechens have been deported in the past six months; to which destinations they were sent; what arrangements were made to ensure their safe passage through Russia to Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [122358]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of people of Chechen origin removed from the UK and on the destinations to which they were removed, is not available except by examination of individual case files which would incur disproportionate cost.

  There are no arrangements in place to ensure the safe passage to Chechnya of Chechens who are removed from the UK to the Russian Federation. Whether or not such an individual chooses to return to Chechnya following his removal to the Russian Federation is the decision of that individual.

  Drug Treatment
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people who have completed a Drug Treatment and Testing Order are no longer taking drugs(a) one month, (b) three months and (c) six months after completion. [122122]

  Paul Goggins
  This information is not held centrally for the period since national roll-out of the order in October 2000. An evaluation of three pilot projects found that the average amount spent on drugs by offenders subject to Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) fell from £400 per week in the four weeks before arrest to £25 per week in the first four to six weeks of the Order. These reductions were largely maintained over time, with 87 per cent. of those who had completed the Order by the end of the pilot phase reporting that, except for their use of cannabis, they were drug free.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on those sections of the draft EU constitution relating to(a) internal border controls and (b) people-trafficking. [122709]

  Beverley Hughes
  Reference to an area without internal borders is made in the existing Treaty establishing the European Community and the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. The existing Treaty is subject to the UK and Ireland's "frontiers' protocol" which gives the UK the right under the Treaties to exercise at its frontiers with other member states such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it considers necessary. The Protocols will remain an integral part of the new Treaty. The Government's position on this issue has not changed: we will maintain controls at the UK's frontiers.

  As a consequence of this position on frontiers, the United Kingdom has not participated in certain measures relating to external borders. However, the UK has co-operated with European Union partners in tackling illegal immigration and people trafficking. These are international problems that require

  391W
  international solutions. The new Constitutional Treaty will continue to provide a legal base for the Union to take appropriate action in these areas.

  For further information about the Government's position on the articles in the draft Constitutional Treaty dealing with the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, as presented to the Convention by the Praesidium on 14 March, I refer the hon. Member to the Explanatory Memorandum deposited by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (Denis MacShane) on 2 June.

  Identity Cards
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the costs of the introduction of identity cards to(a) the Government and (b) the individual holder of the card. [122360]

  Beverley Hughes
  The consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud provided a section on indicative cost assumptions. During the consultation period we have benefited from observations and comments received which have been helpful in contributing to further assessments of costs and the overall response to the consultation exercise.

  There are a number of different ways in which a scheme could be devised. Further, more detailed, work is needed on contractual delivery arrangements as well as the level of benefits for different services and the charges needed to cover the costs.

  The precise type of scheme would ultimately be a matter for Parliament to decide.

  Immigration
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the performance of the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau in Croydon; how many applications where the applicant clearly falls under the immigration rules have been delayed beyond the expected minimum over the last year; and if he will make a statement. [121844]

  Beverley Hughes
  The performance of the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB) has improved significantly in recent months. It is now answering between 24,000 and 25,000 calls a week compared to 17,000 a week at the beginning of this year. Callers now regularly get through to the Bureau in one or two attempts and average time in a queue has reduced from six minutes to two minutes. In a recent customer survey over 85 per cent. of those questioned described their experience of INEB as satisfactory or better.

  We normally aim to screen all postal applications within three weeks and decide at least 70 per cent. at that point. Because of the high number of applications in the latter part of 2002, it was taking up to 10 weeks on average at the end of last year and the earlier part of this one to take decisions on these cases. As a result of measures to improve this situation, the processing time for straightforward applications has reduced to four weeks on average and continued progress is being made towards our three-week target. At present where further
  392W
  inquiries are required, most cases are being decided within six months but because of the very high intake a small minority have taken up to 12 months to decide.

  Memorials
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 1 June 2003,Official Report, column 1053W, on memorials, if he will take advice from the National Association of Funeral Directors on the matters being considered by the working group on guidance to local authorities on memorial safety. [123444]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Association of Funeral Directors has recently accepted membership of the Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group. As a member, the Association is welcome to comment on any of the work being undertaken by the Advisory Group, including that of the memorial safety sub-group.

  Mr. Rezart Elmarzi
  Bob Russell
  To Ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in support of the wish of Mr. Rezart Elmarzi, a constituent, to remain in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [122138]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]:I wrote to the hon. Member on 1 July 2003.

  Prison Incidents
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serious incidents there have been in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 12 months involving(a) riots, (b) peaceful protests, including sit-down protests, (c) assaults and (d) other disturbances. [118791]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is detailed in the table. The Prison Service's incident reporting system records the number of acts of concerted indiscipline rather than "riots". Similarly, acts of passive concerted indiscipline are recorded rather than the number of protests or sit down protests. In the course of the 12 months from June 2002 to May 2003, the number of assaults recorded was 11,462. The figures in the table are of those assaults which resulted in an injury to either staff or prisoners. The Prison Service does not have a category for "disturbances".

  Number of acts of concerted indiscipline

  Number of acts of passive indiscipline

  Number of assaults

  June 2002

  5

  2

  47

  July 2002

  6

  9

  59

  August 2002

  10

  16

  61

  September 2002

  1

  6

  67

  October 2002

  10

  11

  58

  November 2002

  3

  3

  56

  December 2002

  6

  5

  44

  January 2003

  6

  5

  50

  February 2003

  5

  5

  44

  March 2003

  6

  4

  66

  April 2003

  2

  9

  60

  May 2003

  2

  10

  90

  Total

  62

  85

  702

  Prisoner Transfers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment in England and Wales were transferred under(a) the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners and (b) the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders in each year since 1997; [121952]

  (2) if he will set out the process by which a prisoner can apply for transfer under (a) the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners and (b) the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders; [121953]

  (3) if he will list the countries with which the UK has bilateral prisoner transfer agreements. [121954]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table records how many prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment in England and Wales who were transferred under(a) the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners and (b) on the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders in each year since 1997.

  Council of Europe Convention

  Commonwealth Scheme

  1997

  17

  —

  1998

  42

  —

  1999

  22

  —

  2000

  35

  —

  2001

  39

  —

  2002

  50

  —

  The process by which a prisoner can apply for transfer under the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and the Commonwealth Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders is the same. An application for transfer can only be made by either the sentencing state or the receiving state. The prisoner can initiate the process by a written indication to either state of his/her wish to transfer. In the case of a prisoner in England and Wales, this is made by completing a request/complaint form, which is freely available within prisons.

  Both the sentencing state and the receiving state will consider the request. If both states approve the transfer then the prisoner will be asked to give his formal consent. Once all three parties have given their consent, arrangements will be made for the transfer of the prisoner.

  The United Kingdom has bilateral prisoner transfer agreements with the following countries:

  Egypt

  Thailand

  The Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong

  Brazil

  Morocco

  Barbados

  Venezuela

  394W
  The following agreements have been concluded but are not yet in force:

  Cuba

  Guyana

  Suriname

  Peru

  Sri Lanka

  Dominican Republic

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Retired Police Officers
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the position of retired police officers who have their pension reduced to pay for an increased widows pension, where their wives pre-deceased them before or after retirement; and if he will make a statement. [115067]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In the period since 8 June 2001, hon. and right hon. Members have tabled one Early Day Motion, asked six questions and written 14 letters to Ministers on the general issue of widows' pensions. Five of these 14 letters were specifically concerned with officers whose pension has been reduced to pay for an increased widows' pension.

  We have sympathy for those who elected to have their pension reduced to pay for an increased widow's pension but whose wives pre-deceased them. However, such an election was an alternative option to paying increased pensions contributions while still serving. It would run counter to the principle of a contributory occupational pension scheme, in which benefits are guaranteed only in specified circumstances, to return contributions in any case where those circumstances did not apply.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  GM Crops
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which UK-based companies are involved in the development of genetically modified crops. [121749]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not have details of every UK-based company involved in the development of genetically modified crops. However, the following companies are members of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, the industry body for companies involved in the development of agricultural biotechnology in the UK, including GM crops: Bayer CropScience, BASF, Dow Agrosciences, Dupont, Monsanto UK, and Syngenta.

  Further details of those companies granted consent to release GM crops for trial or research purposes under Part B of EC Directive 2001/18 are available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/exper.htm

  Biotechnology
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent in each year since 1995(a) as

  395W
  a Department and (b) through grants to external bodies on (i) the promotion of and (ii) research into biotechnology. [121653]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: In the years since 1995 my department has spent the following on biotechnology research:

  Financial year1

  2 Total R&D spend on Biotechnology (£ million)

  1995–96

  20.5

  1996–97

  23.2

  1997–98

  25.6

  1998–99

  29.3

  1999–2000

  25.3

  2000–01

  29.4

  2001–02

  29.7

  2002–03

  33.2

  2003–04

  26.23

  1 Defra was created during the 2001–02 FY. Figures for previous years cover old MAFF and DETR biotechnology research programmes

  2 Defined as research into the application of biological organisms, systems and processes to manufacturing and service industries. This covers genetic modification research, but goes much wider to include, among other techniques, fused cell techniques, protein engineering, fermentation and cell culture techniques, the production of vaccines and monoclonal antibodies.

  3 Figures for the current year are provisional. A number of contracts may be in the process of being let and not yet included in year total.

  This money has all been spent through contracts with external bodies. No money has been spent by my department on the direct promotion of biotechnology.

  Emissions Trading Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure the EU Emissions Trading Directive is implemented in such a way as to encourage energy efficiency downstream. [122218]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The purpose of the EU Emissions Trading Directive is to encourage reductions in direct emissions of carbon dioxide from certain industrial sectors. The Government have introduced other policy measures to encourage energy efficiency downstream, such as the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC), which requires electricity and gas suppliers to achieve targets for the promotion of improvements in domestic energy efficiency.

  Also, direct participants in the UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme, and participants in Climate Change Agreements, have emissions reduction targets, that include indirect emissions of carbon dioxide from reducing electricity use on site.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has taken to ensure that the UK's international policies protect endangered species. [121904]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government have pressed for action to help protect endangered species in a number of international fora. For example, at last November's Conference of the Parties to the Convention on 396W
  International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Chile, I was able to persuade the delegates to list the basking shark on Appendix II. This will mean that the international trade in the fins and other parts of this vulnerable species will be more strictly regulated in future.

  Similar protection was also afforded to whale sharks, seahorses and big-leaf mahogany. The current high level of protection afforded to minke and bryde's whales was also maintained, despite efforts by Japan to downlist the species. Other successes included measures to conserve Asian big cats such as tigers and snow leopards and the development of strict measures for controlling any future trade in ivory stockpiles.

  Fly Tipping
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 24 February 2003,Official Report, column 88W, on fly-tipping, what has been the outcome of her consideration of possible changes to legislation; and if she will make a statement. [122776]

  Mr. Morley
  Proposals to help local authorities and the Environment Agency tackle the problem of fly tipping have been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, currently before Parliament.

  The Bill includes measures that if successful will mean that local authorities will have powers to stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly tipping. They will be able to investigate incidents to help them track down and prosecute those responsible for dumping the waste. The Bill will also create statutory directions that will formalise the current fly tipping protocol which has been agreed between the Local Government Association and the Environment Agency.

  The Government are also considering a wide range of other measures, details of which will be published later in 2003 and brought forward at the next legislative opportunity.

  GM Debate Website
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many hits have been recorded by the GM debate website: www.gmnation.org.uk [122211]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: In the first 18 days of June 2003, 1,487,024 hits were recorded by the GM Nation website. The hon. Member may wish to note that this does not represent the number of people that have visited the website, as each individual is likely to be responsible for multiple hits as they move around the website.

  GM/Organic Produce
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters on the Government's policy on genetically modified food from(a) hon. Members, (b) private individuals and (c) organisations are waiting to be answered by the Department; how many have been waiting for more than 28 days; and if she will make a statement. [109540]
  397W
  Mr. Morley
  The Food Standards Agency is responsible for policy on genetically modified food. However, on GM issues for which this Department is responsible, the information is set out in the table as at 2 July 2003:

  Total awaiting reply

  Number awaiting reply for more than 28 days

  Member

  57

  0

  Private individuals and organisations

  145

  4

  A large number of letters from organisations and private individuals have been inspired by the recent announcement of the GM Public Debate.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department has spent in each year since 1995 on the promotion of(a) genetically-modified and (b) organic produce. [121654]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 June 2003]: No money has been spent by my Department on the promotion of genetically modified produce or on the promotion of organic produce. However, aid has been made available to farmers converting to organic farming (and from 5 June 2003 aid has been made available to existing organic farmers also). The Department also funds a programme of R&D on organic production. And advice for farmers considering organic farming is provided by the Organic Conversion Information Service (OCIS) which is funded by Defra. Spending on these since financial year 1994–95 is detailed in the following table but data for spending on OCIS before financial year 1999–2000 are not readily available.

  Financial year

  Aid to organic farmers (£)

  R&D (£)

  OCIS (£)

  1994–95

  27,000

  1,058,000

  1—

  1995–95

  261,000

  931,000

  1—

  1996–97

  374,000

  1,116,000

  1—

  1997–98

  571,000

  908,000

  1—

  1998–99

  1,026,000

  1,491,000

  1—

  1999–2000

  12,469,000

  2,035,000

  788,000

  2000–01

  11,397,000

  2,207,000

  601,000

  2001–02

  10,910,000

  2,193,000

  327,000

  2002–03

  12,567,000

  1,791,000

  301,000

  1 Not readily available

  Hazardous Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable there is for producing voluntary agreements on household hazardous waste after June 2004. [121983]

  Mr. Morley
  Taking into account the composition of the waste stream, and in particular the low recycling rate and the toxicity of the waste product., we will be looking over the next 12 months at the scope for a voluntary producer responsibility agreement to increase the recycling of waste consumer batteries. We will also review the household waste stream to see what the most 398W
  hazardous elements are with a view to identifying other possible candidates for a voluntary producer responsibility agreement with industry.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department takes to ensure that gas emissions from landfill and hazardous waste sites do not pose any risk to public health. [122729]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Environment Agency regulates gaseous emissions from landfill and hazardous waste sites to minimise the damage to the environment and risk to human health. In particular, the Agency requires that appropriate measures are taken to control the accumulation and migration of landfill gas. Typically this will involve the active collection, treatment and combustion of landfill gas to minimise the potential impacts.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what statutory framework regulates the discharge of untreated hazardous liquid waste directly to sewage treatment plants for disposal; and if she will list the permitted chemical and biological components of such waste. [122756]

  Mr. Morley
  Sewerage undertakers have powers to control and reduce discharges of substances such as untreated hazardous liquid waste into sewers. If they consider the discharge constitutes trade effluent, their consent is required in accordance with the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. The consent may set conditions and require the elimination or diminution of any specified constituent of the trade effluent before it enters the sewer. Such a discharge without the undertaker's agreement is a criminal offence.

  Applications for any special category effluent have to be referred to the Environment Agency before consent can be given. Where the effluent is produced as part of a prescribed process, it will also require a permit from the Agency under the Environment Act 1995 and the Pollution, Prevention and Control Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1973).

  Where a sewerage undertaker agrees to accept liquid waste delivered to a sewage works by road tanker, the reception, storage, and pre-treatment of the waste is additionally controlled by waste management law (a waste management licence or Pollution Prevention Control Permit depending upon the activities and their scale). The final effluent produced by the works and released back into the environment must meet the conditions or standards required in a Discharge Consent issued by the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991.

  No list of permitted chemical and biological components exists as such. Each case has to be assessed individually and will depend on the capabilities of the specific treatment works and the quality standards to be achieved in the receiving waters.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many litres of untreated hazardous liquid waste were sent directly to sewage treatment plants for disposal in each year since 1999. [122757]
  399W
  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, the Environment Agency is compiling the information and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the hazardous wastes which her Department and the Environment Agency have decided(a) can be adequately treated by dilution and (b) require additional treatment for disposal. [122764]

  Mr. Morley
  Dilution is not generally considered to be the best practicable environmental option for disposal of hazardous waste, although technically it would be possible to operate such a process subject to the conditions of an environmental licence or authorisation (permit) to ensure the protection of the environment and human health.

  Implementation of the Landfill Directive to meet the EU Waste Acceptance Criteria will require all wastes to be treated before they are landfilled. Dilution would not be an acceptable form of treatment.

  Hens
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much it would cost to introduce enriched cages for hens by 2012; and if she will make a statement on the implications for production costs of alternative production methods recently researched by her. [122648]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment was carried out for the implementation of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. Given an industry estimate of £14.86 per bird and assuming that 10.2 million laying hens would transfer from conventional cages to enriched cages, we believe that it would cost around £151.6 million net present value. Further economic assessments of production methods will be made in preparation for the 2005 Review of Directive 1999/74/EC.

  Horse Welfare
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on horse welfare in the United Kingdom; and what plans she has to improve horse welfare. [122204]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has begun a review of animal welfare legislation relating to captive, domestic and sporting animals. The intention is to update and consolidate the legislation into one Animal Welfare Act. The new legislation would be pro-active and would allow action to be taken before an animal suffers if it is not being given appropriate care. Areas for consideration under the new Bill include licensing of livery yards and a statutory code of practice on tethering. My Department has been in consultation with a number or interested parties about the review and we aim to have a public consultation on a draft Bill early next year.

  Household Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of plans for a study of the 400W
  potential of deposit refund schemes in the United Kingdom to promote (a) refuse and (b) waste minimisation. [121984]

  Mr. Morley
  We believe there may be environmental and commercial benefits in a deposit and return system for some bottles and other containers. A deposits system would involve the public directly in waste collection and this would help to change the culture of waste collection and recycling.

  We are currently investigating the deposit systems used in other European countries. Some of these countries have reported very high administrative costs, which could make these schemes a more expensive way of recycling products than other collection methods. Some countries have reported benefits from such systems, particularly in terms of higher recycling rates, but sometimes these occur in the countries which have high packaging waste recycling targets and it is not clear that deposit systems on their own would deliver high recycling rates in a cost-effective way.

  We would therefore need to consider both the costs and benefits of a possible deposit scheme in the United Kingdom. In particular, we would have to examine how deposit systems could complement and add to other means of encouraging waste minimization and recycling, such as the packaging Regulations.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of(a) paper, (b) glass, (c) cans, (d) oil and (e) bottles are recycled through council-organised recycling schemes in (i) Redcar, (ii) the north-east and (iii) England. [122331]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Household waste recycling 2001–02

  tonnes

  Material

  Redcar and Cleveland UA

  North-east region

  England

  Paper and card

  467

  29,000

  959,000

  Glass

  359

  11,000

  428,000

  Cans

  267

  1,000

  26,000

  Oil

  15

  n/a

  n/a

  Source:

  Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey 2001–02

  We do not hold a figure for bottles. The glass figure will include glass bottles collected for recycling.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of household rubbish is recycled through council-organised recycling schemes in(a) Redcar, (b) the North East and (c) England. [122332]

  Mr. Morley
  The household waste recycling rate for 2001–02 was as follows:

  Percentage

  Household waste recycling rate 2001–02

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2

  North East Region

  5

  England

  12

  Source:

  Defra Municipal Waste Management Survey 2001–02

  Invasive Weeds
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what duties are placed on local authorities to assist with the safe disposal of invasive weeds; who is responsible for monitoring this process to ensure that all waste is safely disposed of to ensure that rhizomes cannot spread; and whether she plans to issue further guidance and assistance to local authorities to ensure these criteria are met. [117800]

  Mr. Morley
  Local authorities' responsibilities for the collection and disposal of waste are set out in sections 45, 48 and 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. These responsibilities relate to local authorities' functions as waste collection and waste disposal authorities.

  Section 34 of the 1990 Act imposes a duty of care on everyone with responsibility for waste—including waste collection and disposal authorities. It requires everyone subject to the duty to take all reasonable measures to prevent the escape of waste from their control and to ensure that it is disposed of by someone who is authorised to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary

  (1 October to 30 September)

  Order

  Number of prosecutions

  2001–02

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997

  53

  2000–01

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997

  29

  1999–2000

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997

  54

  1998–99

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997

  82

  1997–98

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1994

  45

  1996–97

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1994

  65

  1995–96

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1994

  91

  1994–95

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1994

  95

  1993–94

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1992

  46

  1992–93

  Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1992

  11

  1991–92

  Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973

  18

  Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (as amended)

  189

  Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988 (as amended)

  5

  1990–91

  Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973

  18

  Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (as amended)

  1121

  Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988 (as amended)

  7

  1989–90

  Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973

  61

  Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (as amended)

  156

  Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988 (as amended)

  3

  1988–89

  Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973

  6

  Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (as amended)

  157

  Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988 (as amended)

  4

  1987–88

  Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973

  12

  Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 (as amended)

  162

  1 This figure includes prosecutions which do not relate to the welfare of animals. Separate figures for the welfare of animals are not available.

  Notes:

  Prior to 1987–88 information on prosecution returns was not kept.

  Prosecution figures are not kept by type and country of origin of the vehicle.

  Information on convictions is not held centrally.

  Live Exports
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with her European counterparts since April 2002 on removing European Union obstacles to the ban on live exports and their 402W
  of State has issued a Code of Practice under section 34(7) of the 1990 Act, providing practical guidance on how to discharge this duty of care.

  The provisions of the 1990 Act mentioned above apply to household, industrial and commercial waste—collectively defined as "controlled waste". Material containing Japanese knotweed is treated as controlled waste to help prevent its further spread.

  No specific obligation is placed on local authorities under these controls to dispose of invasive weeds more generally as waste.

  Live Animal Transport
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions and convictions there have been regarding live animal transport by(a) type and (b) country of origin of the vehicle in each of the last 20 years. [122649]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of prosecutions under welfare in transport legislation are published in the annual "Return of Expenditure Incurred and Prosecutions taken under the Animal Health Act 1981, and Incidences of Disease in Imported Animals" which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The number of prosecutions reported were:
  replacement by meat exports; and if she will make a statement. [121371]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: Judgments in the European Court of Justice have confirmed that a ban on the live export of animals would be illegal under the Treaty of Rome. Instead of seeking a ban, we have continued to press in the Agriculture Council for the European Commission to bring forward

  403W
  improved controls for the welfare of animals during transport. Commissioner David Byrne has now said that he expects to produce these long overdue proposals in July 2003. Most of our exports are of meat. We are supporting action to improve competitiveness in the red meat food chain with a view to strengthening meat supply chains both at home and in export markets.

  Methane
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate she has made of the quantity of methane which is being released annually by the northward retreat of permafrost and the consequent impact on climate change. [122666]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: Methane concentrations have increased by a factor of 2.5 since pre-industrial times and account for about 20 per cent. of the climate warming due to greenhouse gases. The increase in concentration is mostly due to increases in anthropogenic emissions (from sources such as landfills, energy production and biomass burning). We have no estimates for the current annual release rate from such areas but methane emissions from high-latitude permafrost areas are likely to have made a contribution to climate change due to greenhouse gases of less than 1 per cent.

  Modulation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the higher rates of modulation on larger farms; and if she will make a statement. [120539]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: The deal on CAP reform agreed by the Agriculture Council on 26 June 2003 represents a real shift in agricultural policy. It will provide a more sustainable basis for European agriculture and reflect the wider environmental and rural development objectives, which society seeks to achieve.

  The first €5,000 of every recipient's subsidy is exempt from modulation. However, this means that the effective modulation rate is higher on farms in receipt of higher levels of subsidy. However, this should be viewed in the context of the whole package of reforms. An assessment of the economic impact of the Commission's January proposals on the long-term perspective for sustainable agriculture is available on the Defra website (http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/capreform.pdf), and an assessment of the impact of the outcome of the negotiations will be made available in future.

  OSPAR Ministerial Meeting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from non-governmental organisations on the Ospar ministerial meeting in Bremen. [120788]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra officials discussed a range of issues on biodiversity with Wildlife and Countryside Link on 29 May 2003. Greenpeace also made representations in relation to radioactive substances.404W
  Non-governmental organisations also made representations directly to the Bremen meeting. In addition, I met both Wildlife and Countryside Link and Greenpeace in Bremen prior to the start of the meeting.

  Recycling
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the assistance the Government gives to charity shops in promoting the reuse of goods; and if she will make a statement. [121985]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not give assistance specifically for this purpose, although there are many ways in which we support the work of charities in general and in which we promote the reuse and recycling of materials. We are always willing to receive representations and ideas about specific measures that would benefit either or both of these causes.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to stop the export of recyclable materials from the UK to other countries for treatment; and if she will make a statement. [119699]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have no plans at present to prevent the export of recyclable materials for treatment. Our priority is to increase the amount of waste that is reused or recycled; to achieve these aims may necessitate the export of recyclate. The Government have taken action to increase recycling markets in the UK by setting up the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which was set up to lead on recycling market development in the United Kingdom.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many miles of footpaths are in use. [123404]

  Alun Michael
  In England and Wales it is estimated that there are 173,940 km of public rights of way that are footpaths. There are no figures held centrally to show how many miles of footpath are in use, and the information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost. However, the 1998 Day Visits Survey, which surveyed leisure day visits in both urban and rural areas, found that walking was a principal activity on approximately 930 million trips in England and Wales. The 2002 Leisure Day Visits Survey will be published in the autumn this year.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many payments to farmers were completed after the target date by the Rural Payments Agency in each month in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04 to date, broken down by type. [122843]

  Alun Michael
  Since the Rural Payments Agency was established on 16 October 2001 the number of payments made to farmers after the target date is as follows.
  405W

  2001–02 Scheme

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  F&V Withdrawal

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  OTMS Deadweight

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  OTMS Incineration

  1

  3

  13

  3

  —

  1

  OTMS Mincing

  4

  —

  —

  3

  —

  2

  Main AAPS Payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2114

  355

  SAPS

  —

  4

  —

  —

  2

  1

  BSPS

  49

  41

  —

  —

  1

  15

  ERDP Schemes are subject to rolling payment deadlines that are calculated from the date an individual claim is received by the Rural Development Service who administer the schemes on behalf of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). The exception being the Hill Farm allowance which is administered by RPA and has a target of 95 per cent. of payments to be made by the end of March.

  2002–03 Scheme

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  OTMS Liveweight

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  OTMS Incineration

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  OTMS Mincing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Main MRS Payments

  16

  20

  11

  25

  5

  11

  Non Food Set-Aside

  150

  20

  20

  10

  3

  5

  SAPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  BSPS

  5

  4

  —

  8

  —

  5,800

  SCPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,982

  SPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,565

  EPS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  948

  2002–03 Scheme

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  OTMS Liveweight

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  —

  OTMS Incineration

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  OTMS Mincing

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Main MRS Payments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  341

  98

  Non Food Set-Aside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SAPS

  3

  5

  2

  2

  2

  BSPS

  4,396

  1,894

  954

  776

  791

  550

  SCPS

  2,109

  982

  319

  634

  883

  424

  SPS

  7,433

  3,026

  3,925

  1,832

  5,128

  3,663

  EPS

  488

  385

  117

  125

  222

  166

  ERDP Schemes are subject to rolling payment deadlines that are calculated from the date an individual claim is received by the Rural Development Service who administer the schemes on behalf of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). The exception being the Hill Farm Allowance which is administered by RPA and has a target of 95 per cent. of payments to be made by the end of March.

  2002 Scheme

  Total number of claims

  Claims processed after target date

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  19,790

  3,364

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas I-III

  7,458

  2,162

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas IV

  3,120

  62

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  7,683

  230

  Organic Farming Scheme

  1,489

  148

  Processing and Marketing Grant

  61

  11

  406W

  2001 Scheme

  Total number of claims

  Claims processed after target date

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  9,359

  2,901

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas I-III

  8,336

  1,167

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas IV

  3,127

  187

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  6,464

  3,813

  Organic Farming Scheme

  1,242

  322

  Energy Crops Scheme

  15

  2

  Processing and Marketing Grant

  17

  3

  Rural Enterprise Scheme

  229

  39

  Vocational Training Scheme

  70

  6

  2002 Scheme

  Total number of claims

  Claims processed after target date

  Rural Enterprise Scheme

  898

  197

  Vocational Training Scheme

  223

  22

  Hill Farm Allowance

  11,116

  222

  2003–04 Scheme

  April

  May

  June

  Main AAPS Payments

  17

  25

  —

  Non Food Set-Aside

  242

  33

  —

  SAPS

  15

  8

  46

  BSPS

  259

  193

  223

  SCPS

  107

  3

  —

  SPS

  3,083

  707

  422

  EPS

  47

  41

  23

  407W
  ERDP Schemes are subject to rolling payment deadlines that are calculated from the date an individual claim is received by the Rural Development Service who administer the schemes on behalf of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA). The exception being the Hill Farm Allowance which is administered by RPA and has a target of 95 per cent. of payments to be made by the end of March.

  2003 Scheme

  Total number of claims

  Claims processed after target date

  Organic Farming Scheme

  694

  146

  Rural Enterprise Scheme

  253

  38

  Vocational Training Scheme

  70

  4

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what actions her Department is taking to deal with administrative problems across the border between England and Wales in processing payments by the Rural Payments Agency. [122520]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) and National Assembly for Wales Agriculture and Rural Affairs Department (NAWARAD) are in regular communication in respect of subsidy claims which cover land and animals, in both England and Wales. The majority of such claims which have been validated have received at least interim payments.

  In addition, automated interfaces are being developed between England and Wales for the bovine schemes.

  Waste and Resources Action Programme
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has held in the last year with voluntary organisations on the Waste and Resources Action Programme; and if she will make a statement. [122232]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government holds frequent discussions with the voluntary sector on waste management issues and they took part in discussions with the Strategy Unit during their waste study. However we have had no recent discussions with them about the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).

  WRAP was set up as an independent company by Government, to promote sustainable waste management by working to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products. As an independent company we look to WRAP to identify the issues it feels it needs to discuss with the voluntary sector and take action accordingly.

  We are aware that WRAP holds regular independent discussions with the voluntary sector and, in particular more recently, concerning their intended new work following the announcement of their extended role under the Waste Implementation Programme. WRAP has also recently established an electronic stakeholder dialogue which is open to voluntary organisations.

  Waste Incineration
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's assessment that the Waste Incineration Directive does not apply to on-farm drum incinerators and waste oil burners; whether her officials have discussed this interpretation with officials from the European Commission; and whether officials from the European Commission have expressed agreement in writing with this interpretation. [122753]

  Mr. Morley
  In draft Guidance on Directive 2000/76/ EC on the incineration of waste, published for consultation in February 2003, the Government expressed the view that the definition of "incineration plant" used in that Directive is not intended to encompass small units or appliances which would be incapable of complying with the requirements of the Directive under any circumstances.

  The Directive includes provisions in relation to residence time, temperature control, monitoring, and compliance with emission limit values, which only plants of a reasonable size and technical sophistication would be capable of meeting. Small, basic units do not easily fit either the description "technical unit" which is used in the Directive definition or the scope of the incineration site which is evidently envisaged by this definition.

  The Government consider that units which are not included within the scope of the Directive on this basis include on-farm drum incinerators and small space heaters or other waste oil burners (used for example on garage premises). However, operations of this type will continue to be controlled under the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended) which requires them to be subject to either a permit (Article 9) or the general rules of an exemption registered with the "competent authority" (Article 11). The objective of these controls is to ensure that waste is disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health (Article 4).

  This means that, on the proposed repeal of the exclusion for agricultural waste in section 75(7)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the waste management controls of Part II of the 1990 Act and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 will apply to on-farm drum incinerators. Small space heaters and other waste oil burners are prescribed for local authority regulation under Part I of the 1990 Act and the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000.

  The draft Guidance on Directive 2000/76/EC was issued for a consultation period which closed on 16 May. Officials are currently considering consultation responses with a view to finalising the Guidance later this year, still in plenty of time for the Directive's coming into force for existing installations from 28 December 2005. A copy of the finalised Guidance will be sent to the relevant officials in the European Commission, thus providing them with an opportunity to comment.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the impact on the
  409W
  environment of excluding (a) on-farm drum incinerators and (b) waste oil burners from the Waste Incineration Directive. [122760]

  Mr. Morley
  UK estimates of emissions from a range of sources are contained in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory and are published annually. Full NAEI data are available at the NAEI website www.naei.org.uk. However, the NAEI does not contain data at the level of detail requested and so no correspondingly detailed quantitative assessment of the environmental impact of these devices has been made.

  The Waste Incineration Directive includes provisions which can apply only plant of a reasonable size and thus with potential to cause significant pollution, whereas small units such as these do not easily fit either the description "technical unit" used in the Directive definition or the scope of the incineration site which is evidently envisaged by this definition. However, operations of this type will continue to be controlled under other legislation.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many tonnes of waste oil were sent for recycling in each year since 1999; [122761]

  (2) how many tonnes of waste oil were burned in waste oil burners in each year since 1999. [122762]

  Mr. Morley
  Virtually all waste lubricating oil collected in the UK is treated to meet a specification as a recovered fuel oil and is burnt as fuel in coal fired power stations and other large manufacturing units.

  The last years for which figures for combustion of oil have been collated are 1999 and 2000 during which approximately 380,000 tonnes and 360,000 tonnes respectively of waste lubricating oil were burnt as fuel. 4,000 tonnes of waste oil were recycled into base lubricating oil in 1999. There has been no recycling in subsequent years.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the impact on the environment of(a) on-farm drum incinerators, (b) waste oil burners and (c) on-farm carcass incinerators. [122763]

  Mr. Morley
  UK estimates of emissions from a range of sources are contained in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory and are published annually. Full NAEI data are available at the NAEI website www.naei.org.uk. There are no data at the level of(a) and (b). However, the Department commissioned an independent report to measure and review atmospheric emissions from small carcase incinerators, which was published in August 2002. This is available on the Defra website at http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/Default.asp under Project Code WA0806.

  Waste Management
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 209W, if she will make a statement on the contents of the register used to provide the information in her answer of 17 March 2003, Official Report, column 506W, and
  410W
  distinguish it from the data held as part of the Environment Agency Register of Waste Management Licences, which are kept under part 2 of the Environment Protection Act 1990. [121997]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's Register of Waste Management Licences is a list of those who hold waste management licences.

  The information used in reply to the hon. Member's question of 17 March comes from a separate public register, which contain details of breaches to air emissions limit values. Copies of the breaches are sent to local authorities who also place them on public record.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) impact and (b) timing of changes to UK legislation and the National Waste Strategy arising from changes in EU policy on municipal waste incinerators and waste recovery targets. [121999]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: Recent cases in the European Court of Justice in relation to the incineration and co-incineration of waste have sought to distinguish between waste recovery and waste disposal operations. I am aware that these recent judgments could have a significant impact on the ability of member states to meet certain recycling and recovery targets, most notably those in the packaging and packaging waste directive (94/62/EC).

  However, the European Commission is currently reviewing the lists of recovery and disposal operations in the waste framework directive (75/442/EEC as amended) and has begun work in this area with the adoption of the Communication "Towards a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste" (COM(2003)301) and by launching a study on issues relating to the lists in Annexes IIA and IIB of the Directive. The Government consider that it would be premature to implement any changes to UK legislation and the waste strategy whilst this review is ongoing.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what measures her Department takes to ensure that independent assessments undertaken on behalf of operators of landfill and hazardous waste sites to ascertain the possible risks to public health from activities conducted at the site in question are credible and independent; [122783]

  (2) what measures the Environment Agency takes to ensure that independent assessments undertaken of possible risks posed to public health from activity conducted at a landfill and hazardous waste site are credible and independent; [122784]

  (3) what measures her Department takes to ensure that when the licence of a landfill and hazardous waste site is being reviewed issues of public health are considered; [122785]

  (4) what measures her Department takes to ensure that companies employed by landfill and hazardous waste site operators to produce independent assessments when examining public health issues are impartial and best qualified to undertake the assessments. [122787]
  411W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: The objective of the Waste Framework Directive (75/442/EEC as amended by 91/156/EEC) is to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health or harming the environment (Article 4). The Directive's controls include the need for a permit (licence) for the disposal of waste and are supplemented by the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EEC) and the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). The Environment Agency is prescribed as a "competent authority" for the purposes of each Directive.

  Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 imposes a duty on the Agency to discharge its functions relating to the disposal of waste with regard to the objectives of Article 4 of the Waste Framework Directive. These functions include the issuing of licences for landfill sites and the review of those licences. The purpose of licences and their conditions is to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health or harming the environment.

  Section 35(8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires the Environment Agency to have regard to guidance issued to it by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, in the discharge of its licensing functions. The main guidance issued to the Agency under section 35(8) of the 1990 Act is set out in Waste Management Paper No.4 (ISBN 0–11–752727–0) and deals with issues such as the operator's management systems and quality assurance (paragraphs 4.21–4.25).

  Subject to these considerations, it rests with the Environment Agency, in fulfilment of its functions as a "competent authority" and having regard to the facts of each case, to reach decisions on the effectiveness and quality of monitoring assessments undertaken by or on behalf of licence holders.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those industries for which the Government plans voluntary agreements to reduce waste and increase the use of recycled materials and the recyclability of products. [121981]

  Mr. Morley
  We will seek to apply voluntary producer responsibility agreements where they are the best option to deliver maximum environmental benefit. We believe the best approach is to assess which waste streams are particularly problematic and might therefore lend themselves most effectively to such agreements; to determine whether the development of such an agreement would be proportionate to the size of the problem; and what the financial and environmental costs and benefits of such agreements would be; and to establish whether the waste streams concerned are already the subject of other mechanisms, including regulations and the work of other organizations, such as WRAP.

  At present, we have a voluntary producer responsibility agreement in place with the newspaper publishers. We hope shortly to reach agreement with the producers of direct mail and promotions and are talking to the magazine publishers about a possible agreement. Other waste materials which might be suitable for future voluntary agreements with industry are batteries and farm plastics.
  412W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list those stakeholders her Department(a) has held discussions with and (b) intends to hold discussions with on a voluntary agreement for the recycling of waste consumer batteries. [121982]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have not yet held any meetings with stakeholders to discuss the development of a voluntary agreement for the recycling of consumer batteries. Key stakeholders have been identified as being producers and importers, other industry representatives, battery reprocessors, including recyclers, local authorities and other battery collectors. The stakeholders will shortly be invited to attend a preliminary meeting to discuss the scope for an agreement.

  Waste Oil Burners
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many waste oil burners in England(a) use and (b) do not use pollution abatement equipment. [122759]

  Mr. Morley
  The standards for small waste oil burners involve ensuring that the burners are designed to cater for waste oil and are maintained so that there is good combustion; that the content of the waste oil is within specified parameters; and that there is a chimney of a height sufficient to disperse and dilute the emissions. Given that these conditions are fulfilled, abatement equipment is not specified in the statutory guidance. The main other processes burning waste oil are in the minerals sector and power stations. We believe that the majority of the former achieve specified emission limits without the need for pollution abatement equipment. Power stations are fitted with abatement.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her Answer, 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 609W, on asbestos, if she will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122954]

  Mr. Caborn
  Pursuant to the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and amendments of 1992 and 1998 risk assessments were carried out by inspections of all reasonably accessible places in the Department's four buildings. No asbestos was found to be present in any of the buildings during those inspections. During the last 12 years each of the buildings has been subject to significant refurbishment and no asbestos was revealed.

  Gambling
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what measures are in place to ensure that on-line gambling operators are not used as a vehicle for the laundering of illegally obtained funds. [121633]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the current legislation, online gaming is prohibited from being offered by companies based in Britain. However, betting operators are free to offer their services online, and this will continue under
  413W
  the Government's proposals to modernise the gambling laws. The planned Gambling Bill will permit online gaming, and all British based online gambling operators will be subject to regulation by the Gambling Commission which will include measures to prevent crime. In advance of the new legislation, a money laundering code of practice is being developed between the DCMS, law enforcement agencies and bookmakers to reinforce the present money laundering arrangements.

  Government Reshuffle
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how much was spent on printing departmental notepaper and publicity material showing(a) Lord McIntosh as Minister responsible for broadcasting, (b) the honourable Member for Sheffield Central as Minister responsible for sport and tourism and (c) the Right honourable Member for Birmingham, Yardley as Minister responsible for arts and film; [121186]

  (2) how much has been spent on reprinting departmental notepaper and publicity material following ministerial changes since 12th June; [121241]

  (3) how much was spent on providing departmental notepaper and publicity material showing Lord McIntosh as the Minister responsible for tourism, film and broadcasting. [121242]

  Mr. Caborn
  Nothing has been spent on reprinting departmental notepaper following the Ministerial changes on 12 June 2003. The only amount spent on publicity material following changes, is a combined cost of £384 on photographs for the two Ministers appointed to DCMS.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was to her Department of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123151]

  Mr. Caborn
  The cost to the Department of mobile phones supplied to ministers and officials was 25,500 in 2000–01, 21,000 in 2001–02, 29,000 in 2002–03 and

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lottery funding

  2,639,843

  2,183,013

  7,016,190

  2,729,162

  8,588,395

  Exchequer funding

  184,100

  257,967

  428,854

  375,312

  341,333

  Sports Funding
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on sport-related activities by her Department and its predecessors in each of the last 20 years broken down by(a) central government, (b) Lottery and (c) other funding. [122832]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Exchequer funding for Sport, the Capital Modernisation Funding of Space for Sports and Arts, Lottery awards made through Sport England and UK Sport and awards from the New Opportunities Fund are shown in the following table.414W
  9,500 as of the start of July this year. It is not possible to provide figures prior to 2000 save at disproportionate cost.

  Regeneration (Sports)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the role of sport and sport-related activities in achieving regeneration; and if she will make a statement. [122834]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government fully recognises the important role that sport can play in the regeneration of both urban and rural areas and in addressing a whole range of social issues such as better health, reduced crime and social inclusion. In particular the Policy Directions issued to Sport England in respect of the distribution of the Lottery Sports Fund require it, in deciding applications for funding, to have regard the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation, the need to promote access to sport for people from all sections of society and the need to further the objectives of sustainable development taking into account social and community progress and employment opportunities created by sports projects. Since 1995 Sport England has awarded over £1.5 billion of Lottery funding. Sport England has also introduced a number of other specific initiatives aimed at the regeneration of deprived areas, such as Sport Action Zones.

  In addition, our analysis of the costs and benefits of hosting the Olympic Games in London in 2012 has included an assessment of the regeneration benefits achieved by past host cities and also the significant regeneration benefits for Manchester as a result of staging the Commonwealth Games in 2002.

  Rugby Union
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support was provided to the development of rugby union in each of the last five years. [122883]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information in respect to England is set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Year

  Exchequer

  Capital modernisaton fund-space for sport and arts

  Lottery awards

  New opportunities fund

  1983–84

  27.12

  1984–85

  28.60

  1985–86

  30.11

  1986–87

  37.35

  1987–88

  37.15

  1988–89

  38.41

  1989–90

  41.88

  1990–91

  44.86

  1991–92

  47.47

  1992–93

  50.40

  1993–94

  54.40

  415W

  £ million

  Year

  Exchequer

  Capital modernisaton fund-space for sport and arts

  Lottery awards

  New opportunities fund

  1994–95

  53.55

  1995–96

  53.95

  57.00

  1996–97

  51.89

  170.00

  1997–98

  50.13

  294.00

  1998–99

  49.36

  399.00

  1999–00

  51.59

  296.88

  2000–01

  52.57

  0.01

  242.35

  2001–02

  63.90

  0.58

  336.55

  2002–03

  112.12

  50.46

  288.56

  99.01

  Notes:

  1. The Exchequer figures up to 1991–92 cover the support for the Sports Council for Great Britain and the Football Licensing Authority;

  2. The Department of Heritage was formed in April 1992 and became the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in 1998–99.

  3. A Royal Charter set up the Sports Council of Great Britain in 1972. The Sports council had a remit covering British Sport as a whole but was mainly involved in English sports matters. There were separate autonomous councils for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales funded by their respective departments.

  4. The Football Licensing Authority was established under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and transferred from the Home Office during 1992–93.

  £

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  2002–2003

  Lottery funding

  7,385,360

  2,631,804

  3,488,451

  9,291,574

  7,550,020

  Exchequer funding

  37,188

  None

  None

  None

  None

  The proportion of funding provided to youth development is not centrally recorded.

  Volunteering
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment her Department has made of the financial value of volunteering for sport-related activities. [122835]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK has a network of 110,000 community amateur sports clubs run by 1.5 million volunteers. The financial value of the voluntary sector is difficult to estimate. The Leisure Industries Research Centre did, in 1996, make the following estimate
  416W
  5. On 1 January 1997 the Sports Council of Great Britain was superseded by the UK Sports Council and English Sports Council

  6. The figures for 2002–03 include final provision of £34 million in support of the Manchester Commonwealth Games.

  7. The figures in the table cover New Opportunities in PE and Sport (including awards to the Football Foundation and Space for Sports and Arts) and the Out of School Hours/School Sports Co-ordinators schemes.

  8. In addition there are other sport funding programmes that are funded through the New Opportunities Fund:

  a. £30 million for England administered by Sport England for the Playing Fields and Community Green Spaces scheme; and,

  b. £9 million to be delivered by Barnado's and Children's Play Council through the Better Play Grant

  The Exchequer and Capital Modernisation Funding figures shown for 2002–03 are final Supply Estimate provision. All other figures reflect actual outturn. The figures for 1983–84 to 1997–98 are recorded on a cash basis with the figures for 1998–99 onwards recorded on a resource basis.

  Tennis
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial support was provided to the development of tennis in each of the last five years; and what proportion was provided to youth development. [122884]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information in respect to England is set out in the following table.

  (reproduced in the December 2002 DCMS/Strategy Unit Report, "Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government's sport and physical activity objectives"):

  Type of Sport Volunteer

  Volunteer hours (m) per year

  Value of volunteer hours at £3.81 per hour (£m)

  Governing Bodies/Sports Clubs in 94 sports

  165.5

  1,375

  International events hosted in UK

  0.3

  2

  Disabled Sport

  3.2

  26

  Schools

  2.6

  21

  Youth organisations

  11.6

  96

  Total

  183.2

  1,522

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Business Regulation
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) level and (b) cost of regulations imposed on small businesses by her Department since 1997. [123231]

  Nigel Griffiths
  There is no established method of assessing the precise level or cost of imposing or removing regulations on SMES, either before 1997 or after. The latest 2002 figures indicate a reduction in new Statutory Instruments over 1996–97.

  Developing Countries (UK Trade Access)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts her Department has made to expand access to developing countries for UK industry. [123232]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our aim in the Doha Trade Round is to promote fair trade. Expanding access to the markets in developing countries can help them be more competitive. However developing countries also need the added benefit of special and differential measures to address particular difficulties in some developing countries.

  Community Pharmacies
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading's proposals for local pharmacies. [123233]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government made an interim response to the OFT's report on control of entry regulation for pharmacies on 26 March. In relation to England, the Government have said that they are still considering the report and its recommendation and will announce before the summer recess a balanced package of proposals, which we believe is the most effective means of promoting change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas.

  Miners' Compensation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received in the past month about extending the miners' compensation scheme for those with chest diseases to those who worked as cokemen. [123234]

  Mr. Timms
  I am aware that the hon. Member has raised this issue with the Leader of the House. The Department has received no representations this month.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reasons have been given to former coal miners by IRISC for the denial of claims received from Moss Solicitors of Loughborough for compensation payments for(a) chronic obstructive
  418W
  pulmonary disorder and (b) vibration white finger for the period (i) April 2000 to April 2001, (ii) April 2001 to April 2002 and (iii) April 2002 to April 2003. [123215]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department's claim handlers, IRISC, are unable to provide detailed reasons in the format requested.

  I can advise that, under the terms of the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation, claims are denied where the respiratory specialist who assessed the claim is of the opinion that the claimant is not suffering from any compensatable disease, or he was not employed with British Coal after 1954 (1949 in Scotland), the date of liability.

  Claims for Vibration White Finger are denied where the claimants' employment records indicate that he was not employed in an occupation with British Coal whereby he would have been exposed to excessive vibration, or he was not employed with British Coal, after 1975, the accepted date of liability, or the full Medical Assessment Process (MAP) report determines that he is not suffering from VWF.

  This is in accordance with the High Court Judgments.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Competition Commission's report on the sale of veterinary medicines. [123237]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has accepted the Competition Commission's report and the recommendations and proposed remedies contained in it. The changes proposed by the Commission aim to increase competition in the supply of prescription-only veterinary medicines while ensuring that human and animal health continue to be protected.

  Paper-making Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has received from the paper-making industry about competition conditions within the European Union. [123238]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  No recent representations have been received.

  Civil Partnerships
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the intended timescale for legislation on civil partnerships. [123333]

  Ms Hewitt
  The consultation period on civil partnership registration will end on 30 September 2003. The Government will consider the next steps in the light of responses to the consultation paper. No decisions have yet been taken about legislation on civil partnership registration.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment her Department
  419W
  has made of the percentage of staff employed by the Department for Trade and Industry who (a) are able to cope with the demands of their jobs, (b) have a say about the way they do their work, (c) receive adequate information and support from their colleagues and superiors, (d) understand their role and responsibilities, (e) are not subject to unacceptable behaviour such as bullying and (f) are happy that they are involved in decision-making on changes. [121268]

  Ms Hewitt
  Data to answer these precise questions are not available. DTI however prides itself on a supportive and positive working environment. It has worked in partnership with its unions on more positive approaches to flexible working and long hours. It does not tolerate bullying. Our business plan, published in April, gives clarity on our objectives and everyone's personal objectives are related to this. All people in DTI are involved in decisions that affect them as far as possible.

  Employment Rights (Information and Consultation)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce legislation on employee rights to information and consultation. [123236]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have had discussions with a wide range of groups and organisations, including the CBI and TUC, about how we implement the directive and will publish legislative proposals for consultation shortly.

  EUREKA Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual UK contribution has been, at constant prices, to the EU EUREKA programme since its inception; and if she will make a statement. [122494]

  Ms Hewitt
  EUREKA is an independent programme to support industrially-led R and D. It includes 34 member countries in Europe and adjacent regions. The EU Commission is also a member.

  There is no central fund to support projects; each country provides support to its own participants at agreed rates. EUREKA can cover any industrially-relevant technology. It complements the EU Framework Programme and is implicated in the proposals for the European Research Area.

  The majority of projects fall within the policy responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The following table details the annual spend on EUREKA projects by the DTI. Separate figures before 1992–93 are unavailable.

  EUREKA projects expenditure

  £ million

  Financial year

  Actual spend

  Spend at 2002–03 prices

  1985–1991/92

  26.90

  43.07

  1992–93

  29.31

  37.81

  1993–94

  20.57

  25.90

  1994–95

  21.41

  26.60

  1995–96

  14.48

  17.49

  420W

  EUREKA projects expenditure

  £ million

  Financial year

  Actual spend

  Spend at 2002–03 prices

  1996–97

  8.32

  9.74

  1997–98

  5.88

  6.68

  1998–99

  2.04

  2.26

  1999–2000

  1.99

  2.15

  2000–01

  2.32

  2.45

  2001–02

  1.90

  1.96

  2002–03

  2.74

  2.74

  Total

  37.86

  178.84

  The future of the EUREKA initiative in the UK will be covered in the imminent DTI Innovation Review.

  Export Licences (Colombia)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the applications for export licences for(a) armaments and (b) dual use equipment made by United Kingdom companies for export to Colombia in each of the past three years; and how many licences were (i) granted and (ii) refused. [123448]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The details of all relevant export licence applications issued and refused are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 2000, 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports are available from the Libraries of the House.

  Grants
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the grants made by her Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which her Department is responsible to(a) the John Innes Institute, (b) the BioIndustry Association, (d) Diatech, and (e) Floranova in each year since 1997. [122296]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the start of the financial year 1997–98, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) has committed a total of £30.7 million in research grants to the John Innes Centre. This figure includes responsive mode, funding, initiative grants, equipment and research fellowships. In addition to these research grants, BBSRC also provides a core strategic grant on an annual basis to the John Innes Centre. Annual spend in the financial years 1997–98 to 2002–03 is shown in the following table.

  Spend on BBSRC grants to John Innes Centre 97/98 onwards, including responsive mode funding and Core Strategic Grant (CSG)

  £ million

  Research grants

  CSG

  Total

  1997–98

  2.4

  9.6

  12.0

  1998–99

  2.7

  9.8

  12.5

  1999–2000

  2.4

  9.5

  11.9

  2000–01

  3.2

  9.8

  13.0

  2001–02

  3.8

  10.0

  13.8

  2002–03

  4.4

  10.2

  14.6

  421W
  DTI has made the following payments to the BioIndustry Association in connection with a range of events and activities designed to promote the general capability of the biotechnology industrial sector.

  £ million

  1998

  0.22

  1999

  0.19

  2000

  0.17

  2001

  0.36

  2002

  0.36

  2003

  0.17

  No grants have been made to Diatech or Floranova.

  Insurance Contract Law
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy to reform insurance contract law; and if she will make a statement. [122907]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to reform insurance contract law at present.

  Net Metering Arrangements
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage net metering arrangements, with particular reference to the removal of market distortions. [122216]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 36 June 2003]: The Government use the term "net metering" to describe commercial arrangements where a generator receives the same price for exported energy as he pays for imported energy. Offering net metering on this basis will result in a supplier incurring costs and, although at least one supplier has offered customers a limited net metering tariff, it is difficult to see how the economics of net metering could be sustained on a widespread basis.

  The Government are, however, anxious to ensure that small, locally connected, generators receive full and fair value for the energy they produce. To this end, changes to electricity market arrangements will be implemented this September which will allow energy exported by small distributed generation to be traded via the electricity settlement system for the first time. In addition, the Distributed Generation Co-ordinating Group, jointly established by the DTI and Ofgem to address barriers associated with the connection and operation of small-distributed generation, has initiated work to identify metering and settlement arrangements which will ensure that small generators are fairly recompensed for exported energy.

  Regeneration (Staffordshire)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bids Advantage West Midland received from the North Staffordshire Partnership in respect of an Urban Regeneration Company for North Staffordshire; and what the outcome of each bid was. [122591]
  422W
  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has not received any formal proposals from any body operating in North Staffordshire with respect to an Urban Regeneration Company.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Objective Two and Three European funding Advantage West Midlands(a) has secured and (b) anticipates it will raise in 2003–04; and how much it plans to spend on projects in North Staffordshire. [122592]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands is not directly responsible for Objective 2 investment in the sub-region. Government Office for the West Midlands administers these programmes on behalf of the region.(a) There are no Objective 3 offers to AWM. Objective 2 offers made to AWM are worth £86.84 million (ERDF and ESF combined). There are £15.85 million worth of bids currently under appraisal. (b) It is impossible to tell what level of ERDF and ESF AWM might secure in 2003–04 since this is dependent on the number of bidding rounds available and how many successful applications AWM achieve. Regarding spend in North Staffordshire, again this is impossible to say as the majority of the resources available to AWM are under an Action Plan which any of the sub regions can bid into.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Advantage West Midland estimated grant-in-aid spending will be in 2003–04; and how much will be spent on projects in North Staffordshire. [122593]

  Jacqui Smith
  Estimated grant-in-aid for 2003–04 is £260 million, £18 million of which is indicatively allocated to North Staffordshire through the existing SRB programmes and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress Advantage West Midlands has made in setting up a company to manage the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone under the North Staffordshire Partnership Zone Implementation Plan. [122594]

  Jacqui Smith
  The corporate governance structure for the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone is developing in line with other Regeneration Zones across the region. The North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone has established a Shadow Board chaired by the private sector; has an interim manager and is about to recruit a permanent secretariat to deliver the programme over the next 10 years.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the causes are of the delay in Advantage West Midlands(a) determining and (b) approving a delivery vehicle for regeneration within the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. [122595]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has not received a formal proposal for the establishment of an Urban Regeneration Company. However discussions are ongoing with stakeholders to determine the potential for such an arrangement.
  423W
  The corporate governance structure for the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone is developing in line with other Regeneration Zones across the region and the interim arrangements as described above are already in place.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which delivery vehicles for regeneration are being considered by Advantage West Midlands within the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. [122596]

  Jacqui Smith
  Work has been commissioned by Advantage West Midlands, with agreement by local stakeholders, to scope the potential form and function of a special purpose vehicle to deliver physical investment in the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. Local consultation is taking place initially to be followed up with detailed dialogue with ODPM during August/September. Early indications suggest that a radical solution is required more in line with the approach taken by Government in the Thames Gateway rather than the traditional Urban Regeneration Company adopted elsewhere in the region.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons Advantage West Midlands has not approved an Urban Regeneration Company for North Staffordshire. [122597]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has not received any formal proposals from any body operating in North Staffordshire with respect to an Urban Regeneration Company.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when bids were first received by Advantage West Midlands for an Urban Regeneration Company from(a) Sandwell, (b) North Staffordshire, (c) Walsall and (d) other districts, boroughs and subregions in the West Midlands. [122598]

  Jacqui Smith
  Formal submissions were received from Sandwell and Walsall in April 2001. Advantage West Midlands has not received any other formal proposals with respect to an Urban Regeneration Company.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what progress Advantage West Midlands has made in appointing a clerical assistant for the Secretariat of the company to manage the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone; [1122599]

  (2) what progress Advantage West Midlands has made in the establishment of a finance and monitoring officer by Stoke-on-Trent Partnership for the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone; [122600]

  (3) what progress Advantage West Midlands has made in the appointment of (a) a regeneration zone manager and (b) the four pillar managers for North Staffordshire under the North Staffordshire Partnership Zone Implementation Plan. [122601]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has allocated a secretariat budget for the Zone and to date, an Interim Regeneration Zone Manager has been put in place through the North Staffordshire Partnership, employed by Stoke on Trent City Council.
  424W
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which consultants have been used by(a) Advantage West Midlands and (b) the North Staffordshire Partnership to advise on regeneration in North Staffordshire; how much they were paid; and when; [122602]

  (2) what the role of KPMG is in advising Advantage West Midlands on regeneration in North Staffordshire; when the firm was appointed; and how much it will be paid. [122603]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands commissioned KPMG in May 2003 to work with stakeholders and the day to day management responsibility for the consultancy contract with KPMG lies with Stoke on Trent city council. Details of the contractual arrangements are commercial in confidence.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons Advantage West Midlands did not notify local hon. Members of the meetings on 2 and 3 June to discuss the progress of regeneration in North Staffordshire; which priority projects were discussed at these meetings; and how these projects relate to the Zone Implementation Plan of the North Staffordshire Partnership. [122604]

  Jacqui Smith
  The arrangements for the Stakeholders event on 2 and 3 June were determined by local partners from the public sector. The objectives for the day were to discuss and review local regeneration activity that lies within the statutory responsibility of public sector bodies and the local strategic partnerships.

  Greater dialogue will now take place directly between Advantage West Midlands and local Members of Parliament in the next stage of discussions, which relate to national policy.

  A report outlining the key outcomes of the event will be available from AWM from 2 July.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with which aspects of the North Staffordshire Partnership Zone Implementation Plan Advantage Waste Midlands plans to proceed. [122605]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has approved the Zone Implementation Plan for 2003–04. However this is currently being updated by the Regional Zone Partnership to reflect recent developments. Delivery of the Plan will be the responsibility of the Zone Partnership.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Advantage West Midlands has allocated to the West Midlands Region under(a) SRB4, (b) SRB5 and (c) SRB6; and how much is being applied under each single regeneration budget round to (i) Stoke-on-Trent, (ii) Newcastle-under-Lyme, (iii) Staffordshire Moorlands and (iv) Stafford. [122606]
  425W
  Jacqui Smith
  SRB allocations for 2003–4 are as follows:SRB 4 Total Allocation to the West Midlands is £8 million of which £1.87 million is allocated to Stoke SRB 4. There were no SRB 4 allocations to other areas in the sub-region.
  SRB 5 Total Allocation to the West Midlands was £19 million of which £4.4 million was allocated to Stoke SRB 5; £0.9 million was allocated to SRB 5 in North East Staffordshire.
  SRB 6 Total Allocation to the West Midlands was £24 million of which £4.8 million was allocated to Stoke SRB 6 and £1.3 million to SRB 6 in Stafford.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information Advantage West Midlands has received on the number of officials and staff Stoke-on-Trent city council employs on projects under(a) SRB4, (b) SRB5 and (c) SRB6. [122607]

  Jacqui Smith
  The delivery arrangements for the SRB programmes are detailed in the delivery plans for each of the schemes, which are available to the public through the local partnership.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information Advantage West Midlands has received on the number of projects under way or planned by Stoke-on-Trent city council under(a) SRB4, (b) SRB5 and (c) SRB6; and if she will list the (i) cost, (ii) start date and (iii) expected finish date of each project. [122608]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has signed off the Delivery Plans for the SRB 4, 5 and 6 for 2003–04.

  Advantage West Midlands does not have detailed lists of individual projects planned, as the SRB is a delegated programme. Information on these is available in the public domain from the partnership delivery plans.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the role is of Mr. Jim Beeston of Heartlands in advising Advantage West Midlands on regeneration in North Staffordshire; what advice he has provided; and when his advice will be finalised. [122609]

  Jacqui Smith
  Jim Beeston is now a Director of Invigour Consulting, who has been commissioned by Advantage West Midlands with agreement by local stakeholders to scope the potential form and function of a special purpose vehicle to deliver physical investment in the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. Local consultation is taking place initially to be followed up with detailed dialogue with Office of the Deputy Prime Minister during August and September 2003. Invigour will report back to the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone and North Staffordshire Housing Market Renewal Board during July and August 2003.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the awards of grant in-aid under the skills development and rapid response category that have been made to North Staffordshire by Advantage West Midlands in the last three financial years; and the amount of each award. [122674]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Work and Pensions is responsible for the administration of the Rapid Response Fund.
  426W
  Skills Development Funding to North Staffordshire over the last three financial years amounts to £6.83 million.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions Advantage West Midlands has had with RIBA over an urban design vision for Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire. [122675]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands is aware of on-going discussions taking place between local partners regarding an urban design vision for Stoke-on-Trent. Advantage West Midlands has not had any direct discussions with RIBA on this issue outside of general partnership meetings.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how Advantage West Midlands intends to incorporate the Housing Pathfinder programme in its most appropriate delivery vehicle for regeneration in North Staffordshire. [122676]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands is working closely with the Housing Market Renewal Board to put in place joint delivery arrangements for regeneration in North Staffordshire. Several discussions have taken place at the Housing Market Renewal Board. However no decision has yet been made on firm delivery proposals.

  Advantage West Midlands is not responsible for the Housing Pathfinder Programme but it is its intention to integrate its activities fully with it where possible to maximize resources and avoid duplication.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support Advantage West Midlands has given to the North Staffordshire Urban Design Forum. [122677]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has supported the development of the North Staffordshire Design Initiative through their Business Growth Fund. There has been no specific support for the Urban Design Forum to date, although proposals are being put forward through the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what submissions Advantage West Midlands has received(a) directly and (b) via the North Staffordshire Partnership in respect of (i) funding and (ii) other assistance for the (A) North Staffordshire Urban Design Forum, (B) an urban design vision for North Staffordshire and (C) a proposed new architecture centre for North Staffordshire. [122678]

  Jacqui Smith
  Both Advantage West Midlands and North Staffordshire Partnership have received the same proposal from the North Staffordshire Urban Design Forum. In practice, the proposal will be channelled through the North Staffordshire Regeneration Zone for consideration and possible support.

  The North Staffordshire Urban Design Forum proposal requests funding of £48,733 in 2002–03, £154,289 in 2003–04 and £179,834 in 2004–05, a total of £382,856 over this three-year period.
  427W
  The development of an Urban Design vision for North Staffordshire and an architecture centre are included as part of the urban design activities in the proposal.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions Advantage West Midlands has had with Stoke-on-Trent city council in respect of the future of Stoke's current partnerships with the St. Modwen property company in the context of the regeneration of North Staffordshire. [122679]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has had no specific discussions with Stoke-on-Trent city council in respect of the future of Stoke's current partnerships with the St. Modwen property company in the context of the regeneration of North Staffordshire.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Advantage West Midlands has spent on the staffing and administration of the North Staffordshire Partnership in the last three years; and how much is anticipated in the current year. [122680]

  Jacqui Smith
  Advantage West Midlands has spent the following on the staffing and administration of the North Staffordshire Partnership.

  £

  2001–02

  33,190

  2002–03

  76,965

  Estimated contribution for 2003–04 is £135,000.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total amount of grants received by Advantage West Midlands in the region from the European Regional Development Fund in

  Grant-in-aid utilised by Advantage West Midlands

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Totals

  AWM GiA utilised

  105

  110

  123

  205

  543

  Spend:

  Stoke-on-Trent

  11.198

  9.603

  14.109

  13.298

  48.208

  Stafford

  0.096

  0.013

  0.424

  1.003

  1.536

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  2.16

  1.078

  3.257

  1.593

  8.088

  Staffs Moorlands

  0.212

  0.378

  1.573

  2.409

  4.572

  North Staffs Regeneration Zone

  0.018

  0.052

  0.379

  1.648

  2.097

  13.684

  11.124

  19.742

  19.951

  64.501

  Note:

  Figures are estimates only.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many senior departmental posts were advertised in each year since June 1999; and how many of those were advertised in the Scottish press. [120662]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following DTI senior civil service posts have been advertised since June 1999:

  June 1999 to March 2000—6

  April 2000 to March 2001—7

  April 2001 to March 2002—9

  April 2002 to March 2003—11

  April 2003 to June 2003—4

  428W
  each financial year since the RDA's inception; and of that how much has been spent in each year in (a) Stoke-on-Trent, (b) Newcastle-under-Lyme, (c) Staffordshire Moorlands and (d) Stafford. [122681]

  Jacqui Smith
  The total amount of grant received by Advantage West Midlands from the European Regional Development Funds during each financial year since 1 April 1999 was:

  Financial period

  Amount of grant claimed and paid (£)

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  1,258,727

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  942,643

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  2,032,160

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  3,073,058

  1 April 2003 to 30 June 2003 (to date)

  259,002

  It is not possible to say how much European Regional Development grant has been spent in each year in (a) Stoke-on-Trent, (b) Newcastle-under-Lyme, (c) Staffordshire Moorlands and (d) Stafford, as the majority of the projects for which Advantage West Midlands received European Regional Development Fund grant were cross-regional projects and the grant expenditure claimed in respect of those projects was not broken down by sub-region.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the total amount of grant-in-aid utilised by Advantage West Midlands in the region under the heading applied to income and expenditure in each financial year since its inception; and of that how much has been spent in each year in(a) Stoke-on-Trent, (b) Newcastle-under-Lyme, (c) Staffordshire Moorlands and (d) Stafford. [122682]

  Jacqui Smith
  Expenditure is as follows:

  All of these were advertised in the UK national press. But none was specifically advertised in the Scottish press.

  University Departments
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had on the effect on regional economies of Government proposals to create a number of departments in universities; and if she will make a statement. [123223]

  Jacqui Smith
  World-class research is central to improved productivity and quality of life. The last
  429W
  spending review provided substantial extra expenditure for research, including even more investment for the very best researchers wherever they are.

  The Department will continue to work closely with the Department for Education and Skills and Regional Development Agencies in ensuring the long-term success of all our universities, whether they have research intensive departments or not, for the benefit of both the national and regional economies.

  Working Time Directive
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance she is providing to the road haulage industry to ensure the implementation of the Working Time Directorate; and what discussions she has had with the Road Haulage Association on the implementation of the Directorate. [122886]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have consulted both sides of the road transport industry (including the Road Haulage Association) on the transposition of the Horizontal Amending Directive (2000/15/EC) and the sector specific Road Transport Directive (2002/15/EC) into domestic legislation. The main impact of the Horizontal Amending Directive, which comes into force on 1 August 2003, will be on non-mobile workers in the road transport sector, and DTI will shortly publish a revised set of guidance notes on the new directive.

  The Road Transport Directive is more significant for mobile workers in the road haulage industry and needs to be implemented by 23 March 2005. We will shortly publish a consultation document on our proposals for implementing this directive.

  My officials are helping the industry to prepare for the introduction of these Directives by participating in seminars on the subject.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Work/Life Balance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Minister for Women what measures have been put in place for women to achieve a better work-life balance. [123244]

  Ms Hewitt
  We are committed to giving women—and men—the chance to improve their work life balance. We have increased maternity pay and leave, introduced paid paternity leave, extended these rights to adoptive parents, and introduced a legal right for parents of children under six and disabled children under 18 to request to work flexibly.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister for Women what measures are in place for women to achieve a better work-life balance. [123245]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

  Pensions (Payments Overseas)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary 430W
  of State for Work and Pensions on the ability of married women retiring to South Africa, Canada and Australia to claim the index-linked element of the state pension. [123246]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women has had one discussion with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on issues relating to women and pensions this year. However they have not discussed the specific issue of indexation of pensions for women retiring to South Africa, Canada and Australia.

  Iraq
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what plans she has to visit Iraq. [123066]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 July 2003]: I intend to visit Iraq to support the involvement of Iraqi women in the democratic process, and support British businesses who can offer a great deal of expertise and experience in redevelopment work. I am taking advice on the appropriate time to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Holyrood Site
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what the cost was of acquiring and preparing the Holyrood site; and when and by whom this cost was incurred; [120145]

  (2) who originally suggested the Holyrood site as an option for the new Scottish Parliament building; and when that suggestion was made; [120146]

  (3) when the final decision was made to choose the Holyrood site as the place for the new Scottish Parliament building; [120147]

  (4) what the scheduled opening date for the Scottish Parliament building was immediately prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; [120149]

  (5) whether the communications from Langdon's in respect of the Scottish Parliament building have been published; [121044]

  (6) what the estimate for the Scottish Parliament building was when the final site was chosen; and when this matter was considered prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body; [120148]

  (7) what representations were received by the Secretary of State for Scotland in advance of the Scottish parliamentary building project being transferred to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. [120278]

  Mr. Darling
  The First Minister has announced that he is establishing an investigation by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and the Auditor General for Scotland, which intends to look at all aspects of the Holyrood project. I foresee no difficulty in Lord Fraser gaining access to all relevant Government papers. Indeed, I understand the Auditor General for Scotland saw Government papers connected with the Holyrood project before devolution when carrying out a previous inquiry.

  Air Transport Consultation
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to represent Scottish national interest in the Air Transport consultation. [121149]

  Mr. Darling
  The UK Air Services consultation included a consultation on the issues for Scotland, which was jointly organised by the Department for Transport and the Scottish Executive.

  Responses to that consultation will be taken into account in determining the content of the forthcoming White Paper.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his Department over each of the last five years. [120820]

  Mr. Darling
  No regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by my Department since its creation in 1999.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's Euro roadshow. [121397]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on Friday 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  Friends of Scotland Initiative
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether the Department was consulted on the implications for embassies abroad of the transfer of the Friends of Scotland initiative to the Scottish Executive; [121143]

  (2) what discussions he had with the Scottish Executive prior to transferring the Friends of Scotland initiative to the Scottish Executive. [121146]

  Mr. Darling
  I discussed with the First Minister the opportunity for further developing the Friends of Scotland project and building on its success in recruiting support for the promotion of Scotland overseas. We agreed that the time was now right for the Scottish Executive to take on the leadership of the project, alongside the Executive's other overseas promotion programmes and taking full account of the contribution which the United Kingdom's posts overseas can play.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total cost has been of Friends of Scotland. [121147]

  Mr. Darling
  The costs of the Friends of Scotland project to date, excluding staff costs and departmental overheads, amount to £326,000 (£123,000 in 2001–02; £187,000 in 2002–03 and £16,000 to 25 June).

  The hon. Member will be aware that this project has now been transferred to the Scottish Executive.

  Hallmarks
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has received on(a) the future of the Scottish hallmark and (b) its importance to Scottish industry; and if she will make a statement. [114326]

  Mr. Darling
  I am aware of the representations being made by the Incorporation of Goldsmiths of the City of Edinburgh about the future of Scotland's Assay Office and my hon. Friend's recent adjournment debate on this subject. The importance of a distinct Scottish Hallmark is indisputable, and my predecessor wrote to the Minister for Competition, Consumers and Markets to express her own concerns on this matter. I have also received a letter from a Member of Parliament on this subject.

  International Flights
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when he last discussed the promotion of Scottish direct international flights with the Department for Transport; [121144]

  (2) what his policy is towards promotion of direct international flights from Scotland's airports. [121155]

  Mr. Darling
  I recognise the importance of developing new direct flight connections into Scotland and have discussed this with the Scottish Executive.

  Responsibility for furthering economic development lies with the Scottish Executive, which has recently established a Route Development Fund to support introduction of new routes.

  Job Dispersal
  Mr. Ian Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if she will list the public sector jobs which have been dispersed to Scotland in each of the last five years, broken down by Department or agency and from whence they came; [117318]

  (2) if she will list the central Government Departments and agencies with which she is in contact to pursue the possibility of job dispersal to Scotland from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [117319]

  Mr. Darling
  There is no central register of the location of Government jobs. However, several Government Departments have a significant presence in Scotland, notably the Department for Work and Pensions who currently have 15,076 employees in Scotland, the Ministry of Defence (7,115), the Inland Revenue (8,500), the Department for International Development (515), and the Department for Trade and Industry (254).

  In his 2003 Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as part of the preparations for the next Comprehensive Spending Review, he had asked Sir Michael Lyons to lead a study into the scope for relocating public service staff from London and the South East to other parts of the UK. The study is still at an early stage in collecting and evaluating information from Government Departments on their operations.

  Scotland Office Address
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his London office address is. [121477]

  Mr. Darling
  Dover House, Whitehall, SW1A 2AU.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland if he will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to his Department's responsibilities and legislation he has sponsored. [120671]

  Mr. Darling
  42 Sewel motions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999. The following full list outlines those Bills that have been the subject of more than one Sewel motion.

  Table of Sewel motions

  Number

  Bill

  Sewel motion approved

  1

  Food Standards

  23 June 1999

  2

  Financial Services and Markets

  23 June 1999

  3

  Electronic Communications

  23 June 1999

  4

  Limited Liability Partnerships

  23 June 1999

  5

  Sea Fishing Grants (Charges)

  8 December 1999

  6

  Representation of the People

  13 January 2000

  7

  Sexual Offences (Amendment)

  19 January 2000

  8

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (1)

  9 March 2000

  9

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers

  6 April 2000

  10

  Learning and Skills

  18 May 2000

  11

  Race Relations (Amendment)

  25 May 2000

  12

  Insolvency

  1 June 2000

  13

  Care Standards

  22 June 2000

  14

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (2)

  6 July 2000

  15

  Government Resources and Accounts

  6 July 2000

  16

  Criminal Justice and Courts Service

  5 October 2000

  17

  Health and Social Care Modernisation

  17 January 2001

  18

  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion

  17 January 2001

  19

  International Criminal Court

  18 January 2001

  20

  Outworking

  31 January 2001

  21

  Criminal Justice and Police

  7 February 2001

  22

  International Development

  8 March 2001

  23

  Culture and Recreation

  8 March 2001

  24

  Armed Forces

  29 March 2001

  25

  Adoption and Children (1)

  4 April 2001

  26

  Adoption and Children (2)

  24 October 2001

  27

  Proceeds of Crime

  24 October 2001

  28

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security

  15 November 2001

  29

  NHS Reform and Health Care Profession

  22 November 2001

  30

  Adoption and Children (3)

  30 January 2002

  31

  Police Reform

  30 January 2002

  32

  Enterprise

  17 April 2002

  33

  Private Hire Vehicles (Carriage of Guide Dogs etc.)

  19 June 2002

  34

  Police Reform (2)

  27 June 2002

  35

  Extradition

  21 November 2002

  36

  Waste and Emissions Trading

  28 November 2002

  37

  Criminal Justice

  5 December 2002

  38

  Crime (International Cooperation)

  5 December 2002

  39

  Local Government

  6 February 2003

  40

  Sexual Offences

  20 March 2003

  41

  Railways and Transport Safety

  20 March 2003

  42

  Fireworks

  26 June 2003

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to include a sunset clause in all new legislation unless a specific case can be made to exclude a sunset clause. [120821]
  434W
  Mr. Darling
  The revised RIA guidance, "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment", was published on 28 January. It advises policy officials to consider time limiting or sunsetting at an early stage of policy development and gives specific examples of where sunsetting may be appropriate.

  The Scotland Office supports the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

  Trade Links
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the role of(a) the Secretary of State and (b) the Scottish Executive in developing trade links for Scottish business. [121145]

  Mr. Darling
  Trade Partners UK is the lead Government organisation for helping companies based in the UK (including those in Scotland) achieve their export potential. Responsibility for the development of trade links for Scottish business lies with Scottish Development International, which is jointly operated by the Scottish Executive and Scottish Enterprise.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Autistic Spectrum Disorders
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he plans to take to extend educational opportunities for sufferers of autistic spectrum disorders. [122222]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is doing a number of things to extend the educational opportunities for sufferers of autistic spectrum disorders. We are developing a Special Educational Needs Action Programme for publication in the autumn with the aim of helping all children with special educational needs to realise their potential. Among other initiatives it will promote effective approaches to teaching and learning for children with different types of need including autism.

  Work on improving opportunities for those with autistic spectrum disorders under the Action Programme will build on the principles set out in the guidance on making provision for children with the disorders which my Department published with the Department of Health last year.

  The Action Programme will also address obstacles that may be preventing young people with special educational needs continuing their education beyond 16. The Learning and Skills Council when carrying out its functions must have regard to the needs of people with learning difficulties, including those with autism, in part by enabling the provision of appropriate facilities for their education and training.

  Child Care Standards
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what arrangements are in place for monitoring standards in childcare centres. [123285]
  435W
  Margaret Hodge
  All childcare facilities that provide day care for children under eight exceeding two hours a day on premises which are not domestic premises are registered and inspected by Ofsted against the requirements of the national standards. The national standards for under eights day care and childminding represent a minimum quality baseline below which no provider may fall.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will make an announcement on the new Education Maintenance Allowance scheme. [122038]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We announced last July that we plan to make the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme available throughout England from September 2004 to those students who complete their compulsory education in the 2003/04 Academic Year. We will be making further details about the national scheme available soon.

  Further Education Colleges (Student Satisfaction)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the percentage of learners who are satisfied with their learning experience in college. [122287]

  Alan Johnson
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) carried out the first national survey of learner satisfaction and published the results in December 2002. These showed that 87 per cent. of learners were satisfied with their learning experience in college.

  Findings from the survey are being used to inform strategic national policy and the work of the local LSCs, colleges and other providers.

  Gross Earnings
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have gross earnings of £2,000 per week or more; and what proportion of those with gross earnings of £2,000 per week or more have a Level 4 qualification or higher. [123069]

  Alan Johnson
  The Labour Force Survey estimates that the number of employees of working age in the UK with gross weekly earnings of £2,000 or more per week is 30,000. Three-quarters of these (76 per cent.) are qualified to Level 4 or above.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he plans to publish a draft Higher Education Bill for consultation. [119788]

  Alan Johnson
  We have no plans to publish a higher education bill in draft. There has already been substantial consultation on the main policy issues for which we intend to legislate. We will be responding to comments received during the consultation period on the White Paper alongside our response to the Select Committee.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the costs in each of the last three years were of(a) targeted grants and (b) tuition
  436W
  fees waivers for (i) students in higher education from Wales and (ii) students from elsewhere in the UK attending higher education institutions in Wales; and what the related administrative costs were; [122471]

  (2) what the cost was in each of the last three years of means tested loans for (a) students in higher education from Wales and (b) students from elsewhere in the UK attending higher education institutions in Wales; and what the identifiable administrative costs were in each case. [122472]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: The information is as follows: (a) Expenditure on higher education students domiciled in Wales:

  £ million

  Financial year

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Income Contingent Repayment Loans (RAB cost)

  38.6

  48.8

  153.5

  Means tested contributions to tuition fees

  19.5

  23.7

  125.8

  Dependants Grants

  3.8

  5.2

  16.2

  HE Supplementary Grants

  1.9

  12.6

  23.4

  1 Provisional

  2 Estimated

  Sources:

  HE Supplementary Grants—DfES

  All other data—Student Loans Company.

  Loan costs are for income contingent loans only. These loans, of which approximately one quarter of the value is means tested, are repayable on an income contingent basis. Loans made under the previous mortgage style arrangement, which are not means tested, are excluded from the table.

  Expenditure on loans is shown in resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) terms, not cash terms.

  Dependants grants includes payments on Childcare Grant, Additional Dependants Grant, Travel, Books and Equipment Grant, Loan Parents Grant and Child Dependants Grant.

  HE supplementary grants include payments on Disabled Students Allowance, School Meals Grant, Care Leaver's Grant and Travel Grant.

  Expenditure on hardship and part-time loans is excluded from the table.

  (b) The cost for students from elsewhere in the UK attending higher education institutions in Wales could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  It is not possible to identify the administrative costs of payments under (a) or (b) above.

  Modern Language Courses
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 644W, on modern languages courses, which modern languages he is requiring all maintained secondary schools to continue to make available. [122049]

  Mr. Miliband
  Through our Green Paper "14–19: extending opportunities, raising standards" we consulted extensively on our proposals to create more choice and flexibility at Key Stage 4. The responses to
  437W
  the consultation endorsed our view that schools should no longer be required to teach modern foreign languages to all pupils but that schools should be required to ensure that any pupil wishing to study modern foreign languages should be able to do so. We propose that this entitlement should reflect the current situation in Key Stage 4, so that schools can meet the entitlement by providing access to courses that include the study of one or more of the official languages of the European Union.

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are currently consulting on the detailed proposals for the implementation of curriculum changes at Key Stage 4.

  Overseas Students (Further Education Colleges)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many overseas students are learning in UK further education colleges; and what target was set in 1999. [122284]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Latest figures for 2001/02 show there were 47,786 non-European Union international students and 13,100 European Union

  Numbers and proportions of vocational and academic awards at Level 3, 2001/02

  Vocational

  Academic

  Centre type

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  School

  3,282

  2

  206,446

  64

  Further education college/tertiary college1

  92,258

  59

  53,311

  17

  Sixth form college

  2,638

  2

  61,078

  19

  Other2

  57,599

  37

  17

  0

  Total

  155,778

  —

  320,852

  —

  1 Includes adult education data.

  2 Institutes classified as 'other' include: university or other higher education center, private training provider, local government/central Government/NHS, employer, HM Prision/Youth Offenders Institution and armed forces.

  Source:

  NISVQ and Secondary School and College Performance Tables Database.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people earning £800 or more per week have level 4 qualifications. [123357]

  Alan Johnson
  The Labour Force Survey estimates that two-thirds (67 per cent.) of employees of working age in the UK with gross weekly earnings of £800 or more have a level 4 qualification or above.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many senior departmental posts were advertised in each year since 1999; and how many of those were advertised in the Scottish Press. [120665]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of Senior Civil Service posts advertised by my Department since June 1999 are as follows:

  Posts

  April 2002 to March 2003

  12

  April 2001 to March 2002

  6

  April 2000 to March 2001

  16

  June 1999 to March 2000

  8

  438W
  students in UK further education colleges. In 1999 a target was set to attract an extra 25,000 non-European Union international students to UK further education colleges by 2005 compared to the base year of 1996/97 (25,102).

  Qualification Levels
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) vocational and (b) academic Level 3 qualifications were awarded in (i) colleges and (ii) schools in the last year for which figures are available. [122285]

  Alan Johnson
  The table shows the numbers and proportions of vocational and academic awards at Level 3, by centre type during the 2001/02 academic year. The data are taken from the National Information System for Vocational Qualifications (NISVQ)1 and the Secondary School and College Performance Tables Database. Awards coverage is for England only.

  1 NISVQ has full coverage of NVQs awarded plus VRQs from three of the largest awarding bodies and other VQs from seven of the largest awarding bodies.

  None of these were advertised in the Scottish Press, though where search consultants were used, they considered candidates across the UK.

  Sixth-Form Provision
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the likely impact of sixth form education provision by the exclusive means of sixth form colleges on standards of attainment in secondary schools at(a) Key Stage 4 and (b) GCSE level. [122229]

  Alan Johnson
  2002 results for non-selective maintained secondary schools at GCSE/GNVQ (KS4) are as follows:

  Percentage

  Gaining five or more A*-C grades

  Schools with sixth form

  51.0

  Schools without sixth form

  44.6

  However, when prior attainment is taken into account, there is little difference between schools with and without sixth form education provision.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact on university applications from students in the London borough of Havering of the introduction of tuition fees. [115343]

  18-year-old applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  Year of entry:

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Students from Havering

  Applicants

  579

  629

  563

  587

  577

  635

  503

  Population

  2,647

  2,948

  2,993

  2,823

  2,769

  2,758

  2,756

  Percentage applying

  21.9

  21.3

  18.8

  20.8

  20.8

  23.0

  18.3

  All students from the UK

  Applicants

  167,792

  182,723

  185,747

  181,782

  180,385

  186,364

  188,325

  Population

  667,593

  726,736

  747,354

  741,836

  727,022

  735,605

  737,343

  Percentage applying

  25.1

  25.1

  24.9

  24.5

  24.8

  25.3

  25.5

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he last discussed with the Secretary of State for Scotland his plans to introduce top-up fees in England and Wales(a) before 12 June 2003 and (b) since 12 June 2003. [122295]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on this issue.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individual students he estimates will receive the full £1,000 maintenance grant when it is introduced in 2005–06. [122561]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 6 February 2003, Official Report, column 357W.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the level of Government subsidy that will be required to service the Government's higher education proposals for 2005–06 onwards. [122562]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The publicly planned expenditure for higher education in England in 2005–06 is set out in "The future of higher education" Cmd 5735. Assessments of the costs of meeting the Government's policies for higher education beyond 2005–06 will be made as part of the 2004 Spending Review, work on which will commence shortly.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the level of default on loans repayable to the student loans company was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and if he will express the amount as a percentage of the total amount repaid. [122563]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The answer covers only mortgage style loans in public ownership because these are repayable to the Student Loans Company. Income contingent loans are collected
  440W
  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information, showing the proportion of 18-year-olds who applied for entry to HE, are shown in the table. The figures show that the fall in the proportion of students applying from Havering in 2002 was not reflected nationally.

  through the tax system. At the end of financial year 2001–02 the Student Loans Company had collected 85.5 per cent. of the amount recoverable since the scheme began. The amount recovered was £707 million against a recoverable amount of £827 million, leaving some £120 million overdue. The recoverable amount excludes early repayments, deferred repayment of loans and loans where liability to repay has been cancelled.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of total income-contingent student loans outstanding he expects to be repaid, taking into account(a) deaths, (b) defaults, (c) write-offs on account of age, (d) moves abroad and (e) deferments owing to inadequate income. [122818]

  Alan Johnson
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality information on the percentage resource cost of student loans, and by implication the amount expected to be repaid or written off, is exempt from publication.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if it is his policy that students who drop out of their courses should be required to pay a proportion of any approved top-up fee levied by their higher education institution. [122819]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government has no plans to prescribe the proportion of tuition fees to be paid by students who drop out of their courses when variable fees are introduced. At present, UUK and SCOP issue joint guidance covering the treatment of private contributions to fees when students withdraw from courses under the current system. Fees for such students are charged at the discretion of the institution concerned, taking account of the guidance, which states that these students should pay fees pro rata to their attendance.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average net present value is per £1,000 of existing student loan, taking into account deferments and the zero real interest rate. [122820]
  441W
  Alan Johnson
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, information on the percentage resource cost of student loans, and by implication the net present value of £1,000 of loans issued, is exempt from publication.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of students are(a) eligible for education maintenance allowance and (b) claiming educational maintenance allowance, broken down by (a) private and (b) maintained sector status, in (A) each local education authority and (B) England. [122982]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table gives a breakdown, by local education authority, of the estimate of the number of students who are in further education and the percentage of those who are claiming Education Maintenance Allowance in the pilot schemes. The estimates of the number of students in further education are based on figures taken from the 1991 population census. Local education authorities do not collect information on how these figures are distributed between private and maintained sector status institutions.

  Local education authority

  Estimate of number of eligible students in Further Education

  Number of students who have received EMA

  Percentage of students who have received EMA

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,500

  952

  63.5

  Barnsley

  2,200

  1,479

  67.2

  Birmingham

  14,700

  10,277

  69.9

  Bolton

  3,600

  2,230

  61.9

  Bradford

  5,900

  4,850

  82.2

  Brent

  2,600

  1,813

  69.7

  Camden

  1,400

  1,252

  89.4

  Cornwall

  6,800

  5,677

  83.5

  Coventry

  4,400

  2,386

  54.2

  Doncaster

  3,500

  2,543

  72.7

  Ealing

  2,800

  1,649

  58.9

  Gateshead

  2,300

  1,835

  79.8

  Greenwich

  2,000

  1,366

  68.3

  Hackney

  2,000

  1,977

  98.9

  Halton

  1,400

  1,081

  77.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,200

  829

  69.1

  Haringey

  2,000

  1,579

  78.9

  Hartlepool

  1,000

  816

  81.6

  Islington

  1,500

  1,309

  87.3

  Kingston upon Hull

  2,400

  1,922

  80.1

  Knowsley

  2,000

  1,913

  95.7

  Lambeth

  2,300

  1,737

  75.5

  Lancashire (East)

  5,100

  2,466

  48.4

  Leeds

  8,500

  4,857

  57.1

  Leicester

  4,400

  3,259

  74.1

  Lewisham

  2,200

  1,805

  82.0

  Lincolnshire (N.E.)

  2,200

  1,405

  63.9

  Liverpool

  6,200

  3,587

  57.9

  Luton

  2,700

  1,581

  58.6

  Manchester

  6,300

  4,456

  70.7

  Middlesbrough

  1,900

  1,578

  83.1

  Newham

  2,700

  2,589

  95.9

  North Tyneside

  2,500

  1,595

  63.8

  Northumberland

  4,200

  2,643

  62.9

  Nottingham

  3,300

  2,791

  84.6

  Oldham

  3,000

  2,624

  87.5

  Salford

  1,800

  1,127

  62.6

  Sandwell

  2,500

  2,041

  81.6

  Sheffield

  5,600

  3,716

  66.4

  Southampton

  2,500

  1,392

  55.7

  Southwark

  1,900

  1,467

  77.2

  South Tyneside

  2,000

  1,666

  83.3

  St. Helens

  2,200

  1,465

  66.6

  Stoke on Trent

  2,600

  2,607

  100.1

  Suffolk

  6,800

  2,617

  38.5

  Sunderland

  3,500

  2,260

  64.6

  Tameside

  2,800

  2,026

  72.4

  442W

  Local education authority

  Estimate of number of eligible students in Further Education

  Number of students who have received EMA

  Percentage of students who have received EMA

  Tower Hamlets

  2,200

  2,765

  125.7

  Wakefield

  4,300

  2,201

  51.2

  Walsall

  3,200

  2,649

  82.8

  Waltham Forest

  2,200

  1,577

  71.7

  Wandsworth

  1,700

  1,013

  59.6

  Wigan

  3,700

  2,546

  68.8

  Wirral

  4,100

  2,540

  61.9

  Wolverhampton

  3,200

  2,359

  73.7

  Worcestershire

  5,800

  3,040

  52.4

  England total

  189,300

  131,782

  169.6

  1 Average

  Notes:

  Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is currently paid to young people who reside in one of the pilot areas, irrespective of the location of the institution they attend. We only have estimated figures for the number of young people living in each local education authority (LEA) area who participate in further education. In some areas, particularly those where there has been rapid population movements, the estimates carry some degree of uncertainty; therefore there are some anomalies in the right hand column.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has carried out on the effect of top-up fees on(a) existing and (b) future veterinary students. [121862]

  Alan Johnson
  The proposals for variable deferred fees will not affect existing veterinary students—we plan from 2006/07 to allow higher education institutions to charge variable fees to new students, between £0 and £3,000 per year per course. It will be for institutions themselves to decide at what level to set their fees. Institutions will be able to raise their fees only if they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access. All students, including veterinary students, will be able to defer payment of their fee until after their graduation, if they choose to do so. Graduates will repay the loan at a zero real rate of interest, with repayments linked to earnings, once they are earning above the £15,000 repayment threshold.

  We do not control the supply or number of training places for veterinary students. The only disciplines for which we plan in this way are teachers, doctors and dentists.

  Training and Skills Councils
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to whom complaints of maladministration against local training and skills councils should be addressed. [121905]

  Alan Johnson
  Complaints about the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) should be made to the Council's solicitor at the LSC National Office at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of university students from England paid the full amount of tuition fees for the academic year 2002/03. [122008]
  443W
  Alan Johnson
  Student support data on the percentage of students making a contribution towards the cost of their tuition are collected from local education authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales through a voluntary retrospective survey.

  Provisional data for academic year 2001/02, the latest available, show that 41 per cent. of higher education students eligible to be assessed for student support in England and Wales were liable to pay the full contribution towards the cost of their tuition.

  Latest England only data are available for academic year 2000/01. Final, England only, data for academic year 2001/02 will be available later in the year. First provisional results for academic year 2002/03 will be published in the Department's Statistical First Release in the Spring of 2004.

  University Students
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the university population of students in 2010 will be on the assumption of 50 per cent. participation by those in the age group 18 to 30 years. [121018]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]: For any given percentage of participation, the university population on a full-time equivalent basis will depend on a number of factors, such as:

  (i) the length of course studied—a higher proportion of students studying shorter courses (e.g. two year Foundation Degrees) would result in lower overall student numbers;

  (ii) the mix between full-time and part-time student numbers; and

  (iii) the participation rate of those groups of students not included in the initial entry rate measure—e.g. students over 30, European Union students and postgraduates

  In addition, in projecting forwards, account has also to be taken of the impact of demographic trends.

  Student numbers have been projected ahead for the 2002 spending review period, which covers the three years to 2005–06. The projected number of UK and EU domiciled students attending English universities from 2003–04 to 2005–06, as set out in the Secretary of State's Grant Letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is as follows:

  Fundable full-time equivalents (FTEs) in English1 institutions

  Financial year

  FTEs (Thousand)

  2003–04

  1,115

  2004–05

  1,134

  2005–06

  1,157

  1 DfES fundable higher education students on prescribed courses in institution of further and higher education.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many university students in England studied as(a) full-time and (b) part-time in each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03. [123067]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures for undergraduate students are shown in the table. Comparable data for 2002/03 will be available in December.444W

  UK domiciled students on undergraduate courses in England1

  Academic year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1996/97

  747,535

  461,987

  1,209,522

  1997/98

  762,027

  451,508

  1,213,535

  1998/99

  771,673

  458,830

  1,230,503

  1999/2000

  768,001

  465,797

  1,233,798

  2000/01

  774,353

  488,469

  1,262,822

  2001/02

  796,215

  499,777

  1,295,992

  1 Based on a census count of students as at 1 December. Covers all UK domiciled students on undergraduate courses in HE institutions, FE colleges and the Open University. Undergraduate courses include all first degree, HMD, HNC, and other sub- degree courses.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Vocational Education and Training
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of provision of vocational education and training for young people was provided by colleges in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [122282]

  (2) how many 16 to 19-year olds studied for vocational qualifications in (a) further education, (b) sixth form colleges and (c) other schools in the last year for which figures are available. [122283]

  Alan Johnson
  The numbers and percentages of 16 to 18-year olds participating in vocational education and training, for end 2001 (provisional figures; as at end of calendar year), are set out in the table. The figures include people studying NVQs, VCE A levels, GNVQs and equivalents.

  Participation in Vocational Education and Training by 16–18 year olds in England, end 2001

  Numbers

  Percentage of population

  Full-time and part-time education

  534,500

  28.8

  All Schools

  72,100

  3.9

  Sixth Form Colleges1

  32,200

  1.7

  FE Colleges 1

  430,100

  23.2

  Work-based Learning (WBL)

  152,400

  8.2

  Total2

  650,500

  35.0

  1 Includes some students studying at Higher Education Institutions.

  2 Total of full- and part-time education and WBL (less overlap between WBL and full- and part-time education).

  Source:

  DfES Statistical First Release 16/2002

  These figures do not include students in Employer Funded Education and Training (EFT) and Other Education and Training (OET) that are non-college based, for whom no academic/vocational split available.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of vocational qualifications were awarded via colleges in the last year for which figures are available. [122286]

  Alan Johnson
  The table below shows the numbers and proportions of vocational awards1 by Centre Type during the 2001/02 academic year. The data are taken from the National Information System for Vocational Qualifications (NISVQ)2. Awards coverage is for England only.
  445W
  1 Vocational Awards include NVQs/SVQs, other VQs and VRQs.

  2 NISVQ has full coverage of NVQs awarded plus VRQs from three of the largest awarding bodies and other VQs from seven of the largest awarding bodies.

  Number and proportion of awards by Centre Type

  Centre Type

  Numbers

  Percentages

  School

  43,372

  6

  FE college/tertiary college3

  427,205

  59

  Sixth form college

  18,953

  3

  Other4

  236,809

  33

  Total

  726,339

  3 Includes Adult Education data.

  4 Institutes classified as 'other' include: University or other Higher Education centre, Private Training provider, Local government/Central Government/NHS, Employer, HM Prison/Youth Offenders Institution and Armed Forces.

  Source:

  NISVQ

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vocational training places will be made available in Essex for young people and unemployed adults in each vocational craft. [122796]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Responsibility for the provision of vocational training for young people and for adult and community learning is the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Member with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Responsibility for the provision of opportunities for unemployed adults lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The table provided shows the number and type of training opportunities Jobcentre Plus' Essex District has contracted for between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004. Decisions about the scale and nature of opportunities have been taken taking into account the requirements of employers, jobseekers and the labour market.

  Work-based learning for adult training places

  Total

  Self Employment

  50

  Basic Employment Training

  142

  Short Job Focused Training—Transport

  60

  Short Job Focused Training—Fork lift

  232

  Short Job Focused Training—Security

  30

  Short Job Focused Training—IT

  20

  Short Job Focused Training—Business Admin

  71

  Short Job Focused Training—Construction

  5

  Short Job Focused Training—Health Care and Public Services

  6

  Short Job Focused Training—Retail

  30

  Longer Occupational Training—Construction 13 wks

  101

  Longer Occupational Training—Engineering

  6

  Longer Occupational Training—Business Admin

  153

  Longer Occupational Training—Hospitality

  16

  Longer Occupational Training—IT

  95

  Longer Occupational Training—USING IT 13 wks

  59

  Longer Occupational Training—Business Admin 26 wks

  13

  Longer Occupational Training—Health Care and Public Services

  23

  Longer Occupational Training—Retail

  55

  Longer Occupational Training—LGV Class C licences

  12

  Longer Occupational Training—Driving Instructor Training

  18

  Total

  1,197

  446W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the progress made on the training pilots for vocational craft skills. [122797]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Employer Training Pilots were launched in six Learning and Skills Council (LSC) areas in September 2002. The pilots test the effects of offering employers a package of financial incentives to encourage them to allow their employees time off to train towards basic skills and level 2 qualifications. The training is free and delivered in a way that best suits the employer's business. Initial results suggested that the pilots were successfully engaging firms and individuals with little prior involvement in training, and they have therefore been extended until August 2004 and expanded to cover an additional six LSC areas.

  The new pilots, which will operate from summer 2003, will be located in Berkshire, East London, Kent, Leicester, Shropshire and South Yorkshire.

  The impact of the pilots is being evaluated on an ongoing basis and although the final evaluation will not be available until early 2005, early indications are positive. Employers like the free training provision, delivered flexibly in the workplace, and the services of the independent broker to help them identify and source the most suitable training.

  Figures provided by the LSC show that as at 31 May 2003, 2,318 employers and 11,665 employees had signed up to the pilots. Over 90 per cent. of employers signing up to the pilots are SMEs and 72 per cent. have less than 50 employees. Learner drop-out rates are also extremely low.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people completing a vocational training course have obtained employment within three months in the last three years. [122798]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information is only available for those leaving Government supported work based learning for young people (WBLYP), and for those in a job six (not three) months after leaving learning. The percentages of learners on Government supported work based learning for young people (WBLYP) who were in a job six months after leaving are shown in the following table. The information in the table relates to all leavers and is taken from a postal survey sent to each learner six months after leaving the programme. The latest year for which figures are available is 2000–01.

  Percentages of survey respondents who were in a job six months after leaving a period of government supported training by financial year and programme

  Financial year of leaving

  Advanced modern apprenticeships

  Foundation modern apprenticeships

  Other training

  Work-based learning for young people

  1998–99

  82

  n/a

  64

  69

  1999–2000

  84

  68

  62

  71

  2000–01

  86

  69

  61

  72

  Source:

  DfES Statistical First Release 14/2002

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Afghan staff members have been engaged by the UK-led provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif; and how many of these are women. [123029]

  Mr. Ingram
  About 20 local staff, including one woman, have been engaged so far to support the UK-led Provincial Reconstruction Team that will shortly deploy to Mazar-e-Sharif.

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom service personnel are deployed in Colombia; and what the equivalent figure was in each of the past five years. [123449]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 910W.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the status of the Defence Medical Services. [123596]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Medical Services (DMS), comprise the Royal Naval Medical Service, the Army Medical Services and the Royal Air Force Medical Service. They are a vital component of the armed forces, providing essential medical support to Service personnel both on military operations and in peacetime. During 2002–03, DMS personnel have deployed successfully on operations to Iraq, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Northern Ireland.

  We are committed to the modernisation of the DMS to meet the challenges we expect to face in the future. The provision of an effective deployable medical operational capability in support of deployed forces in Iraq demonstrated that our medical personnel are among the very best in the world. We do not underestimate the continuing challenges facing us to make good the acknowledged manning shortfalls and to equip our doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical personnel with modern medical equipment, but we are committed to doing so.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the International Visits Control Office; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119275]

  Mr. Caplin
  The International Visits Control Office is part of the Defence Procurement Agency, having transferred from the Directorate of Defence Security on 1 April 2003. It is currently based in London, but will transfer to Abbey Wood, Bristol by the end of 2003. It has no staff employed in Scotland. The office has a complement of nine staff, with annual personnel costs of approximately £177,000 compared to £189,000 for the previous year.
  448W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Defence Estates; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119287]

  Mr. Caplin
  At 31 March 2003 Defence Estates employed 1,785 people, of which 112 were in Scotland. At 31 March 2002 it employed 1,539 people of which 107 were in Scotland. The Agency's expenditure on pay and allowances totalled £51 million in 2002–03 and £46 million in 2001–02.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Directorate of Standardisation; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119299]

  Mr. Caplin
  In 1999 the Directorate of Standardisation became the United Kingdom Defence Standardisation team and part of the Defence Procurement Agency's Procurement Development Group. The UK Defence Standardisation team has the equivalent of 38 people working full time of which 33 are employed in Scotland. The payroll costs for financial year 2003–04 will be £1.2 million. The figures for 2002–03 were 38, 32 and £1.1 million respectively.

  Health Care Funding
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken to ensure that healthcare funding in the armed forces does not fall in relation to that available under the NHS. [R] [121450]

  Mr. Caplin
  The provision of timely appropriate healthcare for service personnel remains a very high priority for the Defence Medical Services (DMS) which seek to provide at least as high standards of care as provided by the NHS, and work closely with the NHS to achieve this.

  Iraq
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sources he draws on for compiling his estimates of the numbers of civilian casualties in Iraq during 2003. [114210]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no means of ascertaining the numbers of military or civilian lives lost during decisive military operations in Iraq, and have therefore made no such estimates, although we made every effort to minimise civilian casualties.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to create a fully armed Iraqi Army; who will control it; what role a British Army training team will have; and whether other countries have requested a team for the training of their military. [121090]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the direction of Mr Walter Slocombe, the Director for Security Affairs, the Coalition Provisional Authority intends to lead on the creation of a New Iraqi Army. Its plans for the training of this force were formally announced on 23 June. Initial plans are to form a core Brigade of Light Infantry, although the final shape and size of the armed forces will be developed in consultation with emerging Iraqi authorities, who will be fully engaged in the
  449W
  development process. The early work will be conducted by the Coalition Military Advisory Training Team (CMATT) which has a UK military deputy. Training is due to commence on 15 July. It is anticipated that there will be a small United Kingdom element directly involved in the training and development processes of the New Iraqi armed forces. UK armed forces have significant experience in providing military assistance and advice to a number of countries around the world, including in the Middle East.

  Less-than-lethal Weapons
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what less-than-lethal weapons have gone missing from the(a) armed forces and (b) intelligence services in the last five years. [123036]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested will take some time to collate. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House. The Ministry of Defence cannot comment in respect of the intelligence services.

  RAF Church Fenton
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 452W, what guidance had been issued to his Department in respect of TUPE liabilities at RAF Church Fenton before the decision was made to transfer flying currently undertaken by the Joint Elementary Flying Training School to university air squadrons. [123092]

  Mr. Caplin
  No guidance was issued to the Department. The advice given by our own legal officers was that Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) would be unlikely to apply.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 452W, how many additional staff have been recruited within university air squadrons in order to provide ground base flying training. [123153]

  Mr. Caplin
  Ground branch training for University Air Squadron (UAS) students has, in the past, been provided by the flying instructional staff, with some help from visiting lecturers and branch mentors from nearby RAF stations undertaking such work as a secondary duty. Various studies into UAS training had pointed to the benefits of dedicated ground branch training instructors, in particular to increase the potential for attracting ground branch students. In 1997, such posts were established on each of the 15 UASs but funding was not available. As a result of a further review of the UASs, funding was agreed and the first ground branch training instructor arrived in April 2003; a total of seven are now in place. The overall establishment of ground branch training instructors has been reduced to 14, with a shared instructor for two co-located UASs. It is expected that all the posts will be filled by the end of 2004.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 452W, what representations have been received from the PROSPECT trade union in respect of the new arrangements for elementary flying training. [123154]
  450W
  Mr. Caplin
  Two meetings have been held with the PROSPECT Trade Union, at their request, to explain the new arrangements for Elementary Flying Training and consider whether Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) would apply to any current Babcock HCS staff when the new arrangements commence in July 2003.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 452W, what budget was set for elementary flying training by university air squadrons in (a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [123091]

  Mr. Caplin
  The contract costs of providing Elementary Flying Training (EFT) to the University Air Squadrons (UASs) in 2001–02 and 2002–03, and the anticipated contract cost for 2003–04, are approximately £5.0 million, £5.5 million and £5.55 million respectively. This does not include fuel, manpower or the ownership of the sites where flying is undertaken. The UAS EFT share of the contract cost is approximately 49 per cent. of the total hours flown, as the contract also provides Air Experience Flying for Air Cadets and other non-EFT flying.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many senior departmental posts were advertised in each year since June 1999; and how many of these were advertised in the Scottish press. [120661]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is set out as follows and covers the financial years 1999–2000 through to 2002–03.

  Open competitions to Senior Civil Service posts

  1999–2000

  7

  2000–01

  6

  2001–02

  9

  2002–03

  9

  All of the competitions were advertised in the National United Kingdom press with none specifically advertised in the Scottish press.

  Service Manning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 349W, on service manning, if he will list the trades within the critical manning groups of the Army including the (a) requirement, (b) shortfall and (c) percentage manned. [122116]

  Mr. Caplin
  The following table lists the latest available figures (as at 31 March 2003) for the key trades within the critical manning groups of the Army. The critical manning levels of each trade is calculated by the Arms and Service Directors against various evolving requirements, including commitments. Thus, trades considered to be at critical manning and the factors affecting them will change from time to time.
  451W

  Soldier arm/service and trade

  Liability

  Trained strength

  Shortfall

  Percentage manned

  Royal Corps of Signals

  Information systems operator

  277

  167

  110

  60.3

  Systems engineer technician

  567

  514

  53

  90.6

  Specialist operator

  325

  228

  124

  70.1

  Royal Logistic Corps

  Ammunition technician

  344

  268

  76

  77.9

  Chef

  2,621

  2,319

  302

  88.8

  Movement controller

  368

  331

  37

  89.9

  Petroleum operator

  257

  191

  66

  74.3

  Army Medical Services

  Royal Army veterinary corps dog trainer

  110

  89

  21

  80.9

  Anaesthetist

  32

  9

  23

  28.1

  Burns/plastic surgeon

  4

  2

  2

  50.0

  Radiologist

  6

  1

  5

  16.7

  Orthopaedic surgeon

  11

  8

  3

  72.7

  General surgeon

  16

  10

  6

  62.5

  General medical practitioner

  197

  100

  97

  50.8

  General duties registered nurse (officer)

  350

  284

  66

  81.1

  General duties registered nurse (soldier)

  325

  184

  141

  56.6

  Accident and emergency nurse (soldier)

  25

  5

  20

  20.0

  Intensive care nurse (soldier)

  19

  4

  15

  21.0

  Environmental health technician

  72

  61

  11

  84.7

  Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  Vehicle mechanic

  4,124

  3,432

  692

  83.2

  Vehicle electrician

  562

  353

  209

  62.8

  Recovery mechanic

  587

  453

  134

  77.2

  Armourer

  681

  588

  93

  86.3

  Royal Engineers

  Explosive ordnance disposal

  548

  488

  60

  89.0

  Military works force

  359

  257

  102

  71.6

  Mechanical engineer fitter

  705

  512

  193

  72.6

  Mechanical engineer command, control and communications specialist

  836

  668

  168

  79.9

  Intelligence Corps

  Operator military intelligence (includes linguists)

  1,094

  1,013

  81

  92.6

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to address manning shortfalls in the critical manning groups of the(a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [122117]

  Mr. Caplin
  A range of positive measures are in hand across all three services to address critical manning shortfalls. These include both remunerative and nonremunerative measures, some targeted to specific shortfall groups and others across all the services. Recent Manning and Retention reviews for Submarine specialisms, Aircrew and Medical staff have introduced improved career patterns and financial incentives on entry (Golden Helios) and in return for commitment to specific periods of service. These proposals were endorsed by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB).

  Examples of some other further measures by individual service are detailed as follows:
  Naval Service—Promotion arrangements for RM Other Ranks and Chef and Warfare ratings have been reviewed to improve incentives, and the offer, where appropriate, of Second Open Engagements (beyond 22 years) has been well received. Artificers are currently the subject of a sustainability study.
  Army—Financial Retention Incentive (FRI) for the Royal SIGNALS.
  RAF—For Non-commissioned Aircrew (NCA), the implementation of the recommendations from the recent Airmen Aircrew Sustainability Study will introduce a revised NCA branch structure and address terms of conditions of service.

  Service Pension
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rate of service pension is paid to an Army major who retired at the age of 55 years after 34 years reckonable service on 1 April(a) 1975, (b) 1976, (c) 1977, (d) 1978 and (e) 1979. [123060]

  Mr. Caplin
  The rate of service pension paid to an Army Major who retired at the age of 55 years after 34 years reckonable service on 1 April in each of the years between 1975–79 inclusive are as follows:

  1£

  2£

  1975

  2,957

  18,362.14

  1976

  3,108

  14,890.96

  1977

  3,210

  13,800.43

  1978

  4,220

  15,869.90

  1979

  4,876

  16,511.84

  1 Amount of pension awarded on retirement (excludes any lump sum payable on retirement).

  2 Amount received currently after applying pension increases in line with the Retail Price Index.

  Suez Award
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he plans to make awards of the Suez Medal Clasp in advance of Remembrance Sunday this year; and if he will make a statement; [123058]

  (2) when he will announce criteria for applicants for a Suez Medal Clasp. [123059]
  453W
  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 616W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and the subsequent answer I gave on 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 38W, to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). Only when Her Majesty The Queen has approved the medal and the qualifying criteria, and the medals with the new clasp have been minted can they be issued to applicants who fulfil the qualifying criteria. Some medals may be despatched before Remembrance Sunday, but it is estimated that it could take a further two years to distribute the majority of medals to eligible applicants.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his timetable is for the issuing of the newly-awarded Suez Canal Zone medal to veterans; [123360]

  (2) he will make it his policy to issue to veterans the newly-awarded Suez Canal Zone medal prior to Remembrance Day 2003. [123361]

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the medals for service in the Canal Zone, now awarded to Suez veterans, will be issued within six months. [123631]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 616W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and the subsequent answer I gave on 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 38W, to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). Some medals may be despatched before Remembrance Sunday, but it is estimated that up to 200,000 people could be eligible to receive the medal with its clasp. It would be impossible to issue all Suez Canal Zone medals this year, even if everyone who thought they might qualify for a medal applied immediately. It has been estimated that it could take a further two years to distribute the majority of medals to eligible applicants.

  United States Task Force 20
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British forces are engaged with the United States Taskforce 20 in Iraq. [122281]

  Mr. Ingram
  British Forces are operating closely alongside United States forces, including Task Force 20, in Iraq.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with United States officials concerning their contacts with paramilitary groups in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [123447]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have regular discussions with the United States about Colombia in Washington and Bogota. Questions about US contacts with paramilitary groups is a matter for the US Government.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what outstanding matters remain for the Republic of Cyprus to address before it accedes to the EU; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123169]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Republic of Cyprus has concluded negotiations with the EU. The commission produces regular annual reports setting out what Cyprus needs to do before accession on 1 May 2004. Between reports, commission monitoring is ongoing and the commission reports its findings regularly to the council and answers member states' questions on the monitoring process. The commission will publish a final, Comprehensive Monitoring Report publicly available on the commission website, www.europa.eu.int/comm/ index–en.htm, on or soon after 5 November this year. Monitoring will continue until and beyond accession.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take to ensure settlers not entitled to Republic of Cyprus nationality resident in occupied Cyprus do not have access to the benefits of an EU national to which Turkish Cypriots will be entitled, when Cyprus joins the EU; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123185]

  Mr. MacShane
  In the absence of a settlement, the EU acquis will be suspended in the north of Cyprus when the Republic of Cyprus accedes to the EU. Those resident in the north of Cyprus who do not hold Republic of Cyprus passports will not be entitled to EU benefits. Turkish Cypriots with Republic of Cyprus passports will be entitled to EU benefits. However, the benefits available to Republic of Cyprus passport holders resident in the north of Cyprus will be limited by the suspension of the acquis in the north of Cyprus.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are in place to enable Turkish Cypriots resident in the occupied part of Cyprus to participate in elections for the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123186]

  Mr. MacShane
  None. In the absence of a settlement, the EU acquis will be suspended in the north of Cyprus.

  EU (Official Languages)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the EU concerning the adoption of Turkish as an official EU language; and if he will make a statement; [R] [123207]

  (2) whether Turkish will be an official language of the EU after Turkey accedes to the EU; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123208]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK strongly supports Turkey's EU candidacy. Whether Turkish would become an official language of the EU after Turkey's accession would depend on the terms under which Turkey acceded.

  George Orwell
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many documents have been withheld from the file at the Public Record Office known as FO 1110/189 regarding a meeting between the Information Research Department of the Foreign Office and George Orwell; for what reason each of these documents has been withheld: and if he will release the documents to the Public Record Office. [123017]

  Mr. Straw
  One document has been withheld from FO 1110/189. It has been cleared for release and should be available at The National Archives in August. The document in question is the original of the list, published by the Guardian on 21 June, containing names of 38 alleged crypto-communists sent to the FCO by George Orwell in 1949. It was withheld from release in 1996 partly to respect the confidentiality under which it was given in 1949 and partly because a number of those named were still alive.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take if British-built military equipment is being used to repress the people of Aceh. [122900]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I visited Indonesia from 3–4 June and raised the issue of the use of British-supplied military equipment with senior members of the Indonesian Government, including President Megawati. I reminded the Indonesian Government of their assurances that they would not use British built military equipment offensively or in violation of human rights, and warned them of the possible consequences for defence sales and our defence relationship if there was a breach of such assurances. I also took the opportunity to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that its armed forces respect human rights and act in accordance with international law.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government is taking to monitor the nature of the use of Scorpion tanks and other British-built military equipment in Aceh. [122910]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our embassy in Jakarta receives information from as wide a range of sources as possible, as well as from the Government. These include international agencies, NGOs, other observers and the media.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the nature of the Indonesian Government's use of British-built Scorpion tanks in Aceh in recent weeks. [122911]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Indonesian Government announced on 23 June the deployment of 36 British-built Scorpion vehicles to Aceh to defend roads against attack by the Free Aceh Movement (GAM).
  456W
  Our embassy in Jakarta spoke to senior military contacts and reminded them of the assurances that British-built military equipment should not be used offensively or to violate human rights. We are actively monitoring compliance with these assurances, with care.

  Iraq
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [116956]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Coalition is investing considerable effort in the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Coalition forces are actively pursuing sites, documentation and personnel associated with Iraq's WMD programmes. The US, UK and Australia have deployed specialist personnel to carry out this task, and more will follow.

  The search process itself is painstaking and detailed; we want to establish the truth beyond doubt. Given Iraq's emphasis on concealment, it is hardly surprising that concrete evidence has not yet come to light. But the search is continuing and we remain confident that evidence of Iraq's secret WMD programmes will be uncovered.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that(a) the United Nations is consulted with regard to the implementation of justice in Iraq and (b) the UN will continue to work in partnership with a new Iraqi administration. [118973]

  Mr. Rammell
  In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1483 Coalition partners have established regular and close dialogue on a range of issues with UN Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, since he arrived in Iraq on 2 June. Since his arrival Vieira de Mello has participated in Coalition meetings with Iraqi groups and pursued his own contacts with Iraqis.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 793W, when the UK Government gave the IAEA the information upon which it based its assessment that Iraq sought to procure substantial quantities of uranium from Africa. [121588]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK Government did not pass to the IAEA any information on Iraqi attempts to procure uranium.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Iraq failed to make a complete disclosure on its weapons of mass destruction capability in response to UN Security Council Resolution 1441. [122505]

  Mr. MacShane
  In his reports to the UN Security Council on 14 December 2002 and 9 January 2003, the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC clearly stated that the declaration provided by Iraq in December 2002 failed to provide any satisfactory answers to the outstanding disarmament issues raised by the final report of UNSCOM's Executive Chairman produced in February 1999.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on recent attacks on Christians in Pakistan. [122557]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are very concerned about the attacks on Christians in Pakistan. In the last 12 months, we have received reports of four attacks on Christian institutions, which have claimed 20 lives. The latest attack was on 25 December 2002. The EU made clear its concerns on this and other human rights issues to the Pakistan authorities on 7 February 2003 and again on 23 June 2003. We will continue to urge Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of such attacks to justice and to pursue laws and practices to protect Christians and other religious minorities against discrimination, intimidation and attacks.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Pakistan authorities on that Government's recent human rights record, with specific reference to employer treatment of domestic servants. [122558]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  With our EU partners, we regularly engage the Pakistan authorities on Human Right issues. On 7 February 2003 the EU delivered a comprehensive demarche underlining its concerns on a wide range of human rights-related issues, including on specific individual cases. These concerns were reiterated on 23 June 2003. We have not had cause to raise the issue of domestic servants with the Pakistan authorities as no concrete evidence of human rights violations in this area has been presented to us.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the interception of the ship in Greek waters which was carrying explosives and (b) the response of the Government of Sudan. [122476]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) today (UIN 122706).

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reports of the discovery, by Greek authorities, of large amounts of explosives on a ship heading for Sudan. [122706]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Greek authorities intercepted a ship carrying explosives destined for Sudan on 22 June. The explosives were being imported by the Sudanese Integrated Chemicals and Development Company, a cement business with a legitimate use for explosives. On 24 June, the Tunisian Interior Minister stated that the Tunisian exporter was genuine and respectable and had produced industrial explosives for Tunisia and for export for over half a century. The ship is still being held in Greece. An investigation into the incident is being led by the Greek coastguard. Two Prosecutors have been appointed to the case.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa (Deforestation)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of Africa he estimates was covered in forest in(a) 1975, (b) 1985, (c) 1995 and (d) 2002. [122665]

  Hilary Benn
  Pursuant to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 23W, which stated that the loss of forest cover in Africa each year was 5.2 million hectares, I cited this as equivalent to the area of France. This was incorrect. This area of forest loss is about 1/10th of the size of France.

  Aid Project Funding
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what projects will receive less funding as a result of the cut in departmental funding for(a) Iraq, from 2002–03 to 2003–04, (b) Palestine, from 2003–04 to 2004–05 and (c) Ethiopia, from 2002–03 to 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [122735]

  Hilary Benn
  We have no plans to reduce funding on any projects from our existing programmes in Iraq, Palestine or Ethiopia.

  (a) Iraq: because of the conflict, our original expenditure plans for 2003–04 have been increased by an additional £75 million of DFID's own resources and £120 million from the Treasury central reserve in response to humanitarian needs during and following the conflict. An additional £9 million was also spent in 2002–03.
  (b) Palestine: programme expenditure plans for 2004–05 in fact show an increase over those originally planned for earlier years. Transfers from other budgets across budget lines and calls on the contingency reserve, have enabled us to provide additional funding to meet the urgent needs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

  (c) Ethiopia: due to the recent humanitarian situation, DFID expenditure in 2002–03 increased. This included substantial humanitarian assistance and a payment of £10 million for direct budget support. We have committed £19 million to Ethiopia in 2003–04. This includes both humanitarian and development assistance and could increase depending on the humanitarian situation. We envisage increasing our development support to Ethiopia over the coming years, as indicated in the 2003 DFID Departmental Report.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department over each of the last five years. [120836]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Macshane) on 30 June 2003,Official Report, columns 64–65W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has held with United Kingdom companies concerning their investment strategies in Colombia; and what their participation will be in the forthcoming London conference on Colombia. [123445]

  The Prime Minister
  The intergovernmental meeting in London on 10 July is being held to address the issue of international assistance to Colombia. In that context, other mechanisms are more appropriate for discussing UK investment strategies. I hope that a high-level delegation of business leaders will visit Colombia early next year to look at the issues of trade and investment.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice he has(a) sought and (b) received from human rights groups concerning Colombia in respect of the London meeting on aid and support to Colombia on 9 July; and if he will make a statement. [123446]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government has regular meetings with UK and Colombian NGOs to discuss the situation in Colombia, in particular with respect to human rights. The meeting on 9 July in London between the Colombian government and representatives of a range of organisations including for example NGOs and human rights groups, will allow concerns to be raised directly with the Colombian authorities and then to present them to the intergovernmental meeting on 10 July.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Allotments
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals the Government has(a) to protect and (b) to enhance the (i) provision and (ii) standards of allotment sites. [123306]

  Keith Hill
  Allotments are protected under Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 which requires consent from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister before a local authority can dispose of statutory allotments. Consent decisions for the disposal of statutory allotments are made against criteria aimed at ensuring that allotments that are needed are not disposed of. These criteria have been strengthened and clarified following public consultation in 2001.

  The provision of allotments is determined locally by allotment authorities. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act (1908) places a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient allotments, according to local demand. In addition Planning Policy Guidance note 17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation, indicates that local authorities should assess the existing and future needs of their communities for all open spaces of public value, including allotments. Local authorities should then plan to meet those identified needs.

  The Government have also published "Growing in the community: a good practice guide for the management of allotments", which was published in June 2001, and which provides comprehensive advice
  460W
  for local authorities on all aspects of allotment management. We have also published "Allotments: a plot holders' guide", which provides advice to current and potential allotment plot holders.

  Brownfield/Greenfield Sites
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the implications of the reclassification of brownfield sites to greenfield sites are for the area's eligibility for European funding under Objective One regulations. [123167]

  Keith Hill
  South Yorkshire's eligibility for European Objective 1 funding is based on the economic prosperity of the area and that in 1999 South Yorkshire's GDP was below 75 per cent. of the European average. There are no qualifying factors based on land classification or a proportion of land being either greenfield or brownfield. In policy terms the Objective 1 Programme supports sustainable development and grant offers may be made to projects that meet the relevant criteria, including evidence that all the appropriate planning permissions are in place.

  Emissions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations in relation to greenhouse gas emissions from domestic dwellings. [120715]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Domestic buildings accounted for approximately 28 per cent. of total UK CO2 emissions in 2000. The Government therefore view the household sector as a key area for achieving emissions reductions.

  In the Energy White Paper "Our Energy Future— Creating a Low-Carbon Economy" published in February this year, the Government accepted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's recommendation that the UK should put itself on the path to cut CO2 emissions by some 60 per cent. by about 2050. In the White Paper the Government said that they expected energy efficiency to deliver around half of the total carbon savings needed by 2010. The household sector was identified as having the potential to deliver 3.5 million tones of carbon (MtC) beyond the measures already identified in the UK Climate Change Programme. Looking beyond the first Kyoto Protocol Commitment Period, the Government believe that energy efficiency can deliver a similar proportion of the emission reductions needed during the following decade. Around half of these energy efficiency savings could be made in the household sector.

  The White Paper has identified a number of key measures through which carbon emission reductions might be achieved in the household sector by 2010:

  Carbon emission reductions

  Measure

  MtC

  Raising boiler standards

  0.6

  Insulating cavity walls

  1.2

  Low energy light bulbs

  0.5

  Improved efficiency of household appliances

  0.4

  Insulation measures and community CHP

  1

  461W
  Note:

  The figures given for each measure are indicative rather than targets.

  The key policies to deliver these are set out in the Energy White Paper and include:

  The Energy Efficiency Commitment;

  Building Regulations and the implementation of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;

  Improved energy performance standards for household appliances and other products;

  The Community Energy Programme;

  Programmes targeted on the fuel poor and social housing;

  Tax measures; and

  Advice and information, in particular through the work of the Energy Saving Trust.

  The Government have committed to publish within a year an implementation plan that sets out in further detail how it will deliver the energy efficiency strategy set out in the White Paper.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to prevent councils from using housing revenue account money to fund the administration of anti-social behaviour orders. [123286]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have no plans to prevent councils from using Housing Revenue Account (HRA) money to fund the administration of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs).

  Local authorities use HRA money for the management and maintenance of council housing in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  When local authority landlords use Anti-Social Behaviour Orders to tackle anti-social behaviour relating to local authority housing, then they are right to use HRA money to do so.

  Tackling anti-social tenants is a housing management function, and local authority landlords, because of their long-term commitment to their tenants and improving communities, are usually amongst the first agencies to know of problems. They must be responsive to the issues that local communities face and to ensure that properties do not become hard to let, as a result of crime and disorder problems. ASBOs have made an important contribution to reducing anti-social behaviour and enabling communities to get on with their daily lives.

  Regional Assemblies
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria he will use in distributing funding for each side of the campaign in the regional assembly referendums; and what funding will be distributed to each side in each referendum. [123270]

  Phil Hope
  Section 108 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) provides that the Electoral Commission may designate permitted participants as organisations to whom assistance is available as representing those campaigning for the outcomes in question. It must designate organisations on each side or none.
  462W
  If it designates organisations, the Electoral Commission will be able to provide a grant of the same amount to each. The maximum grant under PPERA is £600,000 for each designated organisation. Each designated organisation will also be entitled to receive other assistance: mailing of a referendum address free to every household or elector; the use of public rooms free of charge for holding public meetings; and referendum campaign broadcasts.

  The Electoral Commission is considering what the level of grant should be for regional referendums.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) over what period each regional assembly referendum will be held; [123271]

  (2) what the timetable for each regional referendum will be; and if he will make a statement. [123274]

  Phil Hope
  The referendum period will be determined by an order under section five of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.

  The provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) set a standard referendum period of 10 weeks. This consists of three separate stages: 28 days for permitted participants to apply to be designated as the "yes" or "no" campaign; 14 days for the Electoral Commission to determine applications; and 28 days for the poll.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will designate the referendum period for regional assemblies. [123272]

  Phil Hope
  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 provides that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister may make an order to cause a referendum to be held in a region at any time during the period of two years starting with the date on which the Boundary Committee is directed to carry out a local government review in that region. On 16 June 2003 he directed the Boundary Committee to conduct local government reviews in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber regions. The Boundary Committee will report its recommendations by 25 May 2004.

  Then at least six weeks must elapse before the Order is laid. An order therefore cannot be laid before 3 July 2004.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether it is his policy to permit postal ballots in the regional assembly referendums; and if he will make a statement on the use of alternative voting methods in the referendums. [123273]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not yet decided what the method of voting will be for the first regional referendums. The referendums may be held either by all-postal voting or by a traditional ballot, and using electronic counting of votes. The Government intend that the same method of voting should be used throughout a region and in all regions holding referendums on the same day. But over time, the method of voting may change.
  463W
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans the Government has to limit announcements(a) during the regional assembly referendum period and (b) in the period immediately before the regional assembly referendum period; [123276]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the distribution of Government literature (a) during the regional assembly referendum period and (b) in the period immediately before the regional assembly referendum period. [123277]

  Phil Hope
  Regional assembly referendums are governed by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) and the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003.

  Section 125 of PPERA provides that in the final 28 days before the assembly referendum, the Government will not be able to publish material relating to issues in the referendum. These controls apply equally to local authorities and to any other publicly funded body.

  There are no statutory restrictions on publications or announcements before the 28 day period.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the powers and responsibilities to be held by regional assemblies; and if he will make a statement. [123278]

  Phil Hope
  The Government's proposals on the functions of elected regional assemblies are principally set out in chapter 4 in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" (Cm 5511) which was published in May 2002.

  The White Paper also said that we would build into policy development the new opportunities offered by the creation of elected regional assemblies. On this basis my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 30 June proposals for the future organisation of the fire service, set out in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808). These proposals include a more coherent regional approach to fire and rescue in accordance with the recommendations of the independent review of the fire service, the report of which was published in December 2002. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said on 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 22, where directly elected regional assemblies are established, we envisage there being regional fire and rescue authorities that are democratically accountable to those assemblies.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the targets for his Department's waste minimisation strategy are. [121808]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Greening Operations Policy Statement requires that we recover or recycle at least 70 per cent. of its waste in 2003–04, while reducing paper use by 10 per cent. compared with the base year of 1999–2000.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, on behalf of the Lord President of the Privy Council, if he will list the number of Ministers in his Department in each year since 1996. [120990]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 661W.

  Public Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the appointees to(a) the Imperial College Govening Body, (b) the Court of UMIST, (c) the Court of University of Hull, (d) the Court of University of Sussex, (e) the Court of University of Ulster, (f) the Court of the University of Manchester, (g) the Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine, (h) the General Medical Council, (i) the Royal Council of Veterinary Surgeons, (j) the Registered Homes Tribunals Panel of Experts and (k) the Royal College of Court; and which of the appointees to each body are from ethnic minorities. [122994]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine no longer exists, and the Privy Council no longer makes appointments to the Registered Homes Tribunal Panel of Experts. Privy Council appointees for the other bodies mentioned are set out as follows:

  Imperial College

  Field Marshall Lord Vincent

  Trevor Phillips QBE

  Ms Charlotte L Chothia

  Balram Gidoomal

  Sir Alastair Motion

  Sir Peter Williams

  UMIST

  Denis Robson

  Miss Dawn Gibbins

  Geoffrey Galley

  Keith Beckett

  University of Hull

  Lord Haskins

  John Trebble

  Michael Hollingbery

  University of Sussex

  Mark Burrell

  Mrs Gail Rebuck

  Prof. Barry Supple

  University of Ulster

  The Lord Glentoran CBE

  Mrs Bernadette Grant

  University of Manchester

  Dame Valerie Strachan DCB

  Dr Inayat Khan Babar

  465W

  Clonel John Bradford Timmins QBE TD JP

  Ms Dawn Peters

  Anthony Nixon

  General Medical Council

  Kevin Baron MP

  The Very Reverend Graham Forbes

  Robert Nicholls

  Ruth Evans

  Dr Arun Midha

  Mrs Patricia Moberly

  David Bean

  Sir Michael Buckley

  Mrs Gillian Camm

  Stuart Heatherington

  Robin McLeod

  Dr Joan Martin

  Fiona Peel

  Ann Robinson

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  James M Scudamore

  F Brian Jennings

  Mr Martyn Jones MP

  Mrs Barbara Saunders

  Royal College of Art

  Dr Kenneth Grange CBE

  The other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Unpaid Fines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what percentage of fines were unpaid in(a) Salisbury magistrates court and (b) Salisbury crown court in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [122795]

  Mr. Leslie
  Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) have a responsibility for the collection of a range of debts imposed by both the magistrates courts and the crown court. Debt collected includes not only fines but also fees, compensation, confiscation orders, legal aid contributions and some maintenance orders. It is not yet possible to separate out only fines from the total, so the figures provided here include all the elements above.

  Data are collected centrally at MCC level, rather than at court level. In addition, the Wiltshire MCC accounting system is unable to identify the percentage of fines unpaid in the Salisbury magistrates court. The payment rate for the Wiltshire MCC in 2002–03, calculated as the percentage of the total amount collected over the amount imposed, was 68 per cent. On that basis, the percentage of fines unpaid was 32 per cent.

  Information from the Wiltshire MCC indicated that the payment rate in 2002–03 for the South East Wiltshire Petty Session Area, which includes Salisbury and Devizes, was 48 per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autistic Children
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on respite provision for autistic children in Northern Ireland. [116368]

  Angela Smith
  There are no specific respite care services for children with autistic spectrum disorders. Respite services are provided for children with disabilities including residential provision, domiciliary care, host family and fostering services, holiday schemes and day care. The development of respite care services has been included in Priorities for Action 2003–04, and additional funding has been allocated for this purpose. In addition, health and social services boards have been asked to bring forward-costed proposals for enhancing autism services, particularly diagnostic and assessment services.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many classroom assistants were employed in each Education and Library Board area in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000. [122643]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of classroom assistants employed in each Education and Library Board area in Northern Ireland is as follows:

  2000

  2001

  2002

  BELB

  351

  452

  531

  NEELB

  833

  914

  1,185

  SEELB

  1,056

  1,220

  1,367

  SELB

  841

  907

  960

  WELB

  910

  948

  1,100

  Commissioners
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in establishing the office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. [122351]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am pleased to state, that on 26 June 2003 Mr. Nigel Williams was announced as the first Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland. Mr. Williams is currently the Chief Executive of Childnet International, a registered charity set up in 1996 that specialises in protecting children from abuse on the Internet. He will take up post as Commissioner on 1 October 2003.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards establishing an older people's rights commissioner in Northern Ireland. [122352]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government are committed to the on-going promotion of the rights of older people in society. As a result of a consultation exercise on future issues to be addressed through the Promoting Social Inclusion (PSI) initiative of New Targeting Social Need (New TSN), the NI Executive's Programme for Government committed us to opening new channels of
  467W
  communication with organisations that represent older people to identify the developing needs of older people, and to consider how our services can best be provided in appropriate and accessible ways.

  A PSI working group was established in October 2002 to assist in developing a strategy for older people. The working group is made up of representatives from NI Departments, the wider public sector, the voluntary sector and organisations representing older people such as; Help the Aged, Age Concern and the Age Sector Reference Group. The Northern Ireland Executive agreed the terms of reference and membership of the working group.

  The Working Group will consider factors which cause older people to be at risk of social exclusion, and develop a co-ordinated strategy through which relevant agencies will work together to tackle them.

  The working group held a conference on 28 March "Ageing in An Inclusive Society" to explore the issues affecting older people. Approximately 100 people attended for the statutory, community and voluntary sectors. The issues raised will inform the development of the strategy.

  The Working Group will develop a draft policy and strategy document for public consultation, setting out clearly defined recommendations as to what preventative and other measures are required, by whom, and within what timescales, and other mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate effectiveness and ensure progress. At this early stage it would not be appropriate to speculate on the likely nature of the recommendations.

  Firefighters
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many firefighters are unable to work as a result of violent attacks by members of the community in Northern Ireland. [115965]

  Angela Smith
  One member of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade is currently unable to work as a result of being attacked.

  Language Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what steps are being taken to incorporate the issue of equality for Irish speakers in the guidelines of the Equality Commission; [116907]

  (2) what the policy is of the Equality Commission on promoting (a) the use of the spoken Irish language in the workplace and (b) the use of written Irish in public through (i) signage and (ii) other measures; [116905]

  (3) what training has been given to (a) staff and (b) Commissioners at the Equality Commission on language rights, with particular reference to the rights of Irish speakers. [116906]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to write to the hon. Member on these matters. Copies of the letters will be placed in the Library.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government are taking to make non-departmental public bodies more representative of the community in Northern Ireland. [122233]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Appointments to the NI Administration Boards of Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are governed by the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland; Northern Ireland Office appointments are covered by the Commissioner's GB Code. The overriding principle is that selection must be based on merit, through the well informed choice of individuals who, through their abilities, experience and qualities match the needs of the body in question. The Commissioner's Code also requires Departments to ensure their processes for making appointments comply with the statutory duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. The Commissioner's remit covers appointments to Executive NDPBs and HPSS bodies (and, in the case of the Northern Ireland Office, Advisory NDPBs), but all Departments routinely apply the principles of the Commissioner's Code to all appointments. The Central Appointments Unit in the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister recently developed a Public Appointments Best Practice guide to assist Departments in the application of the Commissioner's Code. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library. The Northern Ireland Office follows Cabinet Office Best Practice Guidance which was introduced in July 2001.

  Other steps taken by Departments to ensure that Boards are representative include:
  advertising in the press and on the website, www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/publicappointments, and circulating to a wide range of individuals and groups a six-monthly list of forthcoming vacancies;
  varied use of media advertising (special interest magazines in addition to the local press) for appointments;
  providing information through leaflets, press articles and seminars;
  revising nomination forms to make them less off putting and to enable greater account to be taken of non traditional career patterns;
  reviewing person specifications to ensure specific groups are not inadvertently discriminated against; and
  visits to voluntary and community groups to raise awareness of opportunities.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total expenditure out of the public purse was of each non-departmental public body in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [122502]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information sought in the question is available in the "Public Bodies" publication produced annually by the Cabinet Office and made available through the Stationery Office and on the Cabinet Office website at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/agencies-publicbodies/. This publication provides information on the size, spend, funding and membership of public bodies in the UK and includes non-departmental public bodies attached to the
  469W
  Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. The current edition of the publication, "Public Bodies 2002" is available in the House of Commons Library. An updated version for 2003 is currently being prepared and should be published by the Cabinet Office before the end of the year.

  Northern Ireland Police Board
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost is of retaining the consultants Price WaterhouseCoopers by the Northern Ireland Police Board; and how many independent assessors have been appointed by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in their work for the Police Board in establishing District Police Partnerships. [123362]

  Jane Kennedy
  The sum to date paid to PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the recruitment exercise for District Policing Partnerships is £555,769.

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers appointed 18 independent observers to assist in the appointment of the independent members of District Policing Partnerships.

  Private Care Organisations
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to simplify the process of negotiating contracts and funding for private care organisations involved in rehabilitation and management of debilitating illness. [116373]

  Angela Smith
  It is the responsibility of the health and social services boards and trusts at operational level to negotiate and agree contracts for the provision of residential and domiciliary care by the independent sector. To assist in this process, the four Board Chief Executives have established a regional group to make recommendations on the appropriate fee levels for care in residential and nursing homes. Recommendations on residential and nursing home fees are based on the level of need across each of the programmes of care. In each of the last three years, the recommendations of the regional group have been endorsed by the Department and accepted as the agreed regional rates by the four boards. Rates for domiciliary care provision are currently negotiated at board and trust level with independent sector providers.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123109]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This question was put to all Northern Ireland Departments; however, we are replying only in relation to the Northern Ireland Office.

  The Northern Ireland Office incurred the following running costs, in relation to Ministers' private offices:

  £

  Running costs

  2003–04

  1128,164

  2002–03

  1,610,821

  2001–02

  1,127,731

  470W

  £

  Running costs

  2000–01

  1,155,931

  1999–2000

  1,270,185

  1998–99

  1,294,715

  1997–98

  974,242

  1 To end May 2003.

  Real IRA
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment has been undertaken of(a) the capacity of the Real IRA to manufacture bombs and (b) whether the Real IRA is receiving co-operation from the Provisional IRA. [122642]

  Jane Kennedy
  The bombs intercepted recently in Londonderry and the explosives find near Dundalk in the Republic of Ireland clearly demonstrates that dissidents have the capacity to manufacture bombs. While dissidents remain a threat to the peace process, the security forces on both sides of the border continue to disrupt, intercept or thwart their operations through good intelligence-led policing and covert operations. The Government's security advice is that PIRA remains on ceasefire and supports the peace process.

  Saville Inquiry
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the costs of the Saville Inquiry as of 30 June, broken down by legal fees paid to individual barristers acting for(a) the Ministry of Defence and (b) families of the victims. [123456]

  Mr. Spellar
  Up to end June 2003 the cash spend by the Northern Ireland Office on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry was a total of £89.2 million. Out of this amount £7.962 million has been spent on the payment of fees to counsel representing the families or the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. These figures are set out in the table and include VAT, where that is paid, and in most cases, expenses as well as fees.

  The fees of Ministry of Defence counsel are a matter for my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Payments

  Period covered

  made (£)

  From

  To

  Senior counsel representing the families1

  Lord Gifford

  553,062

  October 1998

  January 2003

  Arthur Harvey

  767,362

  July 1998

  January 2003

  Michael Lavery

  435,024

  November 2000

  December 2002

  B. J. MacDonald2

  513,755

  September 1998

  September 2002

  P. T. MacDonald3

  65,800

  April 1998

  June 1999

  Michael Mansfield

  457,261

  March 1999

  November 2002

  Elish McDermott

  105,309

  March 2000

  June 2001

  Seamus Treacy4

  600,492

  March 1998

  December 2002

  Eoin McGonigal

  82,446

  October 2000

  June 2002

  Senior counsel representing NICRA

  Sir Louis Blom-Cooper

  306,541

  December 2000

  October 2002

  Junior counsel representing the families5

  John Coyle

  272,473

  September 1999

  January 2003

  Fiona Doherty

  193,824

  October 2000

  October 2002

  Ciaran Harvey

  349,105

  December 2000

  December 2002

  Richard Harvey

  331,733

  October 2000

  August 2002

  Brian Kennedy

  546,694

  July 1999

  March 2003

  Philip Magee6

  83,175

  June 1998

  September 2000

  471W

  Payments

  Period covered

  made (£)

  From

  To

  Kieran Mallon

  658,899

  March 1999

  May 2003

  Brian McCartney

  640,261

  July 1998

  April 2003

  Karen Quinlivan

  179,147

  March 1999

  December 2001

  Patricia Smyth7

  328,719

  October 1998

  June 2002

  Mary McHugh

  123,972

  February 2002

  October 2002

  Michael Topolski8

  139,940

  November 2000

  June 2001

  Junior counsel representing NICRA

  Paddy O'Hanlon

  227,728

  November 2000

  October 2002

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

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

  3 Left the case June 1999.

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

  5 In addition, the following junior counsel have represented/are representing some of the families but have yet to submit fee claims: Tom McCreanor and Declan Morgan.

  6 Left the case September 2000.

  7 Left the case June 2002.

  8 Left the case June 2001.

  Senior Citizens
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many senior citizens over the age of 65 in Northern Ireland have taken up the opportunity to hold concessionary travel passes, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [121083]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table shows the take up of senior citizens Smartpasses by Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency as at October 2002. The total number of senior Smartpasses in circulation as of 23 June 2003 was 158,156. However, to disaggregate this figure by parliamentary constituency could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Constituency

  Estimated number of Smartpasses

  Belfast East

  10,947

  Belfast North

  10,325

  Belfast South

  9,389

  Belfast West

  7,060

  East Antrim

  8,247

  East Londonderry

  6,741

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  6,014

  Foyle

  6,508

  Lagan Valley

  9,164

  Mid Ulster

  4,670

  Newry and Armagh

  6,912

  North Antrim

  7,811

  North Down

  10,263

  South Antrim

  8,011

  South Down

  7,684

  Strangford

  8,816

  Upper Bann

  8,738

  West Tyrone

  5,249

  Total

  142,549

  Targeted Benefits
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been commissioned 472W
  to ascertain the reasons for the variations in take-up of targeted benefits; and if he will make a statement on the findings. [122551]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department for Social Development has commissioned no research to ascertain individuals' reasons for claiming or not claiming targeted benefits. It has, however, commissioned research to estimate the level of benefit take-up and to establish the extent to which there is variation in that level and to determine factors which appear to be contributing to such variations. The research commissioned was to estimate the take-up of income support and jobseeker's allowance (income based) in Northern Ireland, and the results of the research were published in May 2002.

  The findings of the research published in 2002 indicated that:
  the take-up of income support was estimated at 76 per cent. by caseload and 84 per cent. by spending; and
  the take-up of jobseeker's allowance (income based) was estimated at 75 per cent. by caseload and 79 per cent. by spending.

  In addition, the Social Security Agency has commissioned research to investigate the degree of variation in take-up of disability living allowance, both within Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This work is in progress.

  Tourism
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote tourism in Northern Ireland through support for cultural traditions organised by the Loyal Orders. [122670]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) has mainstreamed cultural tourism as a key marketing and development opportunity for tourism in Northern Ireland. NITB seeks to facilitate the development of a visitor experience that is unique to Northern Ireland and that capitalises on the distinctive and diverse elements of Northern Ireland's cultural traditions and way of life. With specific reference to support for cultural traditions organised by the Loyal Orders, NITB is happy to consider applications seeking support for particular events that will showcase these in a manner which has potential to attract out of state visitors.

HEALTH

  Antidepressants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for antidepressant medicines were written in the NHS in England in 2002; and what the total cost of antidepressant medicines was to the NHS in that year. [123432]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002, 26.3 million prescription items of anti-depressant drugs were dispensed in the community in England, with a net ingredient cost of £380.9 million.

  Arthritis
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many working days were lost in(a) England, (b) South Sefton, (c) Southport and (d) Formby because of arthritis and related conditions in each year since 1999; how much he estimates the lost work days owing to arthritis cost the economy; and what action is being taken to reduce the number of work days lost because of arthritis. [122236]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not collect figures centrally covering lost working days for people with arthritis. We want to help people with arthritis to remain in, or return to, work wherever this is possible and appropriate for them. Physiotherapists and occupational therapists play a crucial part in the rehabilitation of people suffering from arthritis and related conditions and the focus will be to restore the person to their optimal function, including returning to work, where appropriate.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population in(a) England, (b) South Sefton, (c) Southport and (d) Formby he estimates will suffer from arthritis in (i) 2004, (ii) 2005 and (iii) 2006. [122237]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Currently, it is estimated that about eight million people in the United Kingdom have arthritis. This is approximately 14 per cent. of the population. We would expect that these figures would remain fairly constant over time.

  Separate figures on the incidence of arthritis for South Sefton, Southport and Formby are not available centrally.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will introduce a national strategy for arthritis. [122238]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are aware that arthritis is a major cause of disability in the UK and that it has a significant impact not only on health and community services but also on the people who experience its painful symptoms. We are sympathetic to the needs of patients with arthritis and have helped make new generation drugs for arthritis treatment such as etanercept and infliximab available to national health service patients.

  There are currently no plans to introduce a formal national strategy for arthritis.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will introduce arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions to be a priority for health and social care. [122239]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Priorities for health and social care are set out in Improvement, Expansion and Reform, the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. Although arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions are not identified specifically, people with these conditions stand to benefit from the improvement in access to specialist care for patients suffering from any form of orthopaedic condition. Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so, so that, by the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first outpatient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for inpatient 474W
  treatment will fall to six months. Also, the older peoples' national service framework set standards which will improve treatment and care for a range of older people, including those with arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost of arthritis was to health and social services in England in 2002–03. [122242]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Health authorities (HAs) and primary care trusts receive unified allocations to cover the costs of hospital and community health services, discretionary funding for general practice staff, premises and computers and primary care prescribing.

  The level of funding made available for the drugs, staffing and other costs of providing arthritis services are determined locally. It is for HAs, in partnership with primary care groups/trusts and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to provide health services for their populations, including those with arthritis.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the two most common types of(a) arthritis and (b) musculoskeletal conditions are. [122243]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the incidence of individual conditions is not collected centrally. Research evidence suggests that osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are the most common forms of arthritis. Other than arthritis, the most common types of musculoskeletal conditions are traumatic damage to ligaments and tendons, manifested as sprains, backache and similar conditions.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the second most common cause of working days lost by(a) men and (b) women was in 2002–03. [122244]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The second most common cause of working days lost by both men and women was diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national strategy for arthritis; and if he will make a statement. [122805]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) today.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) rheumatologists and (b) multi-disciplinary specialists in arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions are employed by NHS trusts which serve the Portsmouth South area. [122806]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest Department of Health medical and dental workforce census data (September 2002) confirms that five rheumatologists are employed by Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Information on the number of multi-disciplinary specialists in arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions is not collected centrally.

  Back Pain
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of back pain was to the NHS in the last year for which figures are available; what research is being conducted into the management of such pain; how many treatment centres are available in(a) England and (b) each Government Office region; what the average referral time is for patients diagnosed with back pain and related conditions; what plans there are to provide additional resources to tackle this condition; and if he will make a statement. [121643]

  Mr. Hutton
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally on the cost of back pain to the national health service or on referral times for patients diagnosed with back pain. At national level, the NHS research and development health technology assessment programme is currently supporting two research projects on the management of back pain covering, respectively, whether early imaging influences management and improves outcome in patients with low back pain, and the longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture to patients with chronic low back pain. Treatment is available very widely. It is for primary care trusts to determine what level of resources to devote to the treatment of different conditions in their localities.

  The Government are currently exploring a number of ways to improve access to occupational health services and vocational rehabilitation for all workers, including those suffering from back pain, through NHS Plus and the Welfare to Work reforms. NHS Plus, launched in November 2001, is currently providing access to local occupational health services to small and medium sized businesses through 107 providers (NHS trusts) across the United Kingdom; while, the NHS "Back in Work" campaign aims to reduce the causes of back pain and the incidents that lead to back pain in the NHS. In addition, the new Job Retention and Rehabilitation pilots, launched on 1 April 2003, and the Incapacity Benefit reforms, announced in the Government's Green Paper in November 2002, "Pathways to Work", are offering work-focused interventions for those with health problems, including back pain, to help people return to work.

  Basildon Hospital
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had on the provision of a new cardiac centre at Basildon hospital; when the Essex Strategic Health Authority will consider the final plans; how many heart operations a year the centre will perform; what range of procedures and operations will be available at the unit; and when the unit will become available for use. [122340]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There has been continued long-term investment in the capital infrastructure to support further expansion of cardiac surgery and to reduce waiting times. 12 major capital developments schemes have so far been announced; four in March 2001 and eight in November 2001, at a total cost of over £300 million.
  476W
  The cardiac scheme in Basildon is one of a number of additional schemes, which have not yet been announced but where planning is proceeding and Department of Health officials are being kept informed of progress. The scheme will need to progress through the normal planning procedures including demonstrating local commissioner support to enable a final decision to be made.

  Botox
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the regulatory status is of an ampoule of botox; and what the restrictions are on its(a) sale and (b) prescription; [123063]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that administration of botox injections is regulated; [123064]

  (3) what medical qualifications are needed in order to administer botox injections. [123065]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 2 July 2003]: Botox is legally classified as a prescription only medicine. As such, it may be sold or supplied by a doctor direct to his/her patient or to a person responsible for the patient's care. Otherwise, it may only be sold or supplied against a doctor's prescription by or under the supervision of a pharmacist on registered pharmacy premises.

  The administration of Botox is regulated under the Medicines Act 1968. As a parenteral medicine, it may be self administered, administered by a doctor or a dentist, or administered by anyone in accordance with the directions of a doctor or a dentist. These directions must be specific to the patient.

  Parenteral medicines may also be administered by specified groups of health professional, such as nurses and ambulance paramedics, under a patient group direction.

  Cancer Plan
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new staff have been employed as a result of the Cancer Plan. [120612]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Additional funding was made available in the NHS Cancer Plan, rising to an extra £570 million a year by 2003–04. Some of this is being used to make substantial investment in staff, with a wide range of new appointments that are contributing to the delivery of cancer care.

  The table shows good progress in increasing the number of doctors working in cancer services. This increase means the national health service is on track to hit the target set out in the Cancer Plan of nearly 1,000 extra cancer consultants by 2006. The table also shows that we are making good progress with increasing the number of radiographers working in the NHS. The overall increase of 50,000 nurses working in the NHS will also enable the recruitment of additional cancer-site specific nurse specialists, chemotherapy nurses, district nurses, palliative care nurse specialists and additional nurses on wards caring for cancer patients.

  477W

  Hospital medical consultants within selected specialties relating to cancer

  Numbers (headcount)

  England

  1999

  Sept 2002

  Change

  All Cancer specialties, of which:

  3,362

  3,913

  551

  Clinical oncology

  305

  315

  10

  Clinical radiology

  1,507

  1,702

  195

  Haematology

  510

  588

  78

  Histopathology

  836

  968

  132

  Medical oncology

  110

  185

  75

  Palliative medicine

  94

  155

  61

  Radiographers, of which:

  Diagnostic

  10,839

  11,489

  650

  Therapeutic

  1,491

  1,542

  51

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Care Homes
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support is available to local authorities to

  Care home places in Essex, 1997–2001

  Total number of care home places1

  As at 31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Essex area2

  14,840

  14,960

  14,730

  14,200

  14,230

  Essex area excluding unitary councils3

  n/a

  n/a

  12,330

  11,650

  11,670

  1 Total includes places in residential LA staffed, independent and dual registered homes, and beds in general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  2 Care home places in nursing homes in North and South Essex Health Authorities and residential homes in Essex Shire County and Southend and Thurrock Unitary Authorities. In 1997 and 1998 Southend and Thurrock Unitary authorities did not exist.

  3 Care home places in nursing homes in North and South Essex Health Authorities and residential homes in Essex Shire County.

  Source:

  RA Form A and RH(N) forms, Department of Health

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a person working at the premises will have the right to refuse to be interviewed under Clause 86(1)(c)(i) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122962]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The provision at clause 86(1)(c)(i) (first print) gives the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) power to interview in private any person working at premises which CSCI is inspecting. Clause 86(5) provides that it would be an offence to obstruct CSCI in the exercise of its functions, and this provision is intended to make clear (mirroring existing provision in the Care Standards Act) that a manager must not prevent any person who consents to being interviewed by CSCI being interviewed. In certain circumstances, which will be set out in detail in regulations to be made under clause 85 of the Bill, CSCI will be able to require prescribed persons to give explanations of prescribed matters to CSCI. Failure without reasonable excuse to do so in these circumstances would be a criminal offence.

  Community Health Councils
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the arrangements are for passing on community health council records to their successor bodies. [121238]
  478W
  enable them to create additional nursing and residential home beds for the elderly. [122108]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: Most of the financial resources available to local government are unhypothecated and each council must decide, in the light of its priorities and service needs, how much to spend on additional nursing and residential home beds for elderly people. On a like for like basis, funding to local government in England for the provision of personal social services increased by 6.2 per cent. (3.6 per cent. in real terms) in 2002–03 and by 9.1 per cent. (6.3 per cent. in real terms and excluding resource equalisation) in 2003–04.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in care homes in Essex in each of the last five years. [122888]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The latest available information on the number of care home places in Essex is shown in the table.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: Work is underway involving the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health and other bodies to consider what information and knowledge should be transferred from community health councils to the new system of patient and public involvement and how best to do it.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in making screening services for cystic fibrosis available to all new mothers and pregnant women. [121733]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have announced their intention to implement a new national programme for neonatal cystic fibrosis screening. The UK National Screening Committee (NSC) has commissioned a programme of work to plan for the national provision of cystic fibrosis screening using the Guthrie Bloodspot Card. The NSC is looking at screening protocols, costs, feasibility, timetables and links to other antenatal programmes.

  Dementia/Alzheimer's
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) England have (i) dementia and (ii) Alzheimer's disease. [122890]
  479W
  Dr. Ladyman
  There is no routine collection of information at national or local level about the number of people with dementia generally or Alzheimer's disease in particular. Research evidence about the prevalence of dementia suggests that about 5 per cent. of the total population aged 65 or over, rising to 20 per cent. of the population aged 80 and over, has dementia. Alzheimer's disease causes up to 60 per cent. of cases of dementia.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support the Government are offering Alzheimer's awareness week. [122892]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are keen supporters of Alzheimer's Awareness Week. It is essential that awareness of the needs of people with dementia, and of their carers, is raised, to help ensure that those needs are met. The Government have produced an older people's national service framework that outlines the high priority we are giving to improving services for people with dementia.

  DNA (Insurance)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards will be introduced on the use of individuals' DNA by(a) the insurance industry, (b) employers, (c) doctors and (d) others, with particular reference to the ownership of newly identified genes. [122305]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The recent White Paper, "Our Inheritance, our future—realising the potential of genetics in the NHS", sets out the stringent safeguards that the Government have already introduced on the use and ownership of individuals' DNA. These safeguards include a moratorium to 2006 on the use by insurers of any predicative genetic test results. With regards to further safeguards that will be introduced, the Government have made two commitments. These are:To introduce legislation making it an offence to tests a person's DNA without their knowledge or consent, except as part of their medical treatment where consent is impossible to obtain, and use by the police and courts; and
  To consider the evidence for unfair discrimination against people on the basis of their genetic characteristics and the appropriate means of addressing any concerns in this area.

  Draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what account was taken by the Food Standards Agency of submissions regarding the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and how many submissions were received from consumer groups on these Regulations. [122824]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) formally consulted on the draft Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 from 23 October 2002 to 15 January 2003. A summary of responses received is on the FSA's website at: www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/ pdfs/draftfoodsapps03.PDF with all comments clearly attributed. Responses from Foodaware and Consumers for Health Choice are included. In amending the draft Regulations, the FSA carefully considered all responses received.

  Drug Treatment Regimes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many visits have been made to France by Department of Health(a) officials and (b) Ministers to look at drug treatment regimes in the last five years. [121232]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are not aware of any visits to France in the last five years by Department of Health Ministers or officials to look specifically at drug treatment regimes.

  However, there is an exchange of information with the rest of Europe, on drugs and drug treatment, via the United Kingdom focal point. The UK focal point is one element of a European network of drugs information centres. The network is co-ordinated by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, a specialised agency for the European Union.

  Fluoridation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what areas of the UK receive water supplies which are fluoridated, broken down by(a) water authority and (b) the date fluoridation commenced. [121425]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information currently available to the Department indicates that water fluoridation schemes are operated by Anglian Water, Northumbrian Water, Severn Trent and United Utilities. The schemes were introduced progressively between 1964 and 1985.

  There are no water fluoridation schemes in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the safety of fluoride in the human body. [121426]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A review by the University of York found that the evidence showed that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay with no evidence of adverse effects on general health. The report did, however, identify the need for more good quality research and the Department of Health asked the Medical Research Council (MRC) to suggest where it might be possible to strengthen the evidence base.

  In its report, the MRC stated that available evidence does not suggest a link between water fluoridation and either cancer in general or any specific cancer type, including osteosarcoma or primary bone cancer, but recommended monitoring data collected on the incidence of cancer so that any aberrant trends in populations receiving fluoridated water could be investigated.

  Other claims have been made for an association between fluoride ingestion and deficiencies in the immune system, reproductive and developmental (birth) defects, and effects on the kidney and gastrointestinal tract. The MRC considered the evidence for any significant health effects to be weak and did not recommend any specific research, although it recommended keeping research in these areas under review.
  481W
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to each health authority in order to implement the fluoridation of public drinking water. [121459]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Individual strategic health authorities would make arrangements with water companies to fluoridate their water, provided their populations were in favour. Costs would be determined by the size of the population covered and the structure of the local water distribution system. Initial conversion costs for a water treatment works might be around £250,000 with running costs, including that of the fluoride, about 40 pence per head of population per year.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has evaluated on the effectiveness of the use of fluoridation of water in reducing caries; [120803]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Medical Research Council on the impact of water fluoridation on human health. [120802]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All water supplies contain some fluoride and it was from observing different patterns of dental decay in areas of differing levels of naturally fluoridated water that the benefits of fluoride were first observed. The Government commissioned an up-to-date review of the evidence of the relationship between fluoride and health from the national health service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York. Its report, "A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation", published in September 2000, concluded that water fluoridation increased the number of children with no tooth decay by 15 per cent. The University of York report did, however, identify the need for more good quality research and the Department commissioned the Medical Research Council (MRC) to advise on how the evidence base might be strengthened. The MRC published its report in September 2002. The Chief Medical Officer and Chief Dental Officer are examining the MRCs research recommendations and will report on the implications for Government policy in the autumn.

  Food Contaminants Regulations
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons lettuce and spinach are excluded from the Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2003/1478. [122841]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Lettuce and spinach are excluded from the English Regulations because of a derogation allowed by European Community law. This derogation allows United Kingdom farmers a transitional period during which to alter their farming practices to reduce the levels of nitrate in spinach and lettuce. The transitional period, which also applies in Ireland, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands, is necessary due to the different climatic conditions that occur in Northern Europe. Cloudy weather during the growing period leads to lettuce and spinach having high nitrate concentrations and on occasion exceeding the maximum permitted levels set by legislation.
  482W
  The derogation is conditional on growers abiding by a code of practice and on levels of nitrate measured not representing a risk to public health. Codes of practice for farming of spinach and lettuce were published in 1999. These outline farming practices that, if followed, should reduce the concentrations of nitrate observed in lettuce and spinach. The Food Standards Agency undertakes statutory monitoring of nitrate levels in lettuce and spinach and submits the data to the EC on a yearly basis.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what her policy is on food labelling with respect to caffeine. [120151]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are in favour of clear labelling of caffeine when it is used in foods. They therefore supported new European Union rules, which will require caffeine to be declared in ingredient lists when used as a flavouring: current legislation requires only the declaration "flavouring". The new rules will also require drinks containing caffeine in excess of 150 milligrams per litre to carry the declaration, "High caffeine content", together with the amount of caffeine expressed in milligrams per 100 millilitres. This will alert consumers to the presence of unexpectedly high levels of caffeine. The new rules will not apply to drinks based on tea or coffee.

  Food Supplements
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which food supplements which are safe will be removed from the market in 2005. [121254]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Food supplements, like other foods, are not subject to prior approval before marketing unless they are genetically modified or are "novel". Therefore, the Food Standards Agency does not hold detailed safety information about food supplement products on the UK market. These products are, however, required to comply with food law, including the Food Safety Act 1990.

  According to information provided by industry, Annex I and Annex II of the Food Supplements Directive presently omit six minerals and many chemical sources of vitamins and minerals currently used in food supplements on the UK market. The provisions of The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 come into force on 1 August 2005; however, the regulations take advantage of the derogation in Article 4 of the directive which enables member states to allow, subject to certain criteria being met, the continued sale of products containing vitamin and mineral sources not yet on the permitted lists up until 1 January 2010.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the appointment of the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Hospitals. [R] [121869]

  Mr. Hutton
  The advert for the post of Independent Regulator was advertised on 14 May 2003. Candidates were asked to respond by 3 June 2003. The recruitment
  483W
  process is on-going and I expect to announce the appointment later this year. The appointment process is in line with best practice in the public sector and includes independent assessment.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he proposes to make of the first wave of NHS foundation trusts prior to deciding whether(a) to support the creation of more such trusts and (b) to expand foundation trusts beyond the hospital sector. [R] [121870]

  Mr. Hutton
  All national health service trusts will have the opportunity to apply for NHS foundation trust status within the next five years. It has also already been agreed that the NHS foundation trust model will be extended to NHS mental health trusts.

  The experience gained from the first wave NHS foundation trusts will be applied as implementation progresses and in exploring whether this model could be adapted for other NHS organisations.

  The process for establishing NHS foundation trusts will be kept under capital review.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned, (b) undertaken itself, (c) reviewed, (d) completed, (e) published or received and (f) ensured the appropriate peer review of in respect of the impact of genetically modified foods consumed by humans upon their health, in the last five years. [122491]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) funds two extensive research programmes, which underpin the safety assessment of genetically modified foods. This research is undertaken by independent research scientists. The work is peer reviewed before the reports of the research are made publicly available through the FSA's library. Details of the research programme are published in the FSA's research and surveys programmes annual report and are available on the FSA web site at www.food.gov/ukscience/research/ researchannualreports/.

  Health and Social Care Bill
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will put in place safeguards to ensure that vital equipment is not removed without prior agreement under clause 63(1)(b) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121178]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We expect that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will normally obtain any information or other material, such as medical equipment, it may need by agreement. The power to remove equipment may be necessary where inspectors suspect, for example, that tampering of either data or equipment has taken place or that patient safety is being put at risk. It is right in such circumstances that CHAI is able to remove such equipment for examination without having to negotiate first for its release.

  Health Insurance Cards
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the introduction of the common European health insurance card from June 2004. [116467]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: As part of the action plan for improving geographical mobility by 2005, the Barcelona European Council agreed to create a European health insurance card. In February 2003 the European Commission published a communication document COM(2003)13, which is available in the Library.

  This card is intended to replace the current paper forms needed to obtain health treatment during temporary stays in another member state of the European Union. The initial stage will replace the emergency health care form E111.

  Existing national cards may be adapted to conform to a European standard or member states which so wish may introduce a completely new card.

  The United Kingdom is generally supportive of the proposal to replace E111 if it simplifies bureaucracy for patients and administrations. Detailed consideration has been given to the practicalities of production of a UK card. It is likely that the UK will wish to take advantage of the transitional period of up to the end of 2005 proposed by the European Commission before card issue to the UK public begins.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the implications are for(a) British NHS patients and (b) European patients using the NHS of the introduction of the common European health insurance card from June 2004. [116468]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: The intention of the card is to simplify procedures, but not to change existing rights and obligations. The European Commission's proposal for a health insurance card is intended primarily for the benefit of citizens. It is hoped to eliminate as many formalities as possible in providing documentation showing entitlement to care in other member states. A European Union wide standard health card should facilitate temporary stays abroad for United Kingdom visitors, both outwards and incoming.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what occasions in the past 12 months his officials have met those from the Department of Transport to discuss the implications for public health of a third runway at Heathrow. [122169]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No meetings to discuss, specifically, the possible impacts on health of a third runway at Heathrow have been held. Discussion between officials is on how the health impacts of any airport development should be handled by the Department for Transport following its present consultation on the future development of air transport. Department of Health officials are involved in an integrated policy appraisal of the proposed expansion.
  485W
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of implications for public health of the construction of terminal five at Heathrow, with particular reference to levels of air pollution. [122170]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health has made no assessment on the possible impacts on health of construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. All impacts, including health were fully considered in the planning inquiry, to which local primary care trusts gave evidence.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 687W, on hospital food, what methods his Department will use to monitor the effectiveness of phase II of the Better Hospital Food Programme. [121595]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Standards of service provision will be monitored through patient environment action team inspections.

  Hospital Acquired Infections
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of hospital acquired infections have been reported in the last 12 months for which records are available, broken down by hospital. [121087]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  National data on hospital infections are limited. This is one reason why we are developing a new national mandatory surveillance system for health care associated infection. This started with reporting of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream infections (bacteraemias), in April 2001. All acute trusts in England now collect this information and results for the first year of this scheme (April 2001 to March 2002) were published by individual trust in the Communicable Disease Report Weekly on 20 June 2002. They are available at www.phls.co.uk/publications/cdr/PDFfiles/2002/cdr2502.pdf. Results by individual trust for the second year will be published shortly.

  The Health Protection Agency has a number of voluntary reporting systems for a range of other pathogenic organisms but these do not provide data by trust.

  Human Organ Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with other European Union member states on the sale of human organs within the European Union. [118928]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health, together with the Home Office, is negotiating a draft European Union Framework Decision on the prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues.

  In addition, the Department has been working with the 45 member states of the Council of Europe, which includes the member states of the EU, to develop a recommendation on steps to be taken to minimise the risk of organ trafficking throughout the area.

  Insulin Pump Therapy
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 431W, on insulin pump therapy, what research he has undertaken into the medical advantages of the provision of insulin pump therapy for type I diabetics; [122921]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 431W, on insulin pump therapy, if he will make insulin pumps and infusion kits free of charge for diabetics who require them for medical reasons; [122922]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 431W, on insulin pump therapy, if he will list the health authorities which provide insulin pump therapy at no cost; [122923]

  (4) if he will compile statistics on (a) the numbers of type I diabetics who require insulin pump therapy and (b) the costs of providing this service free of charge. [122924]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Guidance on current best practice in clinical care is provided by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). NICE issued its guidance, which takes account of all existing research, on insulin pump therapy in February 2003. Insulin pump therapy is recommended as one option for people with type 1 diabetes, provided that multiple dose insulin therapy, including insulin glargine, has failed and those receiving the treatment are willing and able to use the therapy effectively. Once NICE guidance is published, health professionals are expected to take it fully into account when exercising their clinical judgement. As national health service staff are trained, by February 2004, new users—where clinically indicated—will receive insulin pumps from the NHS.Information on those health authorities that currently provide insulin pump therapy at no cost is not collected centrally.

  London Mayor
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times he and his predecessors met the Mayor of London in official meetings at the Department in each of the past three years. [122141]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Darlington (Mr Milburn), had a meeting with the Mayor of London on 20 September 2001.

  Maternity Services
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on prescribing by midwives. [121867]

  Mr. Hutton
  Registered midwives are able to train to prescribe from the nurse practitioners' extended formulary.

  There are also provisions under medicines legislation which allow registered midwives to sell or supply and to administer a range of medicines in the course of their professional practice.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to develop mental health treatment and support services for vulnerable groups, with particular reference to(a) women, (b) children and (c) members of minority ethnic communities; and if he will make a statement on the funding and nature of schemes (i) in operation and (ii) being developed. [121639]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Development of mental health services, as set out in the national service framework for mental health (MHNSF) and the NHS Plan is aimed at improving services for everyone including vulnerable groups.

  In addition, guidance is being developed for services on meeting the particular needs of women and black and minority ethnic groups. This will support the MHNSF and NHS Plan implementation and services obligations under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act.

  The NHS Plan provided over £300 million investment by 2003–04 to support implementation of the targets and standards set. Commissioners and services locally are developing a number of schemes and initiatives to ensure that within this the needs of vulnerable groups, such as women and people from black and minority ethnic groups, are met. The Department does not keep records centrally on these initiatives.

  The National Institute for Mental Health in England has been established to support services in implementing the MHNSF, NHS Plan priorities and guidance for women and black and minority ethnic groups through its equalities and black and minority ethnic mental health programmes.

  The Government's strategy for the development of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), initiated in 1999–2000, is ongoing with the aim of improving the overall quality and accessibility of local services for children and young people with mental health problems. In the four years ending 31 March 2003, we invested £105 million in CAMHS developments across the national health service and local authorities, which resulted in significant increases in staffing, new or expanded services and better joint working between the main providing agencies.

  Our objectives for the further development of CAMHS, set out in the Department's Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06 "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", include year-on-year increases of at least 10 per cent. across the service, according to agreed local priorities, leading to a comprehensive service in all areas by 2006. These developments will be underpinned by additional central investment of some £250 million over the three years and by guidance contained in the new children's national service framework (NSF). The recently published Emerging Findings from the NSF include a chapter on the mental health and psychological well-being of children and the content of a comprehensive CAMHS.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed-sex wards in NHS hospitals there were 488W
  in each of the last three years; what plans he has to eliminate mixed-sex wards; and what timetable he has established to achieve this goal. [120687]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I made on 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 24WS.

  Information on the number of mixed-sex wards is not available.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from women about mixed-sex wards. [123243]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since the beginning of January the Department of Health has received 18 written representations mentioning mixed-sex wards, including three parliamentary questions from right hon. and hon. Members. 12 of these have been from women.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to set up further studies into the health effects of mobile telephone masts; [122023]

  (2) what programme of research he has commissioned into the effects upon health of mobile telephone masts; and what budgetary provision he has made for such research. [122024]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The public health implications of mobile phone technologies in general were comprehensively assessed by the independent expert group on mobile phones (IEGMP) in May 2000— www.iegmp.orq.uk. In respect of base stations, the IEGMP concluded that:"The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living, near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines."

  Measurements undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Radiocommunications Agency have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international guidelines and are published on the web sites www.nrpb.org and www.radio.gov.uk respectively.

  The LINK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme was established under an independent programme management committee (PMC), following the publication of the IEGMP report. The programme has a research budget of £7.36 million and is jointly funded by Government and industry.

  MTHR research studies already under way are mainly concerned with the use of mobile phone handsets. In response to more recent public concerns about possible health risks from exposure to emissions from base stations, the PMC has commissioned researchers at Imperial College to undertake an epidemiological study investigating the incidence of childhood leukaemias and other cancers around base stations. Applications for further research into the effects of radiofrequency emissions from mobile phone base stations are currently being considered. Further information about this study and the programme as a whole can be found on the MTHR web site at www.mthr.orq.uk.
  489W

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of multiple sclerosis patients receive the drugs that they request in the last year for which figures are available. [122456]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We do not hold the information requested. However, the risk-sharing scheme is making disease-modifying drugs more widely available. Consultant neurologists, in consultation with patients, have a choice of treatments within the scheme taking into account expected benefit and potential side effects. The products included in the scheme are Avonex, Betaferon, Copaxone and Rebif.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of hydrotherapy treatment for MS sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [122800]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Hydrotherapy is a form of physiotherapy conducted in a heated pool. Supervised by state-registered physiotherapists with specific training in hydrotherapy, patients undertake specifically designed exercises that can help to strengthen muscles, mobilise joints, relieve pain and promote relaxation.

  We do not hold information centrally on the availability of these therapies. It is the role of strategic health authorities, in partnership with primary care trusts, to decide what services to provide for their populations, including those with multiple sclerosis. They are best placed to understand local health needs and commission services to meet them.

  Mutuality
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what models of mutuality in health the Government are investigating; and what expertise he has sought from abroad with regard to this mode of delivery. [116447]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have established an external reference group to provide advice on how national health service foundation trusts might learn from the experience of mutual and co-operative sectors. The membership covers a range of organisations from the not-for-profit sector. We have also explored the experience in other countries such as Spain, Denmark and Sweden relevant to the development of NHS foundation trusts.

  Nanoparticles in Drugs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has made an assessment of the need to regulate the toxicity of nanoparticles used in drugs. [117006]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department considers that the toxicity of nanoparticles used in drugs is already adequately regulated and assessed during the marketing authorisation assessment process of the individual products. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on behalf of the Licensing Authority, grants marketing authorisations for medicinal products, provided that satisfactory quality, safety and efficacy data have been submitted for the medicinal product for use in the proposed indication and that the risk benefit is deemed favourable. Part of 490W
  the assessment process involves ensuring that the toxicity of the final drug product has been adequately investigated and tested in the clinical trials submitted in support of the application. Appropriate trials will need to be conducted with the particle size of the drug in the final product that is intended for marketing. The drug manufacturer will also have to satisfy the MHRA that it can consistently produce the product from batch to batch, including particle size.

  Neurological Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist neurological nurses there were in each NHS region for(a) TIA, (b) epilepsy, (c) multiple sclerosis, (d) movement disorder, (e) head injury, (f) Parkinson's and (g) Alzheimer's in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [121621]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The non-medical workforce census collects information annually on the number of nurses employed in the national health service as at 30 September each year, but can not distinguish those who are specialist neurological nurses.

  Neurologists
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to tackle the shortage of qualified neurologists; and what targets he has set to reduce waiting times in neurology. [121464]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: There have been significant increases in neurologist numbers in recent years and there are more planned. The overall expansion in consultant numbers set out in the NHS Plan should have positive implications for neurology recruitment.

  As at 31 March 2002, there were 372 consultants in neurology, which means that since September 1997, numbers increased by 34 per cent. We are working towards increasing these numbers further.

  The long-term conditions care group workforce team covers the national service frameworks (NSFs) for diabetes, renal and long-term conditions, including neurological conditions. It brings together, in relevant workforce groups, key stakeholders, including patients, to lead on strategies for building a flexible workforce to deliver the NSFs. It is the first time that workforce planning has been carried out in this manner. This approach will support the development of the workforce and enable the national health service to grow the right number of workers, with the right skills, in the right place at the right time. Membership of the long-term conditions workforce group includes representatives of the Neurological Alliance and the North West Clinical Neuroscience Partnership.

  Targets were set to reduce out-patients waits to 21 weeks by April 2003 and there are further targets to reduce waits to 16 weeks by 1 April 2004. People with neurological conditions stand to benefit from these reductions in waiting times.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by the NHS on advertising employment opportunities in each of the last five years. [122401]

  Mr. Hutton
  The last time that national information on national health service recruitment advertising costs was collected was in 1998, when expenditure was estimated to be £30 million. However, this is likely to have risen over the last five years in line with the major expansion of staff numbers in the NHS.

  The Department of Health is currently commissioning a national electronic recruitment service for the NHS. It will link with NHS Careers to provide a web-based service advertising posts, providing information about careers, jobs and NHS employers, and an electronic application process, supported by a call centre service to provide flexible, interactive access to information and job and training opportunities. The new service will enable the NHS to reduce its recruitment and advertising costs.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of applications per job advertisement in the NHS was in each of the last five years. [122402]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not hold this information centrally, although it may be available from individual national health service employing organisations.

  NHS Services (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of(a) temporary nurses and (b) locum doctors in the NHS in Gloucestershire. [121875]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A range of initiatives is under way to get better value for temporary staff in the national health service. Along with the roll-out of NHS Professionals, the aim is to reduce agency costs and to improve the quality of staff through agency framework

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Service Nursing, midwifery
  and health visiting staff by Ethnic group (excluding agency and learners)

  England as at September 2001

  Percentage

  Old Ethnic Codes

  New Ethnic Codes

  All groups

  White

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  White

  Mixed

  Asian or Asian British

  Black or Black British

  Other

  Total ethnic minority groups

  All nursing, midwifery and

  100.0

  51.9

  1.8

  0.7

  1.3

  39.9

  0.5

  1.3

  1.8

  0.8

  8.2

  Qualified staff

  100.0

  53.2

  2.0

  0.8

  1.5

  37.9

  0.4

  1.4

  1.8

  1.0

  8.9

  Nurse Consultant

  100.0

  44.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  53.8

  1.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  1.6

  Nurse manager

  100.0

  52.7

  1.3

  0.3

  0.5

  42.7

  0.3

  0.7

  0.8

  0.7

  4.7

  Registered sick children's nurse

  100.0

  56.9

  2.0

  0.7

  0.9

  36.6

  0.4

  0.6

  1.3

  0.6

  6.5

  Registered midwife

  100.0

  58.1

  2.7

  0.8

  0.7

  33.1

  0.7

  0.6

  2.6

  0.7

  8.8

  Health vistor

  100.0

  54.7

  2.3

  1.0

  0.8

  38.6

  0.2

  0.6

  1.4

  0.5

  6.7

  District nurse

  100.0

  54.2

  0.9

  0.7

  0.6

  41.7

  0.2

  0.4

  1.1

  0.4

  4.1

  Other first level registration

  100.0

  52.4

  1.9

  0.8

  1.7

  38.3

  0.4

  1.5

  1.8

  1.1

  9.3

  Other second level registration

  100.0

  54.3

  2.4

  1.0

  1.7

  33.7

  0.6

  2.9

  2.5

  1.0

  12.0

  Unqualified staff

  100.0

  48.4

  1.4

  0.5

  0.6

  45.7

  0.5

  0.7

  1.7

  0.4

  5.9

  Notes:

  Figures should be treated with caution as they are based upon the 68 of HCHS organisations that reported valid ethnic codes for 90 or more of non-medical staff, and further exclude staff whose ethnicity is not recorded. Percentages were calculated from numbers of staff expressed as headcount. Sum of parts may not equal totals due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 non-medical workforce census.
  492W
  agreements. Agency framework agreements fix the cost of agency staff, which can only increase in line with the recommendations of the pay review body.

  NHS trusts are using the National Medical Locum Agency contract, with the contract value in the first quarter being £15 million. This is expected to show an average saving of 6 per cent. per trust on medical locum expenditure per annum.

  The aim is to roll-out agency agreements and NHS Professionals to cover all aspects of the temporary healthcare labour market. This means covering not just nurses and doctors, but also the allied health professions and other healthcare professionals.

  Medical locums are already covered by a national agency framework agreement, and a NHS Professionals service for doctors is being developed.

  By ensuring that all temporary staffing demand is handled through NHS Professionals, the savings and outcomes from the agency project will be maximised. The new NHS Professionals special health authority will enable better strategic management of the healthcare temporary staffing labour market and ensure that all NHS trusts are using NHS Professionals by April 2005.

  Avon Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic Health Authority has advised that trusts in Gloucestershire are working towards using NHS Professionals by the target date of April 2005 and are using, or working towards using, the National Medical Locum Agency contract.

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the proportion of nurses employed by the NHS who are from the black and ethnic minority community; and if he will list the percentage for each nursing grade. [121312]

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

  As at September 2001, an estimated 8.9 per cent. of the qualified nursing workforce whose ethnicity is recorded were from a black or ethnic minority background.

  NHS Treatment (Age of Consent)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the age of consent is far agreeing to NHS treatment. [122387]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  People aged 16 or 17 are entitled to consent to their own medical treatment and any ancillary procedures involved in that treatment, such as an anaesthetic. As for adults, consent will be valid only if it is given voluntarily by an appropriately informed patient capable of consenting to the particular intervention.

  For children under 16, following the case of Gillick, the courts have held that children who have sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable them to understand fully what is involved in a proposed intervention will also have the capacity to consent to that intervention.

  Detailed guidance on the law on consent in England was set out in the Department's "Reference Guide to Consent for Examination and Treatment", published in March 2001. The Department has also made available information leaflets for health professionals and for patients on consent in relation to children and young people. These and other related documents are available on the Departments' website at www.doh.gov.uk/ consent.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the questions from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, ref 116459 tabled on 22 May, refs(a) 114052, (b) 114085, (c) 114056, (d) 114033, (e) 114001, (f) 114048, (g) 114060, (h) 114003, (i) 114019, (j) 114002, (k) 114050, (l) 114065, (m) 114164, (n) 114084, (o) 114012, (p) 114062, (q) 114054, (r) 114058, (s) 114002, (t) 114049, (u) 114063, (v) 114163, (w) 114055, (x) 114059, (y) 114051, (z) 110461, (aa) 114053, (bb) 114090, (cc) 114057, (dd) 114061, (ee) 114053, (ff) 114090, (gg) 114057 tabled on 13 May, and refs (i) 116467 and (ii) 116468 tabled on 3 June. [123460]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the dates on which the hon. Member's questions were answered.

  UIN

  Date reply sent

  Official Report, column

  114001

  30 June

  149–53W

  114002

  30 June

  149–53W

  114003

  30 June

  149–53W

  114012

  30 June

  149–53W

  114019

  30 June

  149–53W

  114033

  30 June

  149–53W

  114048

  30 June

  149–53W

  114049

  30 June

  149–53W

  114050

  30 June

  153W

  114051

  30 June

  153W

  114052

  30 June

  153W

  114053

  30 June

  153W

  114054

  30 June

  153W

  114055

  30 June

  154W

  114056

  30 June

  154W

  114057

  30 June

  154W

  114058

  30 June

  154W

  114059

  30 June

  155W

  114060

  30 June

  155W

  114061

  30 June

  155W

  494W

  UIN

  Date reply sent

  Official Report, column

  114062

  30 June

  155W

  114063

  30 June

  155W

  114065

  30 June

  149–53W

  114084

  30 June

  149–53W

  114085

  30 June

  149–53W

  114090

  30 June

  149–53W

  114163

  30 June

  156W

  114164

  30 June

  156W

  116459

  30 June

  149W

  116467

  3 July

  —

  116468

  3 July

  —

  Paroxetine
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have(a) self-harmed and (b) committed suicide whilst taking prescribed paroxetine in each year since 1997. [122390]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) receive reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) submitted by doctors, dentists, pharmacists and coroners via the Yellow Card Scheme by doctors and there is a legal requirement for companies to report suspected ADRs to their drugs.

  The number of reports received via the Yellow Card Scheme does not directly equate to the number of people who suffer adverse reactions to drugs for a number of reasons including an unknown level of under reporting. It is important to note that the reporting of a reaction does not necessarily mean it was caused by the drug and may relate to other factors such as the patient's underlying illness or other medicines taken concurrently.

  A total of 196 reports of 'suspected' ADRs have been received through this scheme in association with paroxetine in children aged 18 years or under, including three reports of deliberate self-harm, all occurring in 1999 and two reports of suicide (accomplished)—one each occurring in 2002 and 2003.

  Physical Activity
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to develop partnerships with sports bodies at(a) national and (b) local level to promote physical activity. [119429]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health recognises the important contribution sport and leisure activities can make to a healthy, active lifestyle. Therefore we are already working in partnership with a range of sports bodies at both a national and local level.

  The Department of Health and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport are jointly leading the Sport and Physical Activity Board (SPAB), which will meet for the first time in July 2003. Sports organisations, such as national governing bodies of sport, will be encouraged to contribute to the work of SPAB, whose aim will be to increase participation through a co-ordinated, strategic approach to the planning and delivery of sport and physical activity at a national and regional level.
  495W
  The Department of Health is hosting a two-year physical activity secondment post from Sport England. The aim of this post is to develop stronger links between sport and health.

  Nine Regional Sports Boards (RSBs) established by Sport England provide the mechanism for sport and health to link more effectively. Their membership includes a range of health professionals, including the Regional Director for Public Health.

  The Department is working in partnership with Sport England and the Countryside Agency to fund the local exercise action pilots (LEAP) programme. The threeyear programme will test out a range of community approaches to increasing access to and levels of physical activity in nine primary care trust (PCT) led pilots across England. Sports development and leisure services are contributing to the pilots through their local strategic partnerships. Two of the pilots are based in sport action zones and the majority of the PCTs are working closely with sports bodies to deliver health-related outcomes.

  In the context of the national service framework for coronary heart disease, PCTs and individual general practitioner practices are working with sport and leisure services to implement local policies for promoting physical activity, for example, through the delivery of exercise referral schemes, free swimming initiatives and weight management programmes.

  Physical Disability
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most common cause of physical disability is in(a) England, (b) South Sefton, (c) Southport and (d) Formby. [122235]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The most common cause of physical disability in England is diseases of the musculoskeletal system, particularly arthritis and rheumatism. Such information is not available for South Sefton, Southport and Formby, but there is no evidence to suggest that they vary from England as a whole.

  Prisons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in developing the prison health development network between primary care trusts and prisons. [123303]

  Dr. Ladyman
  1 July 2003 marked the launch of the Prison Health Development Network with an event in London attended by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Department (Mr. Goggins) and Sir Nigel Crisp, National Health Service Chief Executive and Department of Health Permanent Secretary.

  The launch event follows the Home Office announcement on 25 September 2002 that funding responsibility for health care within the Prison Service would become part of the NHS. The front line commissioning responsibility for individual prisons will have transferred to their local primary care trust (PCT) by 1 April 2006.
  496W
  The aim of the Prison Health Development Network is to support prisons and PCTs and develop their partnership roles. The network will provide invaluable lessons as the gradual transfer of responsibility takes place.

  Work on the network has been divided into two separate phases:
  Firstly, a diagnostic stage that will involve the PCTs and prisons identifying the potential problem areas for their organisations and highlighting areas of interest that they will be involved in;
  The second phase, which will start in September, will focus on helping PCTs and prisons develop practical solutions to the issues identified and share the experience and good practice with others. It is expected that those prisons and PCTs in the network that have made sufficient progress and are ready will 'go live' from April 2004.

  Private Health Care
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent undertakings have been given to the Government of South Africa about the recruitment of health staff; how many South African health care companies have been asked to tender for private contracts for the provision of care to NHS patients; and what restrictions the British Government intend to impose on the South African staff working for such companies. [121457]

  Mr. Hutton
  A code of practice for national health service employers recruiting from overseas was published in 2001 and sets out standards for international recruitment, including the need to protect the needs of developing countries such as South Africa and to only work with those countries which have formal agreements in place with the Department of Health to recruit healthcare professionals.

  The Department's agreement with the South African Health Ministry on the recruitment of overseas clinical teams is on the basis that only private sector providers will be considered. The agreement is on the assumption that clinicians cone to the United Kingdom for a maximum of six weeks per year on a rotational basis; this is designed to aid to the long-term retention of staff in the South African healthcare system.

  A total of 14 South African companies have been asked to tender for contracts to provide overseas clinical teams in the UK. Contracts have been awarded to South African companies at Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust and Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHS Trust.

  In addition, two South African healthcare companies are included in the list of qualifying bidders preparing tenders for independent sector diagnosis and treatment centres contracts and we have assurances from both companies that, if selected, they will abide by the NHS code of practice for international recruitment.

  Public-Private Initiative
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the budget for the PPI system will be announced. [120655]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information about the three year allocation from the spending review for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in
  497W
  Health was put on the Department of Health's website in December at www.doh.gov.uk/allocations. A copy of the information, which is contained in the 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 primary care trust Revenue Resource Limits Exposition Book, is available in the Library.

  Much of the work to support and deliver patient and public involvement is undertaken and funded locally, for example, patient advice and liaison services, the requirement on the national health service to involve and consult the public and scrutiny of health by local authorities.

  Smoking
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on under-age smoking. [120163]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health commissions annual surveys on smoking among secondary school children. The 1998 White Paper, "Smoking Kills", set a target to reduce smoking among 11 to 15-year-olds from 13 per cent. in 1996 to 9 per cent. by 2010, with a fall to 11 per cent. by 2005. Progress towards this target is monitored by a series of surveys of schoolchildren carried out on behalf of the Department of Health, originally by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and since 2000 by the National Centre for Social Research and National Foundation for Educational Research.

  Data on the prevalence of regular smoking from these reports are shown in the table. Smoking prevalence has remained unchanged since 2000 at ten per cent. and we are on course to meet our target for reducing smoking among this age group.

  Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking among secondary school pupils aged 11 to 15, by gender—England, 1996 to 2002

  Percentage

  Boys

  Girls

  All pupils

  1996

  11

  15

  13

  1998

  9

  12

  11

  1999

  8

  10

  9

  2000

  9

  12

  10

  2001

  8

  11

  10

  2002

  9

  11

  10

  Note:

  Regular smokers are those who smoke at least one cigarette a week, on average

  Source:

  The Department of Health Statistical Press Notice, "Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2002: Provisional Results"—http://www.doh.gov.uk/public/spnmar03- smoking.htm

  Social Services (Older People)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has set a date for the payment of 498W
  grant to local authorities for improving social services for older people, as set out in his letter of 22 May to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [122873]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Subject to parliamentary approval, the delayed discharges grant will be paid in one instalment to local authorities before 31 July 2003.

  St George's Hospital, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on St. George's Hospital, Tooting of being granted foundation status. [117162]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with the principle of earned autonomy, for the first wave of national health service foundation trusts, only acute and specialist NHS trusts, which have attained three stars in the NHS Performance Ratings, were eligible to apply.

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust has two stars which means that it is therefore not eligible to apply for NHS foundation trust status at present. However, with mechanisms, including the recently announced improvement programme, in place to raise the performance of all NHS trusts, it is expected that all NHS trusts will have the opportunity to apply for NHS Foundation trust status within the next five years.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the impact on junior hospital doctors in North Yorkshire of the Working Time Directive, (b) the impact on local hospitals of the implementation of the Working Time Directive and (c) the change in the number of junior doctors the NHS will require in North Yorkshire. [121753]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Working Times Directive (WTD) implementation is only part of the much wider issue of delivering better care for patients and improving the working lives of national health service staff. Its impact cannot be assessed in isolation from other factors. It will require both more staff and staff working differently.

  Information about plans to implement the WTD across North Yorkshire is not collated. The resources needed to meet WTD targets are included in the local delivery plans agreed between NHS trusts and strategic health authorities.

  In addition, £46 million has been allocated to the NHS over the next three financial years to support compliance.

  From September 1997 to March 2002, there has been an increase of over 5,000 junior doctors and career grade doctors working in the NHS. This increase in the number of doctors, together with changes to working practices, will help both meet the WTD targets and deliver targets set out in the NHS Plan.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Housing Benefit
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I am announcing the publication of the 2002–03 fourth quarter's performance statistics for local authority administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (HB and CTB). A copy of the quarterly statistics for all local authorities in Great Britain has been placed in the Library and has been published on the Department for Work and Pensions website at http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/others_stats.html

  Publishing these statistics is part of our strategy for reforming housing benefit. It is right and proper that the public see how well or how badly their council is doing. We are using these statistics to challenge poor performance and to celebrate improvements.

  Statistics for the fourth quarter of 2002–03 show that across the country performance has improved with processing of new claims dropping from an average of eight and a half weeks between April and June to seven weeks between January and March.

  Improvements have also been seen in the number of local authorities performing at and exceeding the performance standard for the processing of new claims and changes in circumstances.

  The statistics are un-audited and are provided quarterly by local authorities to my Department.

  The latest annual audited best value performance information for English local authorities is for 2001–02 and was published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 12 December 2002 on the Best Value Performance Indicators website at: http://www.bvpi.gov.uk/home.asp. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The most recent corresponding data for local authorities in Wales are for 2001–02. These are published on the Audit Commission website at http://ww2.audit-commission.gov.uk/pis/pi_data_01.shtml. A paper copy of the relevant extract from this site has been placed in the Library.

  The most recent corresponding data for local authorities in Scotland are for 2001–02 and are in the Accounts Commission publication "Performance Indicators 2001–02: "Benefits, Finance and Corporate Issues", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  I was pleased to receive the seventh report of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) which documents the organisation's regulatory functions and its work with others in the pensions industry. Copies of both reports have been laid before both Houses today by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Housing Transfer Programme 2003
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I am announcing today the names of 17 authorities in England which, on a voluntary basis and subject to the approval of their tenants, should be able to proceed with proposals to carry out 26 transfers of all or part of their stock to registered social landlords. I have today placed 19 proposals on the transfer programme whilst holding a place open for a further seven transfers. Together the programme could involve over 125,000 dwellings in large-scale voluntary transfers over two years.

  Authorities on the 2003 programme have decided, with their tenants, to pursue housing stock transfer as their vehicle for reaching by 2010 the Government's decent homes target. They will have made this decision after considering the various options for reaching the target. Housing transfer enables the new landlords to obtain increased investment from private sources to reach and, invariably, exceed the decent home target for the transferred dwellings more quickly than if the properties had remained in local authority ownership. Housing transfer can also bring about higher levels of tenant involvement, ensuring housing services meet tenants' needs and preferences. It can also provide a significant boost to the wide-scale regeneration of the surrounding area. Over time, tenants' rents will be similar to what they would pay to their local authority, due to the Government's policy of bringing greater fairness and coherence to the structure of social rents.

  Housing transfers are voluntary and may only take place if tenants are in favour. The consent of the First Secretary of State is also required before a transfer can proceed and that will only be granted if a majority of tenants who vote in the secret ballot do so in favour of transfer.

  Proposals submitted for the 2003 programme have been of high quality. However some are not as advanced as we would wish to secure a place immediately. Therefore Lambeth (for their Clapham Park Estate transfer), North East Lincolnshire and Tower Hamlets (for their Ocean Estate, Mile End East, Crossways Estate and Leopold Estate transfers) have been asked to develop their transfer proposals further. I am also holding open a place on the programme for Hackney (for their West Haggerston and Kingsland transfer) pending the agreement of a minimum valuation with them.

  As the Lambeth (Clapham Park) proposal involves dwellings located within my constituency, it was assessed independently by Yvette Cooper.
  25WS
  The authorities that have successfully gained places on the programme, together with the intended recipient RSL, are as follows:
  a disposal by Forest Heath District Council of not more than 2,705 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Hartlepool Borough Council of not more than 7,963 dwelling houses to Housing Hartlepool;
  a disposal by London Borough of Barking & Dagenham of not more than 11l dwelling houses to Stort Valley Housing Association;
  three disposals by London Borough of Islington of not more than 1,314 dwelling-houses on the Tollington Estate to North British Homes, not more than 341 dwelling houses on the Surr Street Estate to Hyde Housing Association and not more than 121 dwelling houses on the Grove Estate to Hyde Housing Association;
  two disposals by London Borough of Lambeth of not more than 1,164 dwelling houses on the Stockwell Park estate to The Trust and not more than 683 dwelling houses on the Kennington Park estate to Hyde Southbank Homes;
  three disposals by Manchester City Council of not more than 1,013 dwelling houses on the Haughton estate to a registered social landlord, not more than 2,543 dwelling houses on the Woodhouse Park estate and not more than 1,548 dwelling-houses on the Hattersley estate to Peak Valley Housing;
  a disposal by Middlesbrough Council of not more than 13,209 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Peterborough County Council of not more than 10,195 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Purbeck District Council of not more than 1,622 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Royal Borough of Kingston of not more than 5,010 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Stroud District Council of not more than 5,429 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council of not more than 10,100 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council of not more than 33,405 dwelling houses to a registered social landlord;
  a disposal by Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council of not more than 14,500 dwelling house; to a registered social landlord;

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Counter-Terrorism, Security and Resilience
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I wish to take the opportunity of the debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee's (ISC) annual report today to provide the House with an update on the progress that we are making in combating terrorism and creating security in the UK. We have had a year of significant progress in developing effective counter-terrorism and resilience measures, focusing on a range of fronts such as threat assessment, infrastructure, exercises and joint working.

  I discuss the assessment of threats frequently with the Director General of the Security Service and, as she recently said publicly, we must accept the realistic possibility of some form of unconventional terrorist attack in the western world. This is why we have invested significantly in prevention.
  26WS
  Creating security means investing in good government, effective services and international co-operation in a way that generates trust. This means:
  having the right organisational arrangements and involvement of ministers;
  being vigilant and well prepared at home (working on border security, having the right equipment and using exercises to train for a range of risks);
  tackling terrorism at home and abroad (by seizing and stopping terrorist finance, arrests and detentions where necessary but also working to develop good community relations at home);
  ensuring that all States are taking measures to combat terrorism and that terrorist groups can find no safe haven (around the world key terrorist suspects have been detained, many as a result of international co-operation involving the UK agencies); and
  strengthening the international structures that we need to maintain this unprecedented level of activity (the UN, EU and G8).

  Our organisational arrangements remain strong. I continue as overall security co-ordinator, with all relevant Ministers working together through cabinet committees. Beverley Hughes is now my deputy across the board on domestic counter-terrorism.

  We have changed structures when needed in order to strengthen joint working. The creation last month of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), which brought together those assessing and reporting threat intelligence, is a case in point. But I am determined not to make major structural changes where it would just hinder efficient working and add bureaucracy simply for the sake of a change of name.

  I endorse the ISC's high regard for the valuable work of our security Agencies and their numerous successes in counter-terrorism.

  As I suggested to the House on 2 April, the agreement that I signed with the US Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is leading to unprecedented co-operation between the UK and US Governments.

  A joint contact group of US and UK officials led by the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator met in June and agreed to undertake joint crisis management through a series of table top exercises, leading to a major US/UK exercise in 2005. Work is also taking place on bilateral technology development, such as the opportunities created by biometrics.

  At home we have taken major steps to secure our borders. For example through setting up an Iris recognition project, immigration fingerprinting with links to the Eurodac system, forgery detection equipment at ports and extensive use of CCTV and ANPR—all designed to smooth the flow of legitimate travellers while catching illegal entrants and terrorists suspects. We are also running a trial using passenger information gathered at time of check-in which is checked electronically against our database. Preliminary results are very positive. Such a concept provides a mechanism for routinely pre-screening passengers in advance of arrival. In parallel we are considering all the options for gathering information to carry out a full pre-screening programme for incoming passengers.
  27WS
  Another major step forward is the introduction of routine screening of port traffic for the illicit movement of radiological materials to reduce the threat from nuclear or radiological attack. This is a significant part of the £330 million additional counter terrorism money announced in the Budget, which also funds counter-terrorism projects for the Cabinet Office and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  While the most important priority is to prevent attacks, particularly through intelligence work, we are also prepared to deal with any attacks because no amount of preventative action can ever be 100 per cent. sure. A capabilities programme has been set up, following a review by the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, consisting of 16 workstreams each the responsibility of a lead Department with the Civil Contingencies Secretariat in the Cabinet Office having overall management. The capabilities concerned cover personnel, equipment and training, as well as plans and concepts of operations. The aim of the programme is to ensure that the response is in place to deal rapidly, effectively and flexibly with the results of conventional or non-conventional destructive action.

  An ongoing programme is equipping and training fire, police, health and other public service personnel for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) resilience. We have already trained 3,700 police officers and by next year will have trained over 6,000 officers to ensure that police forces nationally are able to deal with a CBRN incident. This is the level that the Association of Chief Police Officers has requested to deal with CBRN incidents. Decontamination arrangements have been agreed between fire fighters and health services. Personal protective equipment and training has been provided for ambulance workers and A&E departments. Strategic guidance on decontamination has been in place since February.

  But we must not focus on CBRN to the exclusion of `conventional' terrorism. Many of the recent terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world have been suicide bombs, not CBRN.

  Our exercise programme is key to building this resilience to deal with a range of threats. We have one of the world's best counter-terrorism exercise programmes and I am determined to ensure no loss of momentum. The Home Office has sponsored and supported a series of exercises over many years to ensure the UK's response to terrorism is kept to a high standard. A series of live counter-terrorist exercises takes place each year in addition to seminars and workshops in police force areas.

  By their nature, these exercises reveal areas for improvement. The lessons learnt are circulated to the agencies and tested in further exercises. Moreover, these exercises are a vital training tool—they are not just for learning lessons or highlighting areas for improvement. Recent exercises have validated our response to a hi-jacked aircraft, terrorist occupation of buildings and ships, released or threatened release of chemical and biological agents and to a nuclear device.
  28WS
  A programme of local and pan London training exercises and day-to-day procedures testing is underway. One element of this programme is the London Underground exercise. Planning on this, which my right hon. Friend The Secretary of State for Transport will take the operational lead on, is underway for the exercise to take place by the autumn.

  Physical security has also been improved where needed, such as around major landmarks.

  A key weapon in the fight against terrorism is tackling its financing, much of which is through organised crime. Anti-terrorism investigations have benefited from the integration of a terrorist finance strategy from the outset.

  Legislation that we have brought in is now paying off. In the last 6 months, two precedents have been set in the fight against terrorist financing—convictions have been obtained under Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and cash forfeitures made under the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCS). There have been 8 cash seizures under ATCS Act so far this year.

  An example of this is an extremist support cell convicted of terrorist finance offences, with two men sentenced to 11 years each and a network disrupted that is thought to have raised in excess of £350,000 through cheque and credit card fraud. In another case, in March, four men were arrested attempting to leave country with over £25,000 which was seized.

  Internationally we continue to develop new standards and best practices to counter terrorist financing. We have made significant progress in tracking down and freezing the funds of international terrorist groups. Much of the US$115 million frozen in the UK both before and after 11 September has been unfrozen and made available to the legitimate government of Afghanistan for the reconstruction of that country.

  Small projects are also important. For example the Metropolitan police campaign to make small retailers aware that low level credit card fraud can be used to fund terrorism. The free CD and booklet produced by London First in partnership with the National Counter Terrorism Security Office and the Business Continuity Institute, with our endorsement, also advises businesses to contingency plan to survive a range of disaster risks.

  The Government are continuing to take firm action to prevent terrorists using this country as a base or recruiting ground. For example there have been a number of arrests here in connection with the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv on 30th April. Detention pending eventual deportation is used where necessary—15 individuals have been detained under powers in part 4 of ATCS, two of whom have since left the country voluntarily. Detainees have a full right of appeal and the first batch of appeals to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) started in May and will continue through to the autumn.

  I will keep powers in legislation under review and make changes if necessary. For example, in the Criminal Justice Bill we are proposing an amendment to schedule 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to increase the maximum period that a terrorism suspect can be held without charge from seven to 14 days, when agreed by a court.

  29WS
  A second amendment seeks to align the penalties for passport and driving licence fraud—an avenue of exploitation for terrorists—and make both arrestable offences.

  We have streamlined the assessment of threats and their communication to the public. Today we are publishing an update of our website, http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism including new information on exercises and on warnings and informing the public about terrorist threats. Since its launch the website has received around 320,000 page viewings. Recognising that not everyone has access to or feels comfortable with using a website, we are informing public libraries of the new content and advising them to make print copies available.

  I want to re-emphasise the message of balance and of not letting terrorism disrupt daily life. We have lived with threats for over three decades and they will be with us for years, we need to find a way of carrying on normally while taking sensible measures.

  We need to remember also that our security can only be assured through a sustained long term effort that includes work to address the political and social conditions that terrorists exploit and to ensure that CBRN materials and know-how do not fall into their hands. This is just as important as building resilience at home. The ISC in their report which we are debating today expressed concerns about collection gaps due to the focus on current crises. The focus needs to be on both current threats and longer term concerns, they are invariably interrelated. I am confident that we have the balance right.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  The Secretary of State for the Horne Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I would like to inform the House that Professor Graham Zellick has been appointed as Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Copies of the press release relating to this appointment are available in the House Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Following General Elections in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) on 24 April, which saw the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDM) returned for a third term, the opposition Progressive National Party (PNP) filed election petitions against the results in two of the thirteen constituencies. On 19 June, the Chief Justice declared the results in both districts void with the result that a fresh election was required in each one. This put the governing PDM in a minority in the Legislative Council. The Chief Minister, the Hon Derek Taylor, asked the Governor to dissolve the Legislative Council and to call a new General Election.

  The Governor, acting in accordance with the Constitution of the Turks and Caicos Islands, told the leaders of both parties on 23 June that he was denying both the PDM's request for a new General Election and
  30WS
  the PNP's request for the immediate appointment of their Leader as Chief Minister, and that he would issue writs for by-elections in the two constituencies affected to be held on 7 August.

  This was a difficult decision to take. The Governor weighed the arguments carefully. We support the Governor's decision.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation has sent me its first annual report under Article 8(2) of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC Foundation Regulations 2002. I am grateful to the trustees of the Foundation for the commitment they have demonstrated in seeking to mark the sacrifices and honour the achievements of the RUC.

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Commemorative Coins
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that the following commemorative coins should be issued in 2004:A two—pound coin to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the first railway locomotive;
  A fifty pence piece to mark the 50th anniversary of the first four—minute mile.

  Collector versions of these coins will be released early next year at a premium above face value and, during the course of the year, the coins will also become available at face value from banks and post offices.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EC Communications Directives
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  As indicated in my statement on 24 March,Official Report, column 1WS, it is the Government's intention to implement the four EC Communications Directives by the required deadline of 25 July 2003 through the legislation contained in the Communications Bill (particularly Part 2 of the Bill) and the orders and regulations to be made under that legislation. Subject to the remaining parliamentary processes being completed satisfactorily the Government believe that it is still possible for the Bill to receive Royal Assent before Parliament rises for the summer recess and for the necessary orders and regulations to be made in time to ensure that the Directives are implemented by the required date.
  31WS
  The time between Royal Assent and 25 July will however mean that the normal 21-day delay between the making of certain orders and regulations and their coming into effect cannot be observed. The Government regret this, but consider inevitable in order to ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime (which is founded on the EC Directives which have to be implemented on 25 July). To alleviate problems which might arise from the short interval between the making of the orders and regulations and 25 July, the Government are today publishing the draft of the Electronic Communications (Universal Service) Order that will need to be made as soon as the Bill has been passed. This draft takes account of comments received during consultations earlier this year, and in parallel with the revised drafts, my Department is publishing a response document summarising the way in which the issues raised in the consultations have been dealt with. As soon as the Order has been made following the passing of the Communications Bill, my Department will inform all those thought to be interested in the matter and will draw attention to any significant changes from the texts being published today.

  My Department is also publishing today revised drafts of the Numbering Exclusion Order and the Electronic Communications (Networks and Services) (Penalties) (Rules for Calculation of Turnover) Order together with response documents describing how the responses to the consultations on those documents have been dealt with. As these orders require affirmative resolution of both Houses, the formal drafts will be laid once the Bill has been passed, and affirmative resolutions sought as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  My Department will also publish within the next week a response to the consultation on the draft Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations, on which consultation closed on 19 June, together with a revised draft of the regulations. Like the Universal Service Order, these regulations will need to be made between Royal Assent to the Bill and the commencement of the relevant provisions, and my Department will therefore also inform interested parties as soon as these regulations have been made.

  At least two other orders will also need to be made in the interval between Royal Assent and 25 July—the First Commencement Order, and the Wireless Telegraphy (Limitation of Number of Licences) Order. The Radiocommunications Agency is currently consulting on the latter draft Order, and the text is available on the Radiocommunications Agency website.

  The timetable to achieve Royal Assent before 25 July does however remain very tight and, as previously announced, since it would not be an option to fail to implement the directives by 25 July, if the Bill has not been passed in time the Government would need to bring forward regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 to ensure that our obligations were met. My Department consulted on drafts of these regulations in March, and within the next few days will republish the revised texts of the draft regulations together with a response document summarising how issues raised in that consultation have been dealt with. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent before the
  32WS
  summer recess, the regulations will be made so as to be effective by 25 July. The interval between the making of the Regulations and their coming into force would also be very short, and accordingly my Department would contact all those thought to be interested in the issue to inform them of the making of the regulations.

  Copies of all the documents published today have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on the internet: http://www.communicationsbill.gov.uk/. Copies of the further documents will be published in a similar manner as soon as they are available. My Department is also informing all those thought to be interested in these issues of the publication of the documents. Anyone who has not received personal notification of the publication of the drafts and who wishes to be informed of the further action should contact the Department (at mailto:communications.billconsultation@dti.gsi.gove.uk to ensure they are added to the list of interested parties.

  BNFL
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I very much welcome BNFL's announcement today of the appointment of Michael Parker as their new Chief Executive. He has a broad range of experience in challenging and senior posts in Dow Chemical. I would also like to pay tribute to Norman Askew, whose contribution to BNFL's progress over the last few years has been immense. He passes on excellent work on which to build a successful future.

  I am announcing today that the Government and the BNFL Board have agreed to conduct a joint review of BNFL's future strategy.

  There have been significant developments in BNFL's key businesses, the nuclear industry and in the Government's efforts to encourage a competitive clean up market in the UK since 2001. On this basis, the Government has decided that a flotation of the company after the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has been formed should no longer be an option. The review will evaluate options for alternative strategies. It will be conducted against the framework of the Government's policy objectives set out in the White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—a Strategy for Action" and in particular the need to develop a competitive market for nuclear site management which is fair and open.

  One of Michael Parker's key early challenges will be to lead the BNFL team working on the review with the Government. The review's output will be recommendations to Ministers on alternative strategies, with the aim of building on the company's progress towards improved performance across its businesses. In the meantime BNFL will continue to give top priority to improving the performance of its clean up and related operations.

  I have asked the review team to report to the BNFL Board and to me in the Autumn.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car Despatch Agency
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I have set the Government Car and Despatch Agency the following key performance targets for 2003/4.

  Financial
  To achieve break even on an accruals basis.

  Efficiency
  To demonstrate continued improvement in value for money by maintaining increases in charges to customers at a level no greater than the Retail Price Index.

  Quality of Service
  To maintain the Customer Satisfaction index score at 86, within reported statistical confidence levels.

  Environmental
  To convert to alternative and congestion charge exempt fuels 75 per cent. of the cars purchased in the year and capable of such conversion.
  To reduce the average carbon dioxide exhaust emission from the Government Car Service fleet by 2 per cent. against the benchmark established at the end of March 2003.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery Funding
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I am today publishing a document which sets out the changes that the Government propose to make to the distribution of National Lottery Funds.

  The lottery has been a huge success. Over £14 billion has been raised for good causes since 1994. However, nine years on from when the lottery started there is a need to revitalise the way lottery money is distributed. That is why last year I published a consultation document to consider how lottery distribution can be made more strategic and streamlined, and importantly how it can remain responsive to public need.

  Ultimately our proposals are driven by the need to reconnect people with the Lottery. To ensure that people are aware of, and can have greater influence over, how their money is spent And to make it much easier for everyone to apply for and to use Lottery money.

  The document sets out proposals for involving the public more and responding to people's priorities. It also describes in more detail how we will create a new Lottery distributor, merging the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund. This new distributor will also take on some of the powers of the Millennium Commission, including the ability to fund big transformational projects of national significance. We also propose ways to improve the management of issues and projects which cut across Lottery distributors, including proposals for a new Lottery forum with a formal mandate to take forward more joined up working. We will create a more unified promotional approach to make clear the link between the Lottery game and the money going to good causes, and more streamlining of the application process for grants.
  34WS
  I believe that these changes will enable us to build on the success already achieved and secure the Lottery's position for the future. These changes will require legislation and we will bring forward proposals as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  I have placed copies of the National Lottery funding decision document in the Libraries of both Houses and the text is also available on the DCMS Departmental website at http://www.culture.gov.uk./

  National Lottery Licensing and Regulation
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I am today publishing a document, which sets out the changes that the Government proposes to make to the licensing and regulation of the National Lottery.

  Our National Lottery is one of the most successful in the world. After ten years and two licensing rounds, however, we cannot assume that current arrangements will continue to give the best outcome for good causes. That is why last year I published a consultation document to consider whether there might be scope to reinvigorate competition to run the Lottery. The licensing proposals set out in the document are intended to take effect after the end of the current Lottery operating licence in January 2009. The Government recognises the importance of stability and continuity to the operation of the Lottery. These proposals therefore allow time for legislative changes to be brought forward and for the National Lottery Commission to begin early preparations for the new competitive arrangements.

  The document proposes a radical new approach to licensing the National Lottery. It will move away from a requirement for a single major licence competition every seven years.

  We will strengthen the National Lottery Commission as regulator, and it will have the ability to offer for competition a range of licences to run different parts of the Lottery. We would also allow for licences of different lengths. The Commission will decide the scope of the competitions and the length of the licences before the end of Camelot's current licence. The Commission will exercise its independent judgement in making these decisions, taking account of developments in technology and market conditions.

  I believe that these changes will enable us to build on the success already achieved and secure the Lottery's position for the future. They should not be taken as criticism either of Camelot or the Commission, both of whom have worked hard for the benefit of good causes within the constraints of the current statutory framework. The Government will bring forward legislative proposals as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  I have placed copies of the decision document in the Libraries of both Houses and the text is also available on the DCMS Departmental website at http://www.culture.gov.uk./

DEFENCE

  Disposal Services Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Agency was originally launched as the Disposal Sales Agency in October 1994 and was re-launched in November 2000, as the Disposal Services Agency. The Agency provides a total disposal solution by acting as a broker and adding value through expert advice across the public sector. The Agency operates very much in line with the Government's aim of more joined-up delivery. The Chief Executive of the Agency 36WS
  has been set the following key targets for the financial year 2003–04:
  To achieve a disposal sales gross cash receipt of £20 million from sales of surplus Government owned equipment and stores. This figure reflects the expected surplus equipment disposal programme.
  To meet the key performance indicators as agreed in the Customer Supplier Agreement (CSA) with the Defence Logistic Organisation (DLO).
  To ensure that the Agency is at the standard or above the standard of the Public Sector Benchmarking Report for overall customer satisfaction.
  To secure £360K sales per person employed for commercial sales activities.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Local Government Bill
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 94 to 101,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 102 to 106,

Schedule 4,

Clause 107,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 108 to 121,

Clauses 1 to 19,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 20 to 42,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 43 to 93,

Clauses 122 to 126,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 127 and 128.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Speakership of the House
11.6 a.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Motion has been agreed after the usual discussions, and I think that it explains itself.
Your Lordships will have seen that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has tabled two amendments. Perhaps it may be convenient, when I sit down and the Question on my Motion has been put, for the noble Lord, Lord Elton—I have spoken to him about it—to move the first of his amendments and to speak to them both. After your Lordships have made contributions, I shall do my best to reply to the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will then come to a conclusion on what he wishes to do about his amendments. Finally, we will decide the main Question. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Select Committee of 11 Lords be appointed to consider the future arrangements for the Speakership of the House in the light of the Government's announcement that it is intended to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and
984
to make recommendations; and that the committee shall report by the end of the Session.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Eltonrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, after "Chancellor" insert "and any undertakings given by the Government as to the future allocation of places in the Cabinet to Members of the House of Lords".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the first amendment, I shall, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House suggested, speak also to the second. Your Lordships will realise that the Motions deal with separate, distinct points, so the way in which we deal with them at the end of the debate may be different.
The issues to which I ask your Lordships to give some thought concern this House and the Government. By that, I mean the whole House and all future governments, as well as the present one—not just the one that we happen to have at the moment. The need for the Motion arises from the decision of the Government to reform the office of our present Speaker, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. By virtue of his office as Lord Chancellor, our present Speaker has a seat in Cabinet, as well as one on the Woolsack. He is one of the distinguished voices linking the House directly with the top echelon of government. The strength of that link is important to the House as a whole and is also important to any government in office.
At present, we are richly endowed with voices: we have no fewer than four. It was not always so, nor will it always be so in the future. When there is suitable talent waiting hungrily for preferment in another place, no government will be over-keen to award Cabinet seats to Peers. In the past, as my noble friend Lord Carrington pointed out before the Motion was drafted, we have often been reduced to the bare minimum number of such voices. That number has for long been two: one for the Leader of the House for the time being and the other for the Lord Chancellor for the time being, who is, ex officio, our Speaker. That is no accident. It is because of the duties that they perform that both our Leader and our Speaker have had to be members of the Cabinet. Again, it is because of the duties that they perform that they have both had to be Members of this House.
We understand—not by way of a White Paper—that the Government's intention is that the greater part of our Speaker's responsibilities in his role as Lord Chancellor and of any successor in his office will be taken away from this House. If, for instance, the judiciary is to be separated from Parliament and, specifically, from the House of Lords, there will be no obvious call for the head of the judiciary to sit in either House. There will be no more reason for a Minister of justice to sit in this House than for a Home Secretary or any other Secretary of State. Be it whispered in his august absence, if the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs were to fall ill or, even less imaginable, if he were to be overtaken in brilliance and

985
usefulness by someone in another place, that person could and, indeed, would take over the job without joining this House in order to do so.
The office of Speaker and the functions of Lord Chancellor are combined in one person. It is our Lord Chancellor's powers, not his person, that secure a Cabinet seat for our Speaker. Separate the office of Speaker from the powers of the Lord Chancellor and, no matter what happens to those powers or to whom they may be given, our Speaker's claim to that seat is gone, and the barest minimum representation of the House in Cabinet will be reduced to one.
No one who has sat in a Cabinet Committee as a Peer, as I have sometimes done, let alone in Cabinet itself, as my noble friend Lord Waddington has often done—he was about to put his name to my Motion, but, apparently, that is not how such Motions are attributed—can be under any illusion that it is a very hard job to make the rest of that committee or Cabinet understand or care how this House works, what it can and cannot be persuaded to accept, or to accord some of your Lordships' opinions the value—even, dare I say it, sometimes the political value—that they deserve.
With no second voice to back him up and bear him out, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House could not be even half as effective in Cabinet as he now appears to be to all of us. I say that with no disrespect to him. It is a fact of committee life. We are not concerned only with today's Leader of the House; these provisions will affect all our Leaders to come, even those less able than himself. The word "even" was slipped in by mistake; there was no intention to be pejorative in that remark. The Government—all governments—would lose by that, and so would this House, in all the Sessions to come.
Some of your Lordships still think that choosing some way—any way—of appointing a Speaker to do what any Chairman or Deputy Chairman can already do in this House and, perhaps, to dress up in fancy clothes and process on state occasions, is a freestanding decision; it is not. Once we acquiesce, without any compensating gain, in the separation of these two roles, we acquiesce in the downgrading of our Speaker and of this House. The Select Committee that we are about to appoint ought not to proceed without a clear statement of its freedom to consider the implications of this and to make recommendations in that light.
I have spoken of the powers, duties and privileges of the Lord Chancellor, and that brings me to my second amendment about which I can speak much more briefly because I believe that the point is already better taken. I hope that I have already shown that we cannot really come to a conclusion about what or who to replace our present Speaker with until we know how many, and which, of the powers, duties and privileges now vested in the holder of the combined office of Speaker and Lord Chancellor will remain with our Speaker when the Lord Chancellor has gone, or has been stripped of his power.
986
I had thought that this would be information readily available, but I gather that the task of the Government informing themselves of what those duties, privileges and powers actually are has proved greater than they expected. There appears still to be some doubt as to what they are and some difficulty, therefore, in deciding what to do with them. I do not wish to tease the Government about this—that is not true; I do wish to but I shall refrain from so doing—but I suggest that surely at the least our committee must be given the full list of duties, privileges and powers before it is asked to come to a conclusion.
If, as is rumoured, that list runs to over a thousand in primary legislation and thousands more in secondary legislation, it may well not be ready before the end of the Session. My second amendment, therefore, seeks to delete the requirement to report before the end of the Session and to substitute it with a bar to reporting before the complete list of powers, duties and privileges has been published and considered.
My first amendment touches on the efficiency of parliamentary government and the power and authority of this House. The second addresses the need to ensure that the Select Committee is fully informed on the matter about which it is instructed to advise us before it gives that advice, which seems a pretty simple request. I await the advice of your Lordships on both matters, and I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, after "Chancellor" insert "and any undertakings given by the Government as to the future allocation of places in the Cabinet to Members of the House of Lords".—(Lord Elton.)
11.15 a.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment moved by my noble friend, which I support. For some years, the Government seem to have devoted much effort to changing the working methods of the House of Commons, which has had the effect of greatly reducing its effectiveness. They have certainly succeeded to the extent that, as a result of government guillotines on all Bills, those Bills are coming over here after totally inadequate consideration in the other place.
Anyone who doubts this should look at the Criminal Justice Bill where, as was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden at Second Reading, four new clauses and two schedules received no examination at all in the other place. Let us consider the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections Bill, which received virtually no scrutiny in the Commons. As a consequence, we are left to do the work which should have been done elsewhere and we are told by Mr Hain that that is nothing to our credit, but is just an example of our filibustering habits.
I hope that, from time to time, the Leader of the House makes the point in Cabinet that we are performing an ever more important role, not least because of the dismal changes made in the Commons, and that it would be a sad and a bad thing—and

987
inconsistent with what the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has said; he has spoken of his determination to see a renewal and invigoration of this place—if, having lost the Lord Chancellor—
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I understand what he is saying, but I cannot make the connection between his arguments and the amendment that we are now discussing.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord lacks patience. I have not spoken for very long and what that connection is will soon be made apparent to him.
It would be a very bad thing if, having lost the Lord Chancellor as a sturdy advocate of this place in Cabinet, we were to finish up with there being only one Member of this House in Cabinet; that is, the Leader of the House. This place would be seriously weakened vis-à-vis the Commons, and it is small wonder that my noble friend Lord Carrington expressed his concerns about this in his remarks on 25th June (at col. 298 of the Official Report). Given his wealth of experience, we should take heed of his wise words.
Of course I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will remain in this place when his role changes. He has nowhere else to go. But there is no reason to think that a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will always, or even normally, sit in the Lords. So we are entitled to some assurance from the Government that this House will not be left with only one Cabinet Minister.
Certainly the Select Committee, when considering what arrangements should be made for the Speakership of this place, should have regard to this important matter, which is the point of the amendment. With the Motion amended as suggested, the Select Committee would be able to report that, in its view, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, should continue to sit on the Woolsack until appropriate assurances are given by the Government.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, first, perhaps I may welcome the proposal in the Motion in the name of the Lord President of the Council that the Speakership Select Committee should consist of 11 Peers. This will allow the Committee of Selection to consider nominations for three Cross-Bench Peers. Noble Lords will be aware that the Cross Benches have been arguing for some time that their numbers are not always fairly or proportionately represented on Select and other Committees of your Lordships' House.
The split of 4:4:2:2, or a 3:3:2:2 split, are still the default choices of the parties. But these no longer reflect the size of the Cross-Bench group and the increasing contribution to the work of this House made from these Benches or from the Bishops' Bench. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the move to form this committee of 11 members, split 3:3:2:3, is a sound one. It is right for this topic and sets a standard that should be considered and adopted on future
988
occasions to enable the contributions that can be made from these Benches to be spread more equitably across the commitments of this House as a whole.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I share the concern that lies behind his first amendment. The major changes that have been made, and may continue to be made, in the functions and roles of the upper House can amount in sum to diminishing the standing and ethos of the House of Lords.
Whatever the political and legal arguments that favour a supreme court, the loss of the Law Lords as a part of this House would be highly symbolic. If the many changes made to, or in prospect for, the House are not to lead to a permanent degradation of its position as an authoritative and respected part of the legislature, of Parliament and of the nation, key features need to be identified and retained.
I share the view that for the House and Government to function in the interests of the Queen's subjects there need to be routes for the exchange of information and ideas. So I support the first amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
As to his second amendment, I take it as self-evident that the Select Committee should, as part of its remit, consider the points about the Lord Chancellor raised by the amendment. Their bearing, or their non-bearing, on the issue of a Speaker and the roles and responsibilities that go with that post should not be ignored in arriving at recommendations.
The other point in the amendment is that the time to report is no longer explicit, but is it not more important to have this major issue studied thoroughly and to get any changes right rather than to hurry it and fail to give it the consideration that it rightly deserves? We are contemplating a major change to longstanding arrangements that have stood the test of time and served the House well.
It might be that the approach that would find favour is to give the Select Committee the requirement to make a progress report to the House by the end of the Session and to estimate, if by then it is realised that it is necessary to carry out further work, how long before its complete report will become available. After three months it should be in a far better position than the House is in at the moment to judge the scope and scale of its task. I hope that the Lord President will not feel that timetable is more important than substance and will be minded to agree this modification to his approach for the Select Committee.
I remind the House that the estimate made for undertaking the Leader's Group review of working practices took more than twice as long to complete than had been originally envisaged by the Leader—and that was a far less complex task than the Speakership Select Committee is about to embark upon. The list of issues to be studied is already long and will no doubt grow as the work progresses. I wish the Select Committee well in its endeavours.
Lord Acton: My Lords, I wish to raise a point raised to me by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who has immense experience. He wanted to raise the point when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the matter originally but he did not get to his feet.
The noble Lord tells me that it is not true that the Lord Chancellor is invariably a member of the Cabinet. When Viscount Simon, the grandfather of my noble friend, was Lord Chancellor, he was neither a member of the wartime Cabinet nor, after the coalition broke up, a member of the Churchill Cabinet thereafter. I thought it worth bringing this to your Lordships' attention.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this issue is an example of the real back-of-the-envelope, cannot-think-of-anything-else-to-do syndrome, where the word "modernisation" flashed before the Prime Minster's eyes as he dashed from Iraq to Europe to somewhere else. There was no greater example of the lack of thought given to constitutional reform than the half-baked reform of your Lordships' House and the total failure to address the West Lothian question.
The brutal and licentious soldiery has a word which I would not dream of allowing to pass my lips in the House. It is a word which is used for thought or absence of thought. The Government, I suggest, use the word "modernisation" in exactly the way that the brutal and licentious soldiery use the word that I would not dream of allowing to pass my lips.
I beg the noble and learned Lord, please take a grip, agree with what my noble friend Lord Elton says and give this half-baked idea—as it seems to me at first sight—further consideration. It is unnecessary and there has been no pressure to introduce it. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us how many delegations have been banging on his door and saying, "Please, reform the Speakership of the House of Lords". Not very many, I suggest.
The noble and learned Lord said that it is unfair that he or other Ministers should say which Peers should speak. In all the 30 or so years that I have been in your Lordships' House, the late Lord Shackleton, Lord Shepherd, Lord Carrington—who is not late—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and his predecessors have all shown integrity and justice and regard for the interests of the House. There is no need for the Government now to come over all coy and introduce change for change's sake.
How many judges do the Government want to sack because they feel that the method of appointment has been wrong? Is the Bench of Judges rotten? Is it full of corruption and nepotism, with people putting fines into their own back pockets or Swiss bank accounts? Of course it is not. The Bench of Judges at the moment is of as high a standard—or so my judicial friends tell me—as it has been for 100 years. So, if it is, what on earth is wrong with the method of appointment? How many will be asked to leave because they will not be up to scratch when the supreme court is established? Could it be that when they speak on criminal matters the Government find it embarrassing to listen to views
990
to which they are not well pleased to adhere? Is that one of the reasons they do not wish to have them in your Lordships' Chamber? The system works perfectly well. So, if we are to change it, let us give the issue proper thought and consideration.
I always know when the Government believe someone is talking right because their members start giggling between each other—and they have just started now.
After that diatribe, I welcome the support that I shall give to my noble friend Lord Elton.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, we laughed because we thought the noble Earl had made a good joke. We laughed in appreciation of his sense of humour. If that was misplaced, I owe him an apology, but that was the sense we had on these Benches.
The noble Earl having provoked me into intervening, perhaps I may very briefly make a comment. I do not understand—I bow to the experience of noble Lords who have been around a lot longer than I have and who have been in the House for many years longer—how any government can give an undertaking as to the future composition of their Cabinet. No government in history could have possibly done that. It seems to me that the first amendment is not on the mark in that respect.
As regards the second amendment, given that it refers to the office of Lord Chancellor and not to the way in which we conduct our arrangements in this House, it is a recipe for endless discussions dealing with the hundreds of years of history associated with the Lord Chancellor. The amendment appears calculated to delay matters indefinitely. I hope that the House will not be impressed by either of the amendments.
In any case, I suggest, very gently, that if we were dealing with these matters in another place—and I know that we are not—every speech, with the exception of that of my noble friend Lord Acton, and possibly mine, would have been out of order.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, in that case I shall try to speak very briefly and mainly to the point, even in the high view of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Let me make one point that I know will appeal—because I know him well—to the noble and learned Lord the Lord President. The most concerning point arising out of these proposed reforms—which I am sure all noble Lords will agree we should consider extremely carefully—is how we will preserve the independence of the judiciary. In the past that has been done—and done magnificently—by successive Lords Chancellor of each political party. No one has done that better, as I know from talks with the senior judiciary, than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg.
That will continue to be the position until we know what will be the form of any proposed independent commission on the judiciary and. crucially, which Minister will be responsible for appointing judges on the recommendation of the commission and what the criteria will be for the appointment both of the

991
commission and the judiciary. Until that time, the Lord Chancellor carries that same responsibility. It is at least possible that some will, in time, want to explore whether a Lord Chancellor, who may not and probably should not be a Minister in the Cabinet, should still carry that responsibility.
The Lord President has spoken about reforming the role of the Lord Chancellor. We do not know what that reformed role will be. We know that his present role is complex and will have to be examined carefully before we know what the reformed role should be. I suggest to all colleagues in the House that on this crucial topic, we should not decide whether the Lord Chancellor should cease to be our Speaker until we know what responsibility he may continue to carry in the future for the independence of the judiciary and how that fits with his objective participation in the affairs of this House. That is why I passionately support the second amendment raised by my noble friend Lord Elton.
11.30 a.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I pay tribute to the Lord President. He has inherited a situation that he did not create which has been quite uniquely criticised by three former Cabinet Secretaries as a disgraceful example of public administration. He has been very open to listening to views of Members of your Lordships' House and now presents a Motion which is the outcome of some of the representations made to him.
I do not know what attitude the noble and learned Lord proposes to take to the amendments to his Motion, but I urge him, in the spirit in which he has launched on the recovery programme to try to get this back on a sensible basis, to look at them very sympathetically. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the amendment does not actually ask the Government to come up with an answer for the Select Committee about how many members of the Cabinet shall sit in your Lordships' House. It suggests that the committee should be able to consider any representations that the Government may wish to make, although they may not make any. The committee may be able to make some helpful suggestions on this point.
I have a personal memory of this, because my own arrival in the Cabinet was postponed. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had it in mind to appoint me to a certain post in the Cabinet, at which moment those Members of your Lordships' House then present on the Government Benches deputed to the Prime Minister and said it was outrageous that their Lordships were under-represented, and I was invited to stand down while the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was promoted to that position. It was felt strongly at that time—and I therefore had to accept that it must have been a wise decision taken by a very intelligent Prime Minister—that your Lordships' House should be properly represented.
Having sat in the Cabinet, as I did for a number of years, and having come to your Lordships' House, I entirely accept the point which I think even the noble and
992
learned Lord the Lord President has admitted at times—that there is a fairly stupefying ignorance in the Commons and among many Cabinet Ministers about the procedures, performance and significance of your Lordships' House. I certainly think that if there was any suggestion that the representation from this House should ever be reduced to one, that would make the position of the occupant of the post of Lord President—the Leader of the House—extremely difficult.
This is the most gentle of amendments which refers to considering any representations that might be made. It is a serious point, and I should have thought a listening government would be quite happy to hear the views of the committee. Those views will not be binding—the only suggestion the committee has to make is how that particular problem could be addressed.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I had regarded myself as very open-minded on the Speakership until I heard the speeches from noble Lords opposite. I echo entirely the views of my noble friend. I am amazed that the two amendments are in order, but if the Clerks have allowed them to be put down, they must be. However, the speeches have not, in my judgment, been remotely in order. I entirely agree with my noble friend that if we had anybody resembling a Speaker, he or she would have been on their feet long before now, merely asking noble Lords to speak about the subject before them and not decide to have a major debate on a government policy which we are in no position yet to debate. I have no intention of responding to or criticising any of the speeches because that would be to add to the possibility that they were remotely within the scope of what we should be debating.
Secondly, I regard this as simply a delaying tactic to prevent the committee doing the quite minor technical job—
Noble Lords: Oh.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I notice the shaking of heads, but we have been asked to consider matters such as the independence of the judiciary, the composition of the Cabinet—I have a list of all the topics that have been raised. This is not a debate about those subjects. I would be very interested to have a debate on the Government's policy when they are ready to bring it before us, and many of us will take part. But this is about the setting up of a fairly simple committee. The one good bit about this is the recognition that we have an enormous number of Cross-Benchers and that, for once, there will be three on the committee instead of two. That is the only plus that I can see in the contributions.
Can we, for once, talk about what is before us? I think the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the system works perfectly well. I do not know where he has been for the past two or three years, but the system is working badly and is getting worse. We are breaking all our rules of self-government and self-regulation, and we have been doing it for far too long. That is one

993
of the reasons why we are considering these matters. Would noble Lords be good enough to talk about the subject before us, for once, and not use this occasion as a basis for talking about everything else under the sun that concerns them. I certainly think we should reject both of the amendments on the grounds that they are not helpful in any way whatever with regard to our making some progress. When the time comes, we might well get around to debating the substantive issue when, eventually, the Government put forward their proposals and we can look at them in detail.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am sure that many of your Lordships will, in spite of your reservations, want to wish the work and outcome of this committee well. I am grateful that the House is proceeding along the proper course. That will go some way towards reassuring those inside this House, in another place and in the country generally about the somewhat amateurish way—if I may put it so—that the announcement was made about the Lord Chancellorship at the time of the reshuffle. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord President on the way in which he has handled the matter since then.
There are wide-ranging constitutional and symbolic implications in the proposal to abolish the Lord Chancellorship. I do not naturally think, à la "Yes, Prime Minister", that nothing must ever be done for the first time. I hope all these issues have a full and proper airing in the deliberations of the Select Committee, and I am sure they will.
I sense a certain amount of resurgent frustration being expressed in this debate which goes back to the way in which things were handled originally. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has said, beginning to have a debate prematurely. This is a matter of process, and I think the process should be allowed to go forward.
With regard to the amendments, I follow the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, that the first has some sense to it. However, I think that it would tie the hands of the Select Committee unduly and would not predispose it in any particular direction. My verdict, using my Scottish blood, is "not proven", which is a nice dodge in Scottish law.
The second amendment is implicit in any committee's work in looking at the future of the Lord Chancellorship. It will be recalled that when the Joint Committee was set up last year to take further the reform of your Lordships' House, my friend and colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, spoke for these Benches in voicing our disappointment that there was no Bishop on it. If I may say so, that resentment still stands. On this Select Committee, however, these Benches are content to register our support for what is before us in principle without predisposing either what the Select Committee comes up with or indeed the proper debate that needs to take place at a future date, with the hope that we may be able to offer assistance in the usual way to the work of that committee.
994
The assistance would be in two areas, the first of which would obviously be the ecclesiastical implications. I am interested to hear this gathering list of the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities, which includes patronage of 500 livings and 12 canonries—over which I doubt many noble Lords will want to lose much sleep. However, the list is quite long. I am guessing that the work of this committee will be quite onerous as the list will grow ever longer and all these issues will need to be examined, not in this debate but in the work of the committee. There are also wider implications to do with the constitution of this country. It is in that area that I hope that all Members of your Lordships' House will find ways of feeding their views into the committee's work.
I wish the Select Committee well. It feels a little like handling on the floor of a General Synod a motion about the future of the world. However, I hope that the committee comes up with some good proposals which we can then debate in the proper way.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, may have thought he was being helpful, but he has inadvertently put his finger on precisely what is the problem with this whole debate: we have not yet had a proper debate about the Government's announcement. We have had two Statements in which Back-Benchers were limited to only 20 minutes. This is the first opportunity that anyone has had to say anything outside the normal time limits. It is entirely appropriate for noble Lords on all sides of the House to wish to offer advice to the Select Committee when it is set up.
Having said that, when we debated this issue last week, I said that I greatly welcomed the decision by the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council that there would be a Select Committee to debate this issue. That is infinitely preferable to setting up either a Leader's Group or a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee. That is the reason why we now have this Motion before us.
It is also a sign of the real concerns which many Members of this House have about the future role of the Speaker that so many have chosen to speak today, with perhaps even more to follow, and that two amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Elton. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will be able to give some comfort to my noble friend so that he will not need to press those amendments.
On the question of reporting back, I thought that my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon made a most important point. The Select Committee will be unable to come to a conclusion about all these matters until it has seen a full list of the duties and responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. One cannot decide what the future role of the Speaker is unless one knows what the Speaker is supposed to do and what the Government intend to do with all the remaining roles of the Lord Chancellor. I therefore hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to tell us when that list will be available and whether or not, when the Lord Chancellor comes to make his statements on the

995
appointments commission and the future of the Lord Chancellor's role vis-à-vis the judiciary, a Statement will be made to this House.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also confirm that much of this problem could have been solved if the Government had come forward right at the very beginning with a fully thought-through White Paper that could have been debated before being sent to a Select Committee.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that we have had a contribution from the Liberal Democrats, or if we did, I missed it.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we have made clear from these Benches that we are entirely in favour of the principle of the changes which the Government are proposing to make; indeed, we suggest they do not go far enough in respect of the creation of a ministry of justice. At the same time, however, we have also made clear that we are deeply unhappy with the way in which the changes have been introduced. I therefore have some understanding of why the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has chosen to table his amendments and why they have received support from Members of the House.
Of those in favour of the amendments, the speech I found the most impressive, not unexpectedly, was that of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I think he makes the entirely legitimate point that these reforms should include consideration of whether someone who is a Member of your Lordships' House is given a special responsibility to act as guardian of the independence of the judiciary. That matter certainly needs to be considered at some stage. However, I do not think that it needs to be considered as part of the responsibilities of this Select Committee. It seems to me that even if it is appropriate, as it may well be, to create the role of guardian of the judiciary, there is absolutely no reason why the person performing that role should also be required to preside for half an hour a day over the sittings of your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is not that man called the Lord Chancellor, and does he not do it rather well already?
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that is entirely different. The Lord Chancellor has undoubtedly acted, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said, in an outstanding role as the protector of the independence of the judiciary. However, I think that his role as Speaker of your Lordships' House is one that scarcely taxed his abilities. Indeed, I suspect that he may himself have regarded it as not the most important of his functions. I therefore believe that that is an issue for another time.
996
On the first amendment, I understand that it is plainly desirable that the Cabinet should understand the workings of the House of Lords. It is of course true that many Ministers are Members of the House of Lords and will continue to be Ministers. I should also point out, first, as is already recognised, that the Government cannot bind any future government with any undertakings they give on this occasion. Secondly, it is also fair to point out that the role of Lord Chancellor has not always been a strongly political one. While some holders of that office such as the late Lord Hailsham had been very distinguished politicians with a previous history of sitting in the Cabinet in other posts, others such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, have come with very little political experience and are widely believed to have played very little part in Cabinet outside matters of direct concern to their own department. So I do not think that what is proposed here will necessarily lead to a result that has not already happened.
On the second amendment, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who made a very clear and very sensible speech. This proposal is, I think, necessarily implicit in the role of the Select Committee. I assume that it is not beyond the capacity of the Lord Chancellor's Department, as it was—or DCAFF, as I suppose we are now to call it—to produce a list of those functions in time for the first or at any rate the second sitting of the Select Committee.
So while we on these Benches have sympathy with the motives behind the amendments, we do not believe that they are necessary and we would not support them.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in a speech that was wholly in order and totally to the point, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, pointed out how intricately intertwined are all the various proposals that stem from the Government's desire to revise the various roles of the Lord Chancellor. I must confess that I fail to understand the urgency of changing the Speakership of the House which renders it necessary to come first. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is too busy to attend the House as regularly as his predecessor, no doubt leave of absence can more readily be given. However, to take that aspect on its own and sort it out without knowing where the Government are going on any of the other points is madness.
I accept that some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other noble Lords relate to other functions of the Lord Chancellor. Until we know what the Government propose to do about those functions, we cannot know how they should be intertwined with the function not merely of sitting on the Woolsack, but of the representation of this House and so forth.
It is highly desirable that the Select Committee should not proceed too speedily. Not only should it wait until we have a list of the various things that the Lord Chancellor does; we should also have some idea of what the Government intend to do about those

997
functions. Therefore, in its substance, I very much support the second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
I venture to suggest that the matter might not be as urgent as is suggested. Although the Motion in the name of the Lord President requires that the committee shall report at the end of the Session, it in no way has to be a final report. If the committee considers that it needs to investigate and know about the other functions, it can produce an interim report. The substance of the matter must be that we should not decide on the Speakership on its own until we know where the Government are going on the Lord Chancellor's other functions.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, when one rises in your Lordships' House, it is not unusual to say, "I shall be brief", only for the opposite to happen, but I shall be. I want to reinforce the points made by the noble and gallant Lord the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
We are talking about the role of the Speakership of the House. The present Speaker of the House is the Lord Chancellor, and I cannot conceive how we can talk about that role until we know what are the other roles of the Lord Chancellor in this context.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be rather pleased that I intend to focus wholly on the proposal in front of us. However, I did detect what seemed to me a rather ugly undertone in remarks made by some noble Lords suggesting that they would have liked a Speaker on the Woolsack who would have prevented this debate taking place.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not like the use of the word ugly, but being acerbic myself I never mind about the language. However, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, should not be in any doubt: I would like to have a Speaker who asks noble Lords to speak to the subject before us. That seems entirely reasonable.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, that is what I am doing. The Motion says that the Select Committee should be set up in the light of the Government's announcement, and I quote the carefully chosen words of the Lord President,
"to reform the office of Lord Chancellor".
It does not talk of abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor. Therefore, the only relevance of having a committee on the Speakership of this House in that context is to consider whether the Lord Chancellor will be able to continue to perform the functions of Speaker.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made a good point when he said that we should consider the burden involved. I put down a Written Question to the Leader of the House to ask how many minutes in every hour that the Woolsack is occupied it is occupied by the Lord Chancellor. That seems to me quite relevant in trying to discover how much of a burden being Speaker is on the Lord Chancellor.
998
Meanwhile, it is probably unnecessary to have an inquiry that goes any wider than the question of whether, while the office of Lord Chancellor exists, the Lord Chancellor will be able to continue to fulfil the functions of the Speaker. I suspect that the bigger and wider agenda is part of the general aim to disarm this House, just as the other place has been disarmed, and to have an end to the self-regulation of this House. I hope that that will not be part of the remit of the Select Committee.
Lord Ackner: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Ackner!
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my timid and deferential observations will be very short. I back the first amendment for the reasons given by the noble and gallant Lord the Convenor. With regard to the second amendment, which, from my point of view is much more important, the Government have apparently decided not to set up a ministry of justice.
In a Written Question filed three days ago, I asked which of the Lord Chancellor's functions relative to the administration of justice—especially criminal justice—will be transferred to the Home Office or to the new Department of Environmental Affairs.
Noble Lords: Constitutional Affairs.
Lord Ackner: Constitutional Affairs, my Lords. That is of considerable importance, because there is a strong feeling, which was voiced very quietly by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, in an admirable article three days ago in The Times supplement on the law, that one of the purposes—if not the main purpose of this legislation—is excessively to increase the powers of the Home Secretary. That is why we wish to know which of the Lord Chancellor's powers of a judicial or judicial and administrative type the Government propose to invest in either of those two departments. The second amendment really focuses very wisely on that point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships, not least, for the generous remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King. I shall focus on the Motion, which I know your Lordships will have read carefully. It is not, to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, my Motion. It was agreed in a meeting between the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the Convenor, and myself. I have been as open to views on the form of the Motion as anyone could reasonably expect.
It was also agreed that, unusually and without setting any precedent, because of the nature of this particular committee—I repeat, without setting any precedent—it would be appropriate that Cross-Bench representation should be three rather than the usual two.

999
That Motion having been agreed—although not by your Lordships, of course—I come to the two questions that arise distinctly from the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am most grateful to him for giving me advance notice of them and for our private discussion about the troubles caused to him in putting down those amendments.
First, there is the question of the representation—if I may put it that way—of this House in the Cabinet. Your Lordships may not appreciate that, since the Government came into office in 1997, the Prime Minister has specifically invited the Chief Whip—formerly the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and now the noble Lord. Lord Grocott—to attend every Cabinet meeting. On every occasion, they are asked by the Prime Minister whether they would like to contribute anything about the workings of this House or the relationship of business management in both Houses. Therefore, at the moment, your Lordships have three Cabinet Ministers and the invariable attendance of the Chief Whip at every Cabinet. We have not had three Cabinet Ministers from the House of Lords since 1989. As the noble Lord, Lord Acton, indicated—with the benefit of information from the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale—Viscount Simon, who was Lord Chancellor for five years, was not a member of the Cabinet at all.
I know that noble Lords wished to raise this matter but I am reasonably confident that no noble Lord expects me to give any undertakings about which Cabinet Ministers should come from the Lords. I do not believe that any Prime Minister would feel able to give those undertakings. I am grateful for the assent that I see being expressed by the noble Lord, Lord King. I do not believe that the Prime Minister under whom he served, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, would have looked happily on his being asked to give such an undertaking.
I believe that noble Lords recognise—this is very important—that this must properly and inevitably be a matter for the Prime Minister of the day. However—this is meant to be helpful—on its present terms of reference, the Select Committee is amply entitled to consider the matter. Noble Lords with views about that will make them known; a number of noble Lords already have done so, including the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Waddington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. Any noble Lord can give oral evidence, written evidence or a combination of the two to the committee.
Incidentally, I should say that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and I have already made it plain that we are very willing and eager to give evidence if the committee would like to hear from us. The committee can attend to the point that lies behind the first amendment and it can express views on that. In due time, we shall obviously have a full debate on the committee's recommendations.
There is also the question of,
"the present powers, duties and privileges of the Lord Chancellor".
1000
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander—I believe that we always have agreed on this—on the necessity for judicial independence. That is the purpose of the intended reforms. It is easy for me to say that. We must be judged in practice on the delivered outcome. I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said; that is, that judicial independence is not an additional option but a fundamental basis of the society in which we wish to conduct ourselves.
Noble Lords will know, because it has been said on a number of occasions, that consultation papers on judicial appointments and the question of the supreme court will be out quite soon: this month. The Lord Chancellor has already said—this may not have been picked up by all noble Lords—that he will publish a consultation document in September setting out the issues to be addressed in relation to the Lord Chancellor's roles that do not relate to the speakership, his functions as departmental Minister or his judicial capacity.
I can set out at least 11 categories. I shall be as brief as I can but I know that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other noble Lords are concerned about this matter. The 11 categories to be considered appeared to us to be: Speakership of the House of Lords; judicial appointments, conduct arid discipline in England and Wales; judicial appointments, conduct and discipline in Northern Ireland; ministerial responsibilities in relation to courts and tribunals; legal and constitutional affairs in England and Wales; ministerial responsibilities in relation to courts and legal affairs in Northern Ireland; ministerial responsibilities in relation to the national archives—that is not perhaps something that immediately springs to mind when one considers the duties of the Lord Chancellor; ministerial responsibilities in relation to the Land Registry; and responsibilities in relation to the Great Seal. The next category relates to the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, to whom I was grateful, as always, for his measured contribution; it involves ecclesiastical patronage and other ecclesiastical functions—"boggle" and "mind" perhaps come to mind there. The other categories are: visitatorial jurisdiction—that is not an adjective that I had previously encountered; academic responsibilities and those and relating to royal peculiars; and, finally, non-judicial appointments, such as school governors.
Those are significant categories. I simply set them out to indicate that I have. I hope, responded as fully and promptly as I can to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which, as I said, we discussed privately when he told me of his concerns. All of those matters—the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, was quite right—are within the remit of the committee on the present terms of reference. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has done us a disservice. He raised the questions and I hope that I have been able

1001
to give the undertakings and reassurances that noble Lords reasonably wished. That being so, I invite the noble Lord not to press the amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he deal with the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; namely, that this could be a preliminary or interim report rather than a final report?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a matter for the committee in the usual way, and that is the conventional role of all committees. It appears that the end of the Session is not unduly taxing in terms of the timetable. I am sure that noble Lords will be content with the representation on the committee, form their own judgment and report back to the House, as I indicated on Wednesday last week. We shall then have a full debate on the substantive issues and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, on process, about which I thought there was general agreement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord King in complimenting the Leader of the House on the way in which he managed the affair since it went off the rails and I thank him for the way in which he handled today's debate. I also thank those who supported me in this debate and join them in wishing the committee well.
The only moment of sadness for me was when it appeared that I had totally failed to make myself clear to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. His claim that the debate has been out of order rested on his total failure to grasp the significance of the fact that the Speakership and the Chancellorship at present are unified in one person and that that is our way into the Cabinet for one person. The committee must consider that. I see that I have yet to convince the noble Lord but he would not want me to spend more time on that matter; nor, I assume, would other noble Lords.
The noble Lord suggested that the object of the debate is to delay—if I could have his attention. I know that there are other more interesting people to listen to around him but at the moment I believe that I have the Floor.
The noble Lord suggested that the object behind all of this was delay. He picked up on a few of the soundbites that had been used long ago in the debate on the abolition of the hereditary Peers. The dramatis personae are quite different in this regard and so are the issues. This is not a party political issue, nor is it an issue between one sort of Peer and another; it is an issue about the welfare of this House. I do not apologise for taking up the time of noble Lords because I can think of no better steer to the committee than the speeches that have been made. I am most grateful to noble Lords for them.
The second of my two amendments, which received the most support in the corridors, as it were, before the debate and which was warmly supported in this debate, was answered by the point that was made by
1002
the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and which was endorsed by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House. In fact, the report that the committee is required to make before the end of the Session can perfectly well be an interim report. The second amendment is therefore unnecessary and I shall not proceed with it.
The first amendment touches on the matter on which I was unable to convince the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who vigorously nods his head. Perhaps I failed to convince other noble Lords. The arguments in favour of it—I see three heads nodding opposite—were so strongly put by many noble Lords, notably so by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, that the point has been adequately made. While I know that there is an anti-climax when one has sat through a debate in the hope of a refreshing visit to the Lobby, we can rest on the assurances that have been given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
12.9 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
12.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 7 [Investigations]:
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert "not later than twelve months following an accident"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to touch again on the question of the railway accident inspection branch furnishing its report within 12 months of an accident. At an earlier stage the Minister said that he believed that there were often technical and engineering investigations to be undertaken which may preclude the report being

1003
published. I believe that the whole tenor of the Bill is to get a report on an accident quickly into the public domain so that people may know what caused the accident and what steps are to be taken to prevent it happening again. I do not believe that it would very often be the case that a report need be delayed more than 12 months. In fact, I hope it will be published much more quickly than that.
I ask the Minister that we make sure that it is not likely to be delayed by the exercise of various judicial processes, departmental policy or ministerial convenience and that we quickly get to the truth. It is the fact that reports to the Government are often delayed by processes which have nothing to do with the incident being reported on, but because the courts require it, some kind of legal process is invoked to prevent publication, or because it is politically or administratively convenient for either the Minister or officials.
I am very anxious that reports are published quickly because if they are not, the whole of the railway accident investigation branch would be condemned extremely quickly and what we would hope would be a fresh start would cease to be so and we retire to a rather tired, old process which delays us in knowing what happened. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and seek what further comfort my noble friend may be able to give us. Potters Bar is the latest in a series of accidents where no solution has yet been found. In the very well respected Modern Railways, under the heading "Informed Sources" by Roger Ford, there is the headline
"Potters Bar—criminal investigations frustrate search for truth".
That is exactly why the Government are setting up the railway accident investigation branch, which we have all welcomed. It is worth recording that the process being undertaken at the moment is led by British Transport Police, for whom the accident is a potential crime. As I believe I said at Report, 70 or so people in the Network Rail contractors have had notices of possible intended prosecution served on them, which does not help in getting to the cause of the problem.
The Health and Safety Executive is in the queue, as the accident is a potential breach of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations. Only when that is dealt with does the Railway Inspectorate become involved. To some extent it is overseen by an investigation board, none of whose members have any first-hand experience of working railways. As Mr. Ford concludes,
"The final HSE report will not be published until after the conclusion of any legal proceedings, or after they have been ruled out".
We still do not know the cause of the accident. We have not been told but perhaps the HSE knows, but it is not going to say for fear of legal proceedings. It is very important that not only is maximum support given to an independent accident investigation branch to conclude its report quickly into the causes of the accident, but that the department recognises that if
1004
anything has to be changed in the light of experience following the accident, it should be encouraged to take place with maximum speed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has set out exactly why we are setting up the railway accident investigation branch. Its purpose is to improve the safety of railways and prevent railway accidents and incidents. It will improve safety by reporting quickly. That is exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, makes.
What we are proposing is in conformity with the European Safety Directive. That states that reports would normally be published within 12 months. It states,
"the investigating body shall make public the final report in the shortest possible time and normally not later than 12 months after the date of the occurrence".
That is what the RAIB will do. But the directive does not say—and we are not proposing—that it must be forced to publish a report before it is ready. Surely, it is better to get a full and detailed report after 13 months than a hurried and incomplete report before 12 months has lapsed. The decision on the report should be for the chief inspector of rail accidents to make. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that criminal proceedings brought by the police or Health and Safety Executive might be a harrier to publication of an RAIB report, the Government are firmly of the view that safety lessons and reports can still be published.
Clause 7(6) provides for the chief inspector to be able to publish even if criminal or civil proceedings are brought or are likely in connection with the accident. Similarly, the law of contempt of court will still apply to the RAIB, but in deciding when to publish a final report the chief inspector must always balance the public interest in publishing in order to share safety lessons against the public interest in people being brought to account for criminal behaviour and their right to a fair trial. It is perfectly legitimate for her to come down in favour of publishing.
The RAIB cannot prevent any person from inferring whatever they want from a report, but the Bill makes it very clear in Clause 7(5) that the RAIB itself,
"(a) shall not consider or determine blame or liability, but (b) may determine and report on the cause of an accident or incident whether or not blame or liability is likely to be inferred from the determination or report".
Pending the final report, it will be possible for the RAIB to publish an interim report, which sounds familiar from our last debate, to ensure that urgent safety lessons are promulgated. The Bill already makes provision for such reports in Clause 9(3). The existing AAIB and MAIB can and do publish interim reports and the RAIB should be able to do so as well.
Finally, I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that, if it becomes apparent that the publication of RAIB reports is being materially delayed,

1005
the Government will take the necessary action to ensure that the RAIB will be able to achieve its purpose and duties.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Professional staff on duty]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 33, line 35, after "vessel" insert "or on a vessel with a crew of three or less"
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have tabled the amendment again as I found the Minister's argument slightly unsatisfactory. It is about the medical defence for fishermen. I do not see why it should not apply to small charter boats and similar vessels if it is to be in the Bill. After all, they go to sea from the same ports, often for similar length journeys in similar size boats with similar crews. Therefore, if one, why not the other?
I suspect that the answer is that the exemption for fishing vessels is an historical leftover, but it flies in the face of all modern health and safety legislation and rules. If we are to prevent the occasional but very sad accident and tragedies at sea, the subject needs careful scrutiny. If the Minister will give me the assurance that the Government, in consultation with the fishing industry, will consider those important safety issues, I may be satisfied. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am forced to say that the Government accept that there is a degree of irrationality and inconsistency in the way that the Bill provides a medical defence for fishermen but does not do so for other professional seamen in similar circumstances.
I do not believe that we would introduce the fishing vessel exemption now, nor can we agree to its removal at this stage—although we will look at it for the future. The exemption is long-standing and could not be removed without extensive consultation with the industry, something that has not taken place. The extension of the medical defence to other on-duty professional mariners is neither necessary nor welcome. It would set entirely the wrong precedent, not only for the shipping offence, but also for aviation and road offences. And it would go against our drive to improve transport safety.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister and I are in agreement on the principles involved. I am grateful for his reassurance that the Government will look again at the matter in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 [Specimens, &c.]:
Lord Mclntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 35, leave out lines 19 to 44 and insert—
"Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

Section 6

Power to administer preliminary tests

In place of subsections (2) to (5) the power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test shall apply where—

(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is committing an offence under section 78, 79 or 80,

(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has committed an offence under section 78, 79 or 80 and still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug, or

(c) an accident occurs owing to the presence of a ship in a public place and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was at the time of the accident a person to whom section 78, 79 or 80 applied.

Sections 6A to 6E

Preliminary breath test, impairment test, and drug test

In place of sections 6A(2) and (3), 6B(4) and 6C(2), a preliminary breath test, preliminary impairment test or preliminary drug test may be administered by a constable—

(a) at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or

(b) at a police station specified by the constable. In section 6B(3) a reference to unfitness to drive shall be treated as a reference to having an impaired ability, because of drink or drugs, to do anything specified in section 78(2), 79(2) or 80(2)."

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 12 and 13 and to Amendment No. 9, which I shall resist. Amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 13 add to the existing powers of the police to test for alcohol by giving them the powers to administer a test for impairment and a test for the presence of drugs by means of a sample of saliva or sweat.
They replace the existing powers in Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 that pertain only to the breath-testing of drivers for alcohol with comprehensive provisions that give the police powers to administer preliminary tests for alcohol, drugs and impairment. "Preliminary test" is the legal term used to describe a test to screen for alcohol, drugs or impairment. I

1007
emphasise that the new provisions do not diminish the powers currently available to the police for breath testing.
Clearly there is work to be done before the provisions can come into force. The development of procedures for the impairment test is well in hand but we shall have to await further progress in technology before a suitable drug screening test is available, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, recognises. Clause 118 sets out arrangements for commencement. It provides for the Secretary of State to make orders for specific provisions at the appropriate time by means of a statutory instrument. This is a difficult and complicated area of legislation, but we believe it will ensure that a comprehensive testing regime is available in respect of the battle against driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 give the police powers to administer preliminary tests for alcohol, drugs and impairment in the marine and aviation fields. That will ensure that the aviation and maritime regime for alcohol and drug testing is equivalent to that on the roads. Amendment No. 5 will also give the police powers to administer preliminary tests automatically after an aviation accident, bringing the aviation regime into line with other modes.
I shall not comment on Amendment No. 9. What I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, since it is in his name, is that he has won a great victory for the cause that he has been advocating so diligently over a number of a months. We have listened carefully to what he said. We are still sceptical about rapid progress towards testing for limits of drugs. He knows that, and I believe he agrees. But we have been able— and I am glad to pay tribute to him—to give effect to the arguments he has been putting forward. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I informed the Minister of what I was doing when 1 tabled Amendment No. 9. In his immediate reply, he informed me in turn that his parliamentary draftsmen were working furiously in order to get the necessary amendments on the Order Paper for today's debate. All that is necessary for me to do at this point is to thank the Minister for the drive that he put behind the move once it got under way. In particular, I thank his staff and his draftsmen for tabling the amendments.
Although this is merely the legislative part of the procedure, and a great deal of work will have to be carried out by the police and others to make it effective, it would not happen if the legislative process had not been undertaken. I am grateful to the Minister for ensuring that that part of the process has happened and that this provision will be on the statute book. I hope, therefore, that the relevant authorities, such as the police and medical services will, where required, be put into motion to bring a greater degree of safety, especially in relation to drugs and driving on our roads.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord McIntosh in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on his perseverance and on seeing this provision home in such a satisfactory way. I believe that I was the one who suggested to the noble Lord in the first place that he should attempt effectively to wrap his Private Member's Bill into this piece of legislation. That is exactly what he has done. All credit to him for effectively getting a Private Member's Bill turned into a government Bill; it is a remarkable undertaking and he should be congratulated.
Congratulations are also due to my noble friend for listening at every stage of the debate and for coming forward with the amendments in this way. As this is the only contribution I intend to make on Third Reading, I thank him for the way that he has handled the rest of the proceedings, particularly in relation to the powers of the British Transport Police and the other matters we considered earlier. The way my noble friend has handled the Bill has been fantastic.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Faulkner on how the Minister has handled the Bill. I am pleased with all the amendments in this group, but I would like to place on the record my thanks for Amendment No. 5. I thank the Minister for meeting me with representatives of the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety and the Association of Chief Police Officers. He said that he would table a government amendment on the matter and he has done so; and they are very happy with it. I am grateful to him and fully support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 36, line 36, leave out "(and the definition of -drug" shall be disregarded)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Specimens, &c.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 42, leave out lines 13 to 31 and insert—
"Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

Section 6

Power to administer preliminary tests

In place of subsections (2) to (5) the power to require a person to co-operate with a preliminary test shall apply where—

(a) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person is committing an offence under section 92 or 93,

(b) a constable in uniform reasonably suspects that the person has committed an offence under section 92 or 93 and still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug,

(c) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was undertaking an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft at the time of the accident, or

(d) an aircraft is involved in an accident and a constable reasonably suspects that the person has undertaken an aviation function, or an activity ancillary to an aviation function, in relation to the aircraft.

Sections 6A to 6E

Preliminary breath test, impairment test, and drug test

In place of sections 6A(2) and (3), 6B(4) and 6C(2), a preliminary breath test, preliminary impairment test or preliminary drug test may be administered by a constable—

(a) at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or

(b) at a police station specified by the constable. In section 6B(3) a reference to unfitness to drive shall be treated as a reference to having an impaired ability, because of drink or drugs, to perform an aviation function or to carry out an activity which is ancillary to an aviation function."

Page 43, line 24, leave out "(and the definition of "drug" shall be disregarded)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 105 [Railways safety levy]:
12.30 p.m.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 46, line 38, after "43" insert—
"( ) the costs arising from a prosecution brought by the Executive or the Commission,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled this amendment in order to seek some assurance from the Minister. He will remember that we debated who would meet the costs of the Health and Safety Commission. We talked about those costs falling on the train operating companies and being divided among them.
Since then, we have heard the outcome of the prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive of the Metropolitan Police over the issue of a police constable falling through the roof of a building. I believe that that should be described as a rather ill-considered prosecution. It failed completely and cost £3 million of public money.
I do not believe that train operating companies—freight or passenger—should be asked to pay the costs of speculative prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE is a guardian of public money and largely prosecutes public bodies. Therefore, the taxpayer pays both ways and thus, ultimately, the taxpayer fines the taxpayer. It is an enormous waste of public resource. I believe that a regulating body should look not to prosecution but to encouraging the regulated party to modify its behaviour. It should expend almost all its effort on that and prosecute only as a very last resort.
I ask the Minister whether he can give us some comfort that we shall not see the costs of speculative prosecutions by regulatory bodies visited upon the regulated parties. In the most part, those parties have not given rise to the complaints but, so far as I can see, they stand to bear the costs of them. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say that, following assurances which I believe were given at earlier stages of the Bill, whatever means the Health and Safety Executive has used to assess the charges on the railway industry—I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—this measure will not widen the scope of the activities and issues for which they make a charge. In other words, if the HSE does not make a charge for prosecution at present, it would not do so in future, even if the mechanism for charging were different.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned train operating companies, but I believe that the provision applies to anyone with a licence, which would include Network Rail as well. It is extraordinary that, in those circumstances, such organisations would have to pay for their own prosecution. That seems to be all wrong. Therefore, I trust that my noble friend will say that this provision is outwith the scope of any proposal for charging which the Health and Safety Executive may put forward.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, consideration of prosecution is one of a range of options open to Health and Safety Executive inspectors as part of their enforcement activities. Their responses to breaches of health and safety law are governed by the HSC's enforcement policy statement. Therefore, there is no question of the cost of prosecution being a consideration; the HSE must act objectively in accordance with its policy statement.
Work on gathering evidence to inform the decision as to whether or not to take a prosecution, as a routine enforcement activity of the Health and Safety Executive, is subject to the current charging regime and should properly be included under the railway levy. But that should not in any way distort the HSE's decision on whether or not to prosecute or, indeed, on the cost of gathering evidence.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I consider that reply to be slightly unsatisfactory. I realise that at this juncture there is nothing further that your Lordships' House

1011
may do. As the Bill will not be going back to another place, this matter cannot be raised again. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I ask that serious thought be given to the implications of the Metropolitan Police case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. I believe he knows from the public prints that serious consideration is being given to that issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Iraq: Humanitarian Situation and Reconstruction
12.35 p.m.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to make a Statement about the humanitarian situation and reconstruction in Iraq.
I was in Iraq last week, in both Basra and Baghdad. I met representatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the United Nations, the military, Iraqi administrators, non-governmental organisations and UK civilian staff. I also visited a prison and water treatment plant in Basra and the British Office in Baghdad.
Progress has been made in Basra. Days after the end of the conflict, British troops took off their flak jackets and helmets and talked with civilians. That set the tone for a progressive return to normal life, with the military presence now relatively unobtrusive. Life has regained an air of normality: people are out in the streets; the markets sell fruit and vegetables; cars are on the streets; and shops and restaurants are open.
Quick impact projects, implemented by British forces, together with the United Nations, NGOs and local authorities, have made a visible difference. Basic services, including water and electricity, have been restored to pre-war levels. The prison has been rehabilitated. The courthouse has been refurbished and cases are now being heard. Work is under way to clean the city of solid waste and other health hazards. Medical services are functioning, albeit with localised shortages of specialist drugs and oxygen.
The House will want to pay tribute to UK forces for their significant contribution, often working in difficult and, at times, dangerous circumstances, as the deaths of the six Royal Military Police in Maysan last week all too clearly demonstrated.
The expectations of ordinary Iraqis are very high. The south suffered particular neglect under Saddam's regime and was starved of investment for years. We need to do better than just restore services to their pre-war levels. People expect more, and deserve more.
The situation in Baghdad is more difficult. Threats to security remain a significant obstacle to progress. Regrettably, attacks against the US military by ex-Ba'athists and criminals appear to have become more organised, as has sabotage of newly-restored
1012
infrastructure. And there are worrying signs of threats to international personnel and Iraqis working with the coalition, which could undermine the developing links between the Coalition Provisional Authority and Iraqi ministries. Worries over personal safety keep many Iraqis in their homes, rather than at work or school, and impact particularly on women and girls. Cuts in electricity and water supplies also disrupt everyday life. We are working to address those issues.
Some progress has been made on security. Thirty thousand Iraqi police officers have reported back to duty; a legal system is beginning to be re-established to control criminality; and the CPA has decided to pay stipends to ex-soldiers, which should help. But we are working to put in place the conditions for Iraq to be seen, by its own citizens, to be policing itself rather than being controlled by coalition forces. We attach a very high priority to the effective reform of the security sector.
Rapid and visible progress towards fully representative and democratic government is central to the future of Iraq. Iraqis must regain political control of their country as quickly as possible. While Iraqi-controlled local authorities are already working in a number of provincial towns, the process of establishing an Iraqi-led governing council is much more complex. That has to be done quickly, but it also has to be done right. The governing council needs to be representative, involving all the main parties and religious and ethnic groups, as well as providing for the efficient and effective involvement of women. The CPA is making progress on developing consensus among Iraqi representatives on the way forward. And, importantly, the United Nations is closely involved in this process.
Much has been made of the shortcomings in the CPA. That criticism has, in many cases, been overstated but clearly things could improve, and the CPA's leadership, with UK support, is working hard to improve the authority's performance. That includes establishing better communications between headquarters and the regions and, even more vitally, between the CPA and the Iraqi people. It is essential that the people understand what the CPA is doing, and why; and that the CPA can understand their wishes.
Almost 100 secondees to the CPA, from a wide range of UK government departments, are now in partnership with Iraqi ministries, our US colleagues and the humanitarian agencies, helping to get the Iraqi civil administration back up and running. The Department for International Development now has 27 advisers in Iraq, including the CPA's recently appointed director of operations.
We are also making a substantial financial contribution to humanitarian agencies working on the ground. Our total financial commitment now stands at £154 million, mostly channelled through organisations with the capacity and expertise to mount humanitarian operations quickly and effectively. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses details of the reconstruction work that has been undertaken so far by the agencies which we have been funding.

1013
We are also working to support the longer-term reconstruction of Iraq. Much of the finance for this will come from Iraq's own oil revenues, initially through the Development Fund for Iraq, and subsequently through Iraq's own budget. But the international community also has an important role to play. In New York last week, informal meetings including Iraqi representatives began preparations for a donors' conference which is expected to take place in October, and agreed details of the assessment that the World Bank, IMF and United Nations will carry out during the intervening months. DfID will consider how best we can contribute to this longer-term reconstruction effort in the light of this work.
Years of sanctions and mismanagement by the Saddam regime have left the Iraqi economy very weak. Even before the conflict only about half the Iraqi workforce was in full-time employment. Iraq's oil wealth, and its relatively well educated population, should enable it to grow rapidly once security has stabilised and a representative government is in place that can take long-term economic policy decisions.
Humanitarian agencies, with our support, returned to Iraq quickly after the conflict ended, and have helped the country recover from the conflict and the looting that followed it. Their ability to do this was strengthened by good preparatory work, in part financed by DIM, and supported by the Armed Forces. But continued threats to security, particularly in Baghdad, remain a very significant constraint. The coalition is working urgently to address this in order to build on the progress achieved so far, and make real, lasting and visible improvements to the lives of the Iraqi people.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful to the Secretary of State for making this Statement today. I am sorry that my noble friend Lady Rawlings, who usually deals with international development business, cannot be here.
Inevitably, our minds are still filled with sorrow at the murder in Maysan-al-Kabir of the six brave young solders whose bodies now return to their homeland. All of us want to be sure that their lives were given in a good and purposeful cause—the rebuilding of Iraq as a land of peace and order after the horrors of the past. That said, would the Secretary of State agree that the reports of recent progress in re-establishing the rule of law and security have been worrying? Does she agree that preparations—despite assurances—have clearly fallen far short of what is needed? We were told as far back as January that preparations to meet the post-conflict situation were going to be "as good as they can be".
It is true that there has been no major humanitarian crisis of the kind widely predicted by some experts. Neither has there been a refugee crisis nor, so far, a massive spate of revenge killings. However, it is also clear that the coalition provisional administration is facing many other problems of law-keeping, civil
1014
security and the laying of foundations of good governance by the Iraqi people themselves. Following her recent visit, can the Secretary of State tell us more about the role that her own department is playing in reconstructing the civil administration? What about basic services, power and water supplies and law enforcement training? Twenty-seven advisers do not sound a vast amount in such a huge country. Does the administration plan to keep the 18 regions of the country as they were before—14 of which were set up by the British in 1917–1921—thus avoiding dominance by any one sect or group? That is a very important principle on which to proceed.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House where the main expenditure of this £154 million has gone so far? Have the UN agencies, which received the bulk of it, spent the money effectively? If all of it is being disbursed—an eventual figure of 100 billion dollars is mentioned—is the guiding strategy in place for it to go to the right priorities? How is it intended to get from where we are currently to making the civil and public services in Iraq fully operative again? How does the noble Baroness propose to deal with members of the Ba'athist party? Not every member of that party can be dismissed; otherwise there would be no administration at all. Obviously, one has to concentrate on the real killers and top criminals. But how will that be done, and is progress being made?
Is the Secretary of State satisfied about adequate communication and open lines between our forces and the civilian groups which will eventually have to run things in Iraq? Does she feel that links between our superb forces and the American authorities are close enough? Everyone is inclined to agree that abruptly disbanding the Iraqi army was a mistake. Was our advice on this listened to and what steps are being taken to rectify the situation? Can we also play a stronger advisory role with our American friends in avoiding measures which increase local hostility, given our huge experience going back to 1917? Have we stressed the vital importance—as we did all those years ago—of respecting local customs and observing, as occupying power, the principle of usufruct?
Iraq is not Afghanistan. Does the Secretary of State agree that although there is much rural poverty Iraq is potentially a rich country with vast oil and mineral resources? It has a well-educated population with many very experienced women able to play a leading part. Indeed, the Iraqi people have some experience of running a democracy under a constitutional monarchy up to 1958. Has she studied current plans for distributing the ownership of the oil wealth of Iraq much more widely to the people? This would reduce the danger of corruption in state hands and help the seven million pensioners in Iraq.
The task of rebuilding Iraq as a force for good and peace in the region is not impossible. It is all the more frustrating that so far—I admit that these are early days—the problems are proving so intractable and the lack of preparation in meeting them so evident. We hope that what we have heard today will help carry things forward with our American allies and other coalition countries more steadily and in greater security. Our Armed Forces have performed brilliantly in war and

1015
peace. But the Secretary of State will be the first to agree that we must not let them carry an increasing burden for restoring the country to civil order which others should now be prepared and ready—more than ready—to shoulder.
12.50 p.m.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for making this Statement today. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, regarding the military policemen who were lost in Iraq. We express our great sympathy to their families and friends.
The Secretary of State notes the welcome progress in Iraq and refers to difficulties and shortcomings, but I wonder what she makes of the view of those who do not yet see such steady progress. Thus, UNICEF stated last week that,
"the security situation in Baghdad and across the country is deteriorating".
It noted also that,
"the sharp reduction in the availability of electricity and water in most of Baghdad is exacerbating the frustration of the city inhabitants."
UN agencies and NGOs are experiencing attacks on their facilities and vehicles. The humanitarian community is concerned about the potential for civil unrest should the current situation continue.
Clearly, the situation in Iraq is very volatile. The key problem is lack of security. Some areas seem to have become more settled, while others which appeared settled now have problems. For example, Oxfam speaks of a worrying rise in violent crimes in Nassiriyah, which had previously seemed settled. Can the noble Baroness comment on whether the strategy of searching houses and removing small arms is seen as effective, or is it, indeed, causing widespread disquiet? What other measures are being taken to tackle that, and who is implementing them? Does the noble Baroness agree that we are now in a vicious cycle? Violence prevents reconstruction; no reconstruction breeds more discontent; and so on.
I know the Secretary of State is reluctant to put any timetable on this issue, but perhaps I may push her on it a little. Surely, the Government's planning has some kind of timetable. Will she indicate when she thinks Iraq will be sufficiently settled to enable it to elect interim authorities in Baghdad and Basra?
With the mounting casualty toll among authority troops, does she sense any changes in strategy by the Americans? If so, what are they?
Lack of security is holding up the restoration of basic infrastructure in the cities—water supplies, electricity, functioning hospitals, and so on. There is a high incidence of diarrhoeal disease, particularly among children, in Iraq.
Even food, which had seemed to be widely available, now appears to be in short supply. Oxfam reports that many families are surviving on bread and milk because the monthly food rations have stopped. Food prices have risen hugely. The price of a kilo of meat has doubled in recent weeks. Obviously, it is welcome that
1016
the Marsh Arabs, who were deprived, are now getting food aid, but the overall picture is surely a cause for concern.
There are reports of increased violence against women and girls. There are reports of threats made to Iraqi women and girls for not wearing clothing that is deemed modest. A UN worker has thus been threatened. The UN has also reported that in some cases girls in Basra not wearing headscarves have not been allowed into school. What strategies are being followed to address those problems?
The Secretary of State may remember that when we questioned her on Iraq last week I quoted a senior British official saying of the US-led administration that it was,
"the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for".
Does she know whether that official—perhaps she can say whether she met him in Iraq—sees anything coming down the track that would make him change his mind?
There seems to be some realisation among the Americans that although the war may have been prepared for, the peace was not. I note that R Duncan Hunter, the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, stated:
"Occupation takes a lot of folks, probably takes a lot more folks than winning the war".
Will the noble Baroness comment on that shift?
It is clear that the humanitarian situation in Iraq remains very serious. As the UN put it the other day,
"the high levels of vulnerability and dependence on government services that existed before the conflict have increased further".
As the Government seek to stabilise things in Iraq so that there can be a transition to Iraqi rule, can the noble Baroness assure us that, unlike in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Kosovo, aid money will not come from the DfID budget, thus depriving other areas of the world?
Obviously, we welcome any progress that is being made. Clearly, the situation is volatile and the coalition partners will need to be engaged for a long time. Can the noble Baroness shed any light on what plans were worked out for post-war Iraq? Does she now feel that some of the assumptions made before the war have since proved untenable? If so, what is being done to learn those lessons?
12.55 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their comments on the Statement. I agree that we must pay tribute to our troops in Iraq. I met a number of them. They have done, and continue to do, a magnificent job.
I turn to the specific points. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of preparations, a subject on which I was also questioned by the International Development Select Committee earlier this week. I must say that I do not agree that our preparations have fallen short of what was needed. As to the different kind of scenarios for which we planned,

1017
we should be very pleased that those with respect to a wholesale movement of refugees being internally displaced did not happen.
What we could not plan for was the widespread looting that happened immediately after the conflict ended. I saw for myself the impact of the precision bombing in Basra and Baghdad. There is very little left that resembles what we would think of as a post-war situation. But what I found even more distressing were the many buildings which had been looted and then fired from inside, which means that Iraqi ministries cannot now function. They do not have the records, although some Iraqi workers took home discs and files of information. The looting has done considerable damage.
That has been followed by deliberate sabotage. There are miles of electricity cable. It is very difficult to have security along the entire length of that cable. Once an electricity supply is damaged, it has a knock-on effect, in particular on water because the water pumps cannot work. The coalition forces and the CPA are doing everything they can to get the situation back up and running. We are well aware that there are forces out there who do not want the coalition to succeed. There are rumours going around Iraq about what has happened to Saddam Hussein, which are leading to a fear culture among the people of Iraq. We have to deal with that as a matter of some urgency. We must find Saddam Hussein and his sons and we have to make sure that the constant threats being made to security are dealt with.
With respect to the CPA itself and the questions which have been asked with respect to its administration, I was very encouraged indeed by what I saw in Baghdad. The administration is functioning much more effectively. A relationship is developing between the CPA and the Iraqi ministries it is shadowing. A draft budget has been developed, not only for the CPA but also for those ministries. DfID staff are very much involved in making sure that that draft budget feeds down into Basra and other areas. They are giving support in areas that will eventually lead to greater revenue collection, such as customs; in giving advice on law enforcement and on security sector reform; and in giving support on basic administration across the whole range of issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked whether it was the intention to keep the administrative regions of the country. That is a decision for the Iraqis. Once the governing council is up and running that will lead into a constitutional process, and Iraqis themselves will make decisions about what they would like to see with respect to the structure that is put in place. We very much see this as being something for Iraqis to decide.
The noble Lord asked about specific areas in which money had been spent by the Department for International Development. The figures have now been placed in the Library. We have spent £8·5 million on health and nutrition, £4 million on water and sanitation, £33·6 million on food, £1·5 million on agriculture, £7 million on power and fuel, and so it goes on. Of that money, UNICEF has been granted
1018
£3·19 million to re-establish immunisation services and £3·2 million to deal with water and sanitation. The United Nations Development Programme has been given £7 million to restore electricity supplies. A considerable amount— £16·5 million—has been given to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and £15·5 million to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society. The UN agencies have a long track record of working in Iraq, particularly on the oil for food programme, but also in other areas. We are very satisfied with the work that they have been doing to restore basic services to Iraq.
Regarding the Ba'athists, the strategy has been clear. The top three layers in any ministry—that is the minister, the deputy minister and the director general—have been removed. Those who have been in senior positions in the party hierarchy have also been removed. However, exemptions can be asked for if any individuals occupy a particular position where it is considered that a service will be unable to be run if that individual were to be removed. That exemption would be considered.
The army are now receiving stipends. It is right that we move immediately to reforming the security sector. We need a police service that is not violent and repressive but sees its role as being to police the community. We also need a revamped Iraqi army and we are involved in developing training for that, as are our Armed Forces. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to respect local services and customs. I also agree that Iraq is a rich country with a well-educated population. That is why Iraqis are so keen to take control of their own situation. I do not agree with the noble Lord that the problems are intractable. We have seen difficult situations in other countries—Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example— but I feel that there are successes we should be proud of. There is no doubt that the security situation remains extremely difficult, not only for coalition forces, but for Iraqis themselves. We have to deal with it and we have to be seen to be dealing with it.
Regarding the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, I agree that the key problem is security. I have made that clear. We saw Saddam Hussein release 75,000 prisoners towards the end of last year, so sabotage plus crime from those criminal elements is having an extraordinary impact. Regarding the timetable, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. It is important for Iraqis to also help set the timetable. We need to make clear that we want to see Iraqis taking control and that that is a process that we are seeking to support. We are not there to occupy Iraq for the long term; we need to communicate that. I agree with the noble Baroness about the need to make sure that those messages are communicated.
Regarding food, 760,000 tonnes of food were distributed by the end of June, reaching around 95 per cent of intended recipients. I shall look at the figures set out by the noble Baroness, but certainly my view from being in Iraq is that the food distribution pipelines were working quite well. Women to whom I

1019
spoke were concerned about the increase in violence towards women and girls. We are trying to ensure that women are actively engaged in the political process.
1.5 p.m.
Lord Maker: My Lords, what arrangements have been made by the Coalition Provisional Authority to broadcast to the Iraqi people, whether by radio or by television, information about current issues and also about the policies of the CPA? If those arrangements have been made, what is their effect?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I discussed that area in some detail, because it is one in which we undoubtedly need to do better. There is now television and some radio. The UN are thinking about establishing a radio station. More and more newspapers are available and the coalition is putting out information, particularly to the newspapers, but also through television and radio channels. But we need to do more with respect to communicating who is responsible for the difficulties that we are seeing in terms of getting back electricity and water, and also communicating some of the significant successes that we have seen, particularly in the south where the security situation has improved enormously, and it has been possible to get basic services up and running again.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Statement. I am sure that others in the House, like myself, are reassured by the firm grip that she has on the situation, and her eye for detail as well as on the general policy.
Will my noble friend reassure us on two points? First, she spoke about the importance of civil police and it was good to hear that that was a priority. However, stability will also require a convincing system of justice administered by the Iraqis themselves. That will be highly expensive to develop. Can we hear more about the resources and arrangements being made to develop an Iraqi-based system of justice?
Secondly, regarding the political regeneration of Iraq—that of course is intimately related to social and economic reconstruction and rehabilitation—does she agree that there is a case for the authority for that process to be as widely based internationally as possible? Those of us who continue to argue for a key role for the UN are not making an ideological point in favour of that organisation, but a practical political point—that if the process is to have acceptability and credibility, not only in Iraq but in the wider world, the wider the degree of international authority for what is being done, the better.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for those questions. Regarding the administration of justice, we are very conscious of the need to take a holistic approach. Courts are being refurbished in Basra and Baghdad; in Basra I met two judges who are already sitting. There is a police station, a prison and a courthouse next to each other, all of which have been refurbished. That means that the justice system can
1020
begin to operate effectively again. We are doing the same in Baghdad, where we are working with our Iraqi counterparts to help to rebuild the capacity of the courts and the prisons. It is a priority for us and we are working with Walt Slocombe, who is directing this on behalf of the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Regarding the role of the UN, I agree with my noble friend that the United Nations has to have a key role in the process. I met Sergio de Mello, who is closely involved in discussions with Iraqis, and Paul Bremmer and John Sawers, who is our personal representative to the CPA. They are discussing these issues with respect to the development of the governing council and the next steps for the constitutional process. The UN is also considering what role it can play in the medium term in putting in place the processes that will allow elections to take place in Iraq. So the UN is playing a key role, but I must also make clear that it has stated that there are limits to its resources and to the support that it can give in other areas. It sees security sector reform as a key area in which it can give support—that is most important—but it does not want to take over the whole process.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, Iraq is rich in cultural and archaeological heritage. However, in the short term, many smaller sites are being looted by criminal elements that have been set free and by people after artefacts that they can sell to feed their families. Is money being provided from her budget or from other budgets to pay for guards for those archaeological sites? Without such guards, those sites will he looted and a long-term, sustainable area of the economy will be lost for ever.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, steps were taken in advance of the conflict to try to ensure that historic and cultural sites were secured. The Ministry of Defence consulted widely with the archaeological community to ensure that. We have been informed that there are guards at the Baghdad museum and that looting is now under control. I recognise the noble Lord's point about some of the smaller sites; I shall get back to him about that, because I cannot say absolutely that every small site has now been provided with security.
More than 40,000 manuscripts and 400 artefacts stolen from the museum have been retrieved. Noble Lords will know that specialists from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the British Museum and elsewhere have gone out to help the Iraqis in that area. One good thing is that a number of items that were thought to have been looted have been returned—or found, because they were found to have been put away for security and safety.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to the security situation, which is obviously serious. The opposition guerrilla war that is now being fought appears to be well organised. Against that background and given that it is obviously an irresistible requirement, if we are to have a general recovery programme, that that security situation is

1021
met, how much progress is being made in bringing other forces to bear? She may have heard the remarks of General McCaffrey, who fought in the previous Gulf War, who expected that American forces would need to be there for a decade. That is a daunting prospect and would certainly require the support of many other countries.
In connection with what is really going on and the media reports, what is happening in the north? We have heard about Baghdad and Basra, but does the noble Baroness have anything to say about what is happening in the Kurdish region?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, other forces are going to participate. For example, as the noble Lord may be aware, the Italians will be joining British forces in the southern region quite soon. A number of countries are now contributing to the coalition effort in a range of ways. I am happy to write to the noble Lord when that information becomes somewhat firmer, especially with respect to possible troop contributions.
With respect to the situation in northern Iraq, we have of course always supported the territorial integrity of Iraq; we have made that absolutely clear. We have welcomed the formation of interim councils in Kirkuk and Mosul, which comprise representation from all ethnic communities. The Kurds are now able to travel freely around Iraq and many of those living in the Kurdish-administered area in the north have for the first time been able to visit friends and family in areas formerly controlled by the Saddam Hussein regime. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that Kurdish officials are able to share their experience of government with their counterparts in Baghdad and other regions for the first time. So there is contact and communication, and we of course hope that that will improve.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, first, I apologise for not being present for the Statement. I was unfortunately delayed and did not make it. Three weeks ago, I spent three days in Iraq as chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. We went to Basra, but I spent a day approximately 100 kilometres north of Basra, in al Amara. We walked about both Basra city and al Amara freely; there was a small contingent with us. People came up to us to say, "Thank you", and, "We are glad you are here". I did not feel personally threatened at all; the atmosphere was relaxed. Our troops are doing a magnificent job out there in a social and civilian sense as well as in their key role.
What came through to me from talking with the young women officers—and, indeed, with some of the men—was concern about the role of women in society. Iraq has traditionally been not a fundamentalist state but a secular country, so the role of women is somewhat different from that in the rest of the Middle East. Their concern was that the view seemed to be gradually creeping in that women should not hold good positions in Iraq. In fact, people of that country saw it themselves, that was not just a Western point of
1022
view. Knowing that my noble friend has that issue at heart, perhaps she will comment on it, because it is of concern to a number of us.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I endorse my noble friend's comments about the situation and the ability to walk around in some parts of the country. Basra was bustling when I was there, which I had not expected. Although the security situation is no doubt difficult, it is important for us to have a balanced view.
My noble friend expressed concern about what is happening to women. She is quite right. I met a group of women representatives of different women's organisations when I was in Baghdad. They were very concerned. They said that it was not so much that anyone was telling women that they had to wear particular clothing, but that a fear was emerging that was leading to women staying at home, not going out, fearful that they would need to cover up. Of course, concern about security does not help that situation.
The other issue raised with me was that there was a perception of increased violence against women—in the home but also in public. We are very concerned about that. We shall have to try to move from what we are hearing anecdotally to obtain some more concrete information and to consider what we can do.
We are working hard to ensure that women are an integral part of the political process. Women have been meeting on a regular basis. A representative from our Women's Unit is in Baghdad, working as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority with women's organisations. There is talk of a small conference later this month, which will lead into a bigger conference that the United Nations, UNIFEM, is hosting in Baghdad in August. At the meetings held with political parties in Baghdad, we have tried to ensure that women are included. I was pleased that at the most recent meetings, at least one woman was present.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, it is nice to hear of the progress being made. However, against the backdrop of the recent murders of British soldiers and the continuing violence against American soldiers, it seems to me that the Statement is rather optimistic. Would the Minister confirm that there is no complacency about the problems that lie ahead of us?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is absolutely no complacency. I was trying very hard to strike a balance in the Statement and show the very real concern that I, the Government and the CPA have about the security situation. I was also trying to give noble Lords a sense of the progress that has been made. I feel that some of what we are seeing is very negative. I want noble Lords to have a more balanced picture. This in no way indicates that we are complacent, or that there is not a very serious recognition on the part of the coalition that a great deal more needs to be done.
We have to deal with the perception beginning to emerge among the Iraqi people that things were perhaps better before. Everybody I met is absolutely delighted that Saddam Hussein is gone. However, if basic services are not up and running and there is no

1023
water and electricity and day-to-day life is becoming a real drudge, people begin to ask questions such as, "Were we perhaps better off before?". That is because we all crave order and discipline in our lives.
I would like to assure noble Lords that I and other members of the Government will continue to be seized of the situation. As regards resources, we need to provide not only money but also expertise; that is, people who have experience of working in developing countries and experience in implementing programmes on the ground. As I said, security sector reform will be an absolute priority for us.
Baroness Crawley: 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 1.22 p.m. to 3 p.m.]

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Belfast on Tuesday, 8th July? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Drugs: Vulnerable Children
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwenasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many children they estimate to be living with parents who misuse drugs, and what account they will take of the recent report Hidden Harm from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs estimates that some 90,000 to 130,000 children are living with a problem drug user. The council's report recognises some of the good work being undertaken to tackle drug problems and to protect vulnerable children, but also that more needs to be done. The Government have already increased by 23 per cent this year the pooled budgets available to drug action teams, which has improved access to treatment services for pregnant women and parents. The Department of Health is working with other departments on what further action is required.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. Is he aware that under these dreadful circumstances it is often the grandparents who end up taking care of the children? What kind of
1024
support, financial or otherwise, can grandparents expect to receive, and how are they made aware of their rights?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that grandparents are a major source of support for young children in these circumstances. Around 50 per cent of the children whose parents were included in the advisory council's report were living elsewhere with family members or friends. Grandparents comprised the main family members looking after those children. The report highlights examples of local schemes that help the children of drug users and provide support for families, including grandparents. I am sure that, in her capacity as chair of the National Treatment Agency, my noble friend will encourage an extension of such schemes.
The Government will be taking forward improved support for all friend and family carers of children in these circumstances through its "Choice Protects" review, which was announced last year.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, what is being done about the barriers to parents with drug problems seeking treatment? For example, parents fear that their children may be taken away from them and there is a lack of residential mother and baby units for drug treatment and rehabilitation.
Lord Warner: My Lords, clearly, some parents in these circumstances will be worried about the removal of their children, but social services do have a responsibility to protect children. We are aware that support is required and, as I said in my earlier Answer, the Government are putting a lot more money into the pooled budgets of drug action teams which will improve access to treatment services for parents with drug problems.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend said that the Government are expanding the facilities for dealing with parents with drug problems. Can he tell us how many residential rehabilitation centres are in operation around the country which have facilities for mothers and children? Does he not agree that this is an area to which the Government should give priority?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I cannot give the exact numbers, but the Government are putting more money into treatment services at all levels; that is, from the primary level up to tier 4 services. However, I shall be happy to write to my noble friend with details of the exact number of centres.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if the parents are injecting drug users, is enough help being provided as regards hepatitis B and C? What counselling services are available if those parents test positive, and even if they are not positive, how are they counselled before they are tested?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that she has strayed a little

1025
wide of the terms of this particular Question. I shall have to write to her with a detailed response on that issue.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell me how the educational needs of children whose parents are drug addicts are met? So far as I can recall, very often those children do not get to school.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Department for Education and Skills issued a government consultation draft entitled "Drugs: Guidance for Schools", which emphasised the importance of having a designated member of staff responsible for co-ordinating the school's response to drugs. It is also a key requirement of the national healthy schools standard to have a designated drug education co-ordinator. Moreover, training is available to support teachers in this particular role.
Ultimately, there is also the potential for social services to intervene. When a carer needs support and services for a child, in particular when problems are being encountered that centre on going to school, the carer can approach social services and sometimes voluntary organisations can help in this area.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the Minister indicate how uniform are local authorities in meeting the needs of children within the families being discussed?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not think that I can paint a national picture on this area by area, but we know that a growing number of local support services are being put in place for relatives as carers of children in the circumstances of this Question. A number of local authorities come to mind which have particularly strong support arrangements: Plymouth has had a support service since 1999; there are dedicated workers in Hampshire and Wandsworth, which are also using family group conferences to help families make the best decisions for those children who cannot remain with their birth parents.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this is largely a problem to be tackled locally? When the noble Lord writes to his noble friend with the details of those schemes which have central government support, can he make them more intelligible by revealing the location of those schemes? I do not mean that he should list them individually, but can he set out what criteria are used to ensure that these resources are put within reach of the people who need them?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government provide general guidance, but it is for local authorities to provide the responses because they have statutory responsibility in these areas. Of course their work is
1026
inspected under the various inspectorates. However, I shall take heed of the points made by the noble Lord in my response.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the invaluable support provided to many children's homes, foster carer groups and schools catering for such children's complex needs by way of appropriately trained mental health professionals? Can he tell us what progress is being made towards making available that kind of highly skilled consultation to parents and carers working with these children?
Lord Warner: My Lords, believe it or not, we do not collect in Richmond House all the details of these consultations but, from my previous involvement in other work, I can say to the noble Earl that much is being done to expand the development of child and adolescent mental health services. As I recollect, the Government are putting into that area a 10 per cent increase over three years. I am sure that that will produce many of the kinds of services to which the noble Earl has referred.

War Graves: Pilckem Ridge Road Plan
3.9 p.m.
Lord Faulknerof Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in light of the results of the current archaeological excavations on the Pilckem Ridge battlefield, they will encourage the Government of Belgium to revise their plans for the extension of the A19 motorway across the Ypres Salient.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government continue to take a close interest in these proposals. However, the Belgian authorities are experienced and sensitive in dealing with the issues raised by such a project, including both the selection of the route and the handling of any remains discovered during the course of civil engineering work. They also have a good record of co-operation with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in dealing with war graves. The commission is watching developments carefully and is confident that it will be consulted at each stage by the relevant authorities.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will recall that he answered a similar Question which I tabled on this subject on 2Ist January last year when plans for the proposed road first came to public attention. Is he aware that the excavations carried out by a joint Belgian-British team under the direction of the Flemish authorities have been extraordinarily successful? They have unearthed a wealth of artefacts which have produced a unique picture of what life in the World War One trenches was like. Taking that into account, and in view of the fact that two bodies of

1027
soldiers, one French and one British, have already been found as a result of those excavations—and it is certain that many thousands more lie in the path of the proposed Al9 road if it were built—will he do his best to persuade the Belgian authorities that they should re-route the road?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware that the archaeology in this area has been very successful. I pay warm tribute to the All-Party Parliamentary War Graves and Battlefield Heritage Group—of which my noble friend is chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, is vice-chairman—for the pressure it successfully applied to get the archaeology started and for the pressure it continues to apply to the relative authorities in this area. Any decision making will be for the Flemish regional government in consultation with the Belgian national government. The British Government will consider what role to play should it be necessary to do so.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks about the all-party war graves body. Can he assure the House that he will take the same attitude with regard to France? We are talking about Belgium at the moment but there will be many instances of roadbuilding and other developments in France where we will need the same kind of assistance from the Government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that reassurance. I am happy to say that, as we understand it, the latest French proposal to build a third airport for Paris in the area of the Somme—an issue raised previously by my noble friend—is, I choose my words carefully, in abeyance.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister considering a review of archaeological practices in regard to excavations on sites containing the remains of British service personnel? Further—although this may go a little wide of Belgium—is a review taking place in regard to HMS "Sussex" and whether proper practice has been followed? The remains of British service personnel will be recovered from that site if proper excavation techniques are undertaken. It is slightly worrying that a salvage operation is taking place in an area where lie the bodies of British service personnel.
Lord Bach: My Lords, some might say that the noble Lord's question goes slightly wide of the original Question. I shall not say that. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that military historians will be hoping that important features on the Ypres battlefields can be preserved, as will the families of those who were engaged in the fierce fighting on this vital part of the British front in World War One?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of the historical importance of the
1028
dreadful amount of killing that occurred on this battlefield. In 1915, as I understand it, 200,000 men of Kitchener's volunteer army were killed within 14 days. With this patch of land continuing to lie between the two sides, in 1917 in an offensive lasting 100 days—the figures are staggering—400,000 to 450,000 British soldiers were killed. The noble Lord can rest assured that the historical aspects of the issue will be kept well in mind.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion and as one, doubtless of a great many noble Lords, for whose kinsmen of an earlier generation the Pilckem Ridge battlefield was their final resting place. Is my noble friend aware that this issue is of considerable concern to the ex-service community as a whole? Is any ministerial visit to the excavations in prospect—I speak having recently been there—to see their scale of importance? And can the Government consider supporting efforts to make them a world heritage site?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know whether a ministerial visit is forthcoming. If the noble Lord is inviting me, I shall of course accept. As to the second part of his question, we are aware that a proposal is currently being considered by the Flemish regional government to apply to UNESCO to have all the Great War battlefields in Belgium—not only this one—listed as world heritage sites. I cannot commit the British Government so far as the noble Lord's proposal is concerned, but I dare say that we will be sympathetic.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that understanding the topography of a battlefield can be essential to historians in understanding what took place there? Does he further agree that although that interest can never be paramount, neither is it negligible? To assess it, it is necessary to weigh it against any loss of money and time in preserving the record. Does he agree that t o outweigh the loss of 2,000 lives the saving would have to be considerable?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with all the sentiments that I am asked to agree to by the noble Earl. He is absolutely right. As someone who lives between Market Bosworth battlefield and Naseby battlefield, I certainly agree with him.

Iraq
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with the other occupying powers and the United Nations in establishing a stable and democratic government in Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the shared aim of the coalition and the United Nations is to facilitate a representative Iraqi Government based on the rule of law as soon as possible. The coalition has organised two conferences—the first in Nasariyah, the second in Baghdad—and, with the UN, is intensively consulting a broad range of Iraqis on ideas to move the political process forward. These include establishing a governing council and a constitutional convention. We hope that these will be in place soon.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does she accept that there is growing unease that the brilliant military campaign which destroyed the dictatorship was not matched by a realistic plan for the future and that that has created a dangerous situation? But we are where we are. We cannot pull out. We are condemned to succeed. In that context, does the Minister accept that, even if we and other countries were willing, we could not solve the problem simply by piling in more troops? Following on from what she said in her Answer, can she say when Iraqis of substance in their community and communities will take charge of key civilian agencies and ministries in that country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I accept that there is a good deal of comment about there being unease. However, it is unrealistic to expect the coalition to put right in two months what has gone wrong over the previous 30 years. It is not only a case of what happened during the conflict but of not having the institutions in the country over a very long period. The noble Lord asked how we are moving forward. The governing council, which it is hoped will be in place during the course of July, will have, we hope, advisory powers while working with the coalition and the United Nations, and powers to appoint Ministers, to oversee the running of ministries and to set up commissions to review the cross-cutting issues such as justice reform and education. That is on the governing council side.
We hope that later in the month—probably towards the end of July—there will be a constitutional convention comprising 100 to 200 Iraqis, which will be charged with drafting a new constitution. Its members will be chosen from a wide range of groups in Iraq—Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians—and we wish to ensure that women will also participate. So there will be two big staging posts, we hope, this month—first, slightly earlier, the governing council; and then, by the end of the month, we hope to have in place the constitutional convention.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a difficult issue between choosing Iraqis who will participate in this process and Iraqis choosing for themselves the people who will participate in this process? It is a difficult issue, to which there is probably no completely satisfactory answer. But in these circumstances, does my noble friend agree that
1030
this is exactly why maximum global international authority for what is going on is essential so that it cannot be said that this is manipulation by the occupying powers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that it is enormously important to have the broadest possible base. The noble Lord puts it very well: who does the choosing? That is why there was the first conference in Nasariyah and then the one in Baghdad. That is why there has been a women's meeting, with some 40 women drawn together to have their say about this. But I think that what the noble Lord is getting at is the role of the United Nations. I am happy to tell him that Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello has indicated to John Sawers, the United Kingdom's representative, that he is very supportive of the coalition's plans and that our plans have broad support among Iraqis. That is a very important point. Kofi Annan's representative staff have been involved in the recent consultations, and he believes that they are going well. It is very important that Iraqi people feel that they have real ownership of this process.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, given the importance of education in the establishment of civilised values, although I know these are early days, can the Government say whether the United States is yet involving USIS in Iraq'? What plans do the Government have, in due course, for the British Council to return to the admirable role that it undertook in Mosul, Baghdad and Basra where, even at the present time, a Shia majority in the country could respond to British Council initiatives?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course education is an enormously important part of the process with regard to education of young children and cultural activities. We believe that about 90 per cent of Iraqi children have been able to return to school. But there is a real problem about education aids: the books used are written from a Ba'athist perspective and we do not wish to see their continued use in schools. So there is an enormous amount of groundwork to be done.
The noble Lord asks what further plans there are for the return of the British Council. Security on the ground would have to improve greatly before that could happen. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has returned from Iraq and my noble friend the Secretary of State for International Development has also recently returned. From their reports, it is clear that it is still very early days. I agree with the noble Lord that we must set our sights on the future, and those are the sort of things that we want to aim for, but there is a little more groundwork to be done first.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry, but we have overrun the time.

DNA Database
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of Northeskasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the national DNA database complies with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, it fully complies with the Act. The chief scientist of the Forensic Science Service is the custodian of the national DNA database under a memorandum of understanding with the Association of Chief Police Officers. DNA samples are collected from suspects and the personal data derived from them are loaded by the FSS on to the database. As an executive agency of the Home Office, processing of personal data by the FSS is within the Home Office notification to the Information Commissioner.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Will she accept that I have no wish to underplay in any way the importance of DNA evidence as a potent weapon against crime? That said, is it really possible to square the fifth data principle, that:
"Personal data … shall not be kept for longer than is necessary"
with the proposition, as I understand it, advanced by the Home Secretary, that the police should have the power to take and retain indefinitely DNA samples from anybody who has been arrested and not just, as currently, those charged with an offence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we would say that it is. Noble Lords will know that there is a balance to he struck: they will also be aware that it has been possible for us to identify the perpetrators of crimes committed many years ago with the benefit of DNA samples taken recently. For example, a person was stopped for shoplifting a very small amount; the DNA sample indicated that, 25 years previously, he had been responsible for a series of sexual assaults. We believe it is critical evidence which is of great use to the public.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was present at the Police Foundation lecture last week in memory of my noble friend John Harris, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at which the Home Secretary stated that there were now over 2 million DNA profiles on the database. Does that figure actually represent people convicted of a criminal offence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the data are collected from those who have been charged and those who have been convicted, and I cannot tell him how many people fall into either category. It is only very recently that we have been able to retain samples taken from those who have not been convicted but who have been charged and prosecuted in relation to offences. It is true to say,
1032
however, that data collected in that way has been used to identify subsequent offences which have led to successful definitive convictions.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, what is the position in relation to those who have been arrested but later not charged?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that it is being proposed that those samples will be retained so that they can be used in due course should they be necessary in relation to comparative samples. That proposal will have to be debated. When this matter came before the House, there was a question in relation to where the balance between public good and personal privacy should be struck. We have said very clearly that this is an implement which can be used to free people as well as to identify the perpetrators of wrongdoing. Those who have committed no offence need fear nothing from the retention.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not true that there is overwhelming support for such a policy in the country, particularly in areas where there is crime?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is certainly true that the public are very anxious that those who can properly be identified as the perpetrators of crime should be so identified. Indeed, there is a very interesting document that I am very happy to put into the Library produced by the Forensic Science Service called Case Closed: 50 years of DNA—a gallery of cases involving DNA profiling, which demonstrates the utility of this procedure.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, is it not fair to remind the House that the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill contained a provision that retrospectively legalised the 50,000 or so illegal retentions of fingerprints and DNA samples? At the time, a great many of your Lordships felt that that was an improper way to proceed, but none the less, it became law. Can the Minister assure the House that, given public anxiety about these databases and that piece of history, the present collection and retention of DNA samples and fingerprints is strictly in accordance with the current law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly assure noble Lords that that is the position. Of course we are, as we have already said, going to debate more fully the issue of whether we should now be able to retain all the samples so obtained. However, I can certainly assure your Lordships that everything we have is in accordance with the rules and has been applied quite properly.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the national DNA database is in fact open to Interpol, Europol and other European criminal investigative organisations, and indeed, outside Europe,

1033
to American law enforcement agencies? What safeguards are there, particularly in relation to the unconvicted on the database?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, requests for a search of the national DNA database are channelled through the Interpol London Persons Desk. Those are processed only where it is clear that the request is in the interests of the prevention and detection of crime, national security or the data subject. Only a one-off speculative search of the database is made and information fed back via Interpol. A risk assessment on the dissemination of this information is then made, and the risk assessment will consider the justification and proportionality of the disclosure of the information. That does not tend to pose a problem with our other partners, the EEA countries, where similar DPA and human rights principles apply. All proper safeguards are put in place to ensure that this information is used properly and in accordance with the criteria that I have just outlined.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
3.32 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
"ROAD TRAFFIC: TESTING FOR DRINK AND DRUGS
Schedule (Road traffic: testing for drink and drugs) shall have effect."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"THE NATIONAL TRAILS
(1) In the interest of public health and safety, subsections (2) to (4) shall have effect.
(2) The Secretary of State shall within one year from the coming into force of this enactment make a permanent Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit the use of non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles on the National Trails.
(3) Non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles shall mean all such vehicles but shall not include those driven by individuals with an estate or interest in land adjoining the Trail or their lawful visitors or emergency vehicles.
(4) A Traffic Regulation Order shall mean an order as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and as subsequently amended."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 requires the Secretary of State to place a permanent traffic regulation order on national trails—routes such as the Ridgeway—which are designed primarily to provide access to the countryside and quiet recreation, particularly for those on foot, on horseback and on bicycles. These routes are unfortunately increasingly being used by off-road 4X4
1034
vehicles which are causing extensive damage to the surface. Environmental problems result in the form of damage to local flora and fauna. There is also the issue of amenity and the quiet use of these routes. However, as this is a safety Bill, I shall say no more now about those aspects.
However, damage to the surface does render the routes dangerous for other users. They become slippery during wet weather and rutted during dry weather. Indeed, I have anecdotal evidence of people who find that they cannot use the Ridgeway on foot, horseback or bicycle and have to go on to the local road network for part of their journey. That is clearly nonsensical.
As a county councillor in Suffolk I have chaired the rights of way committee for the past decade. I therefore have practical experience of just how difficult it is to deal with the problem of 4X4 vehicles on our public rights of way. Local authorities are able to use traffic regulation orders, but these are bureaucratic, time consuming and very expensive. In the case of the national trails, it is necessary for large numbers of local authorities to co-ordinate and develop together an approach that works along the whole route. Frankly, at the moment that is not working.
It seems to me that we have no trouble segregating walkers and cyclists from cars on the rest of the highway network. We provide cycleways and footways. Yet on ancient routes such as the Ridgeway we seem to think it acceptable for vehicles to share the way with walkers, cyclists and riders. I suggest that that does not make much sense at all.
So while generally having a slight abhorrence of any kind of centralising tendency, in the case of national trails I suggest that it would make much more sense to have the Secretary of State make an order for the whole of the trail network. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I from memory—thank God not quite from painful memory—confirm that what my noble friend says about danger is true?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. Indeed, I supported the noble Baroness both in Committee and at Report stage. The Minister has tried to be helpful in his answers. He understands the issues and problems in relation to the Ridgeway and other national trails. Indeed, it was the Government who invented the name and concept of national trails; previously we had only the name Ridgeway and the names of various other routes.
I declare an interest as I have done previously. I walk the Ridgeway most weekends. There is a voluntary code on the Ridgeway that bans cars and motorbikes at weekends. On Sunday morning, however, I was passed by 43 motorbikes all in a row. That represents a big safety problem as none of the motorbikes that passed me, all of which were off-roaders, were licensed. If they are not licensed, presumably they are not insured. If there were an accident, there would therefore be a problem. The people operating those

1035
vehicles do not think they are on a road. They say, "We can be here because it is a road", but they have met none of the requirements necessary to be on the road.
It is a problem within government. Although the Department for Transport, the Countryside Agency and the local authorities understand the problem, they are not moving at the same speed and sometimes not in exactly the same direction. Various local authorities are attempting to designate specific areas, but the attempts are not joined up. There may be local authority restrictions in some areas, but those could end a mile or so down the Ridgeway. The restrictions are therefore unenforceable. We do not want the problem solved on some parts of the Ridgeway but not on others. That would not work; it would bring chaos. The churning up of these ancient routes would accelerate.
I recognise that the Minister has tried to be helpful. However, there is a time problem between his former department, the Department for Transport, and the Countryside Agency. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, will press her amendment. The amendment would give the department time to make progress with the Countryside Agency. The problem is that it has not had time to make sufficient progress in reaching a workable relationship with the agency. When the Bill returns to another place, as it will have to do because of our amendments, the department may be able to offer a satisfactory result. Perhaps the Government will offer their own amendment or accept the noble Baroness's amendment. The Minister has been as helpful as he can but there is a logjam in the department. I believe that the amendment will enable the department to think again, to make some progress and to come back to Parliament with a solution. I strongly support it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I stayed in the debate only when I heard the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I simply wish to endorse what my noble friend has said from the Front Bench. I walk along the same Ridgeway, although a few miles further along, as my noble friend. I endorse that there is not only a nuisance but a considerable danger arising from this situation. I put in the Minister's mind the thought that if these 40 motorcycles were unlicensed, can he be confident that they did not cross any of the roads which intersect the Ridgeway? If so, what would happen to the safety of other people involved in an accident with an uninsured motorcycle?
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. Indeed, I put my name to similar amendments at previous stages of the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is similar to that of earlier amendments about pedestrians and cyclists. These proposals deal with the right of pedestrians and cyclists not to be subjected to nuisance or danger certainly in some parts of the country road and trail network.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, talked about 4X4s on the Ridgeway. I believe there were 43 of them. Of
1036
course, those drivers are not worried about pedestrians or cyclists are they? They are in their nice little tin boxes, uninsured and probably untaxed. They frighten people off.
It is pleasing to be told by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that pedestrians and cyclists are segregated on the highways. Sometimes they are, especially in towns. However, there are many roads in this country where there is no segregation for cyclists or pedestrians and walking on them is severely dangerous. It is perfectly reasonable that, occasionally, on such important paths as national trails, pedestrians and cyclists should have the right to enjoy them unimpeded by the nuisance and, most importantly, the danger. There is the added fear that, should they get hurt, they are unlikely to receive compensation, even if they could catch the person responsible because such people would not be insured and there would be no record of who they were.
The amendment is a good one. The problem has been around for many years. This seems the ideal opportunity to finally force the various departments involved to come up with a workable arrangement. I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, have acknowledged that we take this issue very seriously. As they know, I have facilitated meetings between them and Alun Michael, the Minister for Rural Affairs. I agree very strongly with all that they say about the condition of the Ridgeway in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has shown me photographs. I happen to walk on Hampstead Heath rather than the Ridgeway, so I do not experience those problems personally. However, I have no doubt that this is an issue involving danger as well as amenity, so I do not criticise the amendment in that way.
I have serious problems, however, with the amendment. It is technically deficient, but, much more importantly, I believe it to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 already provides for the Secretary of State to make traffic regulation orders in relation to special areas of the countryside—including long distance routes--in the interests of conserving or enhancing their natural beauty, and affording better opportunities to enjoy their amenities for recreation or study. If the proposed amendment were agreed, it would override to an uncertain extent the existing provisions of Section 22 in relation to long-distance routes.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, decides what to do about the amendment, I invite her to consider the extent to which the Section 22 powers could be used and to join me in urging that they should be used for this purpose. However, there is a profound difference between the Section 22 powers and what is proposed in the amendment. When a traffic regulation order is proposed under Section 22 powers, the procedures allow an opportunity for objections and, if necessary, a public inquiry before an

1037
independent inspector. We have a very serious problem with the proposed new clause because it would require the Secretary of State to make an order without any opportunity for objections or debate. I am sorry to say that we believe it to be incompatible with the ECHR.
As I said, the amendment is also technically deficient because it contains no definition of a national trail. It affords no opportunity for objections to be made to the proposed traffic regulation order, and it fails to recognise the existence of Section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It would extinguish long-standing public vehicular rights without any opportunity for objections to be heard. We believe that it is important for all sides to have an opportunity to put their views before a decision is taken on any traffic regulation order. Procedures should not be curtailed simply because they are inconvenient from the point of view of the desired end, even when I, and my colleagues in the Government, agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about the desired end.
We are talking about the Ridgeway in particular. The Government accept that its western section is infested with recreational vehicular use which results in damage to the surface and causes annoyance, inconvenience and danger to pedestrian users. The Countryside Agency, in partnership with the local highway authorities, is addressing those problems.
The Countryside Agency is drawing up a business plan for the Ridgeway which envisages a strategy of selective use of traffic regulation orders in combination with repairs to those parts that have been damaged. Funding for that work will be provided by the agency. If local authorities indicate that they are not prepared to make the required traffic regulation orders, the Secretary of State can exercise his powers to do so under the provisions of Section 22 of the 1984 Act. I am sure that there will be contact between the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Countryside Agency on that point.
We are prepared to look again at the traffic regulation order procedures to see if they can be simplified as part of our reform of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. We would welcome any suggestions that noble Lords may have about changes, but they must recognise that people have a right to be heard if their interests may be affected by a traffic regulation order.
This is not the last opportunity for this matter to be debated. It is well known that the Department for Transport is working on proposals for wider traffic management regulation, which will be taken forward at the earliest opportunity, subject to the normal pressures on the legislative programme. Legislation on banning non-essential vehicles from national trails would fit much more naturally there than in this Bill, which I am sure your Lordships are anxious to see.
We should give the Countryside Agency's management plan for the Ridgeway a chance before rushing to legislate, especially as there are already
1038
appropriate powers on the statute book. Also, the amendment as drafted—although it cannot be undrafted or redrafted at this stage of consideration in the House—is profoundly defective in respect of flouting, although flouting implies intention, so perhaps I should say conflict with the ECHR.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I accept the notion that the amendment is not entirely satisfactorily drafted. However, if the amendment were agreed today the Government would have the opportunity of redrafting it in another place and it could be returned to us in a style that would please everybody, including the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a very dangerous argument—that this House should pass a measure that contains elements we know to be unsatisfactory and in conflict with the ECHR. We should have enough pride in our proceedings to send a Bill back to the House of Commons which is correct. I believe that those who have a respect for the relationship between the two Houses and a respect for the European convention—however strongly they feel about the issue, as do I—should not agree to this amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister seriously claiming that it is a fundamental human right to be able to drive a four-wheel drive vehicle along a bridleway for fun—not to get to one's place of business, but simply for fun? I find that hard to believe.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am saying that when one extinguishes long-standing vehicular rights—because nobody has disputed that those rights are long-standing—there has to be an opportunity to object and the possibility of appeal to an independent tribunal. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, of all people—because he is a libertarian—would agree with that proposition.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported me in this amendment—not only today, but in previous stages of the Bill. I am gratified to hear from the Minister that he supports the intention behind the amendment even if he is not able to support the amendment itself. That means that we do not have to spend any more time on the substance but can concentrate on the procedure.
We are in this situation because our rights of way law is outdated. We have a law that allows vehicular use on those routes. Three years ago, noble Lords tried hard to get changes to the law when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill was going through your Lordships' House. The Government resisted at that point, so I find it difficult to accept that the amendment is premature and that we should wait for further legislation in the future. Noble Lords have been patient on the matter. More to the point, the people who live and use the routes have been very patient, even though they are being endangered.

1039
I make no claim to he an expert on human rights legislation or on the procedures of the House. I admit that the amendment does not contain requirements for public consultation, inquiries and so on, but, if the Government were minded to accept to accept it, they could build such things into guidance—they need not be in the Bill—or they could accept the principle and, as the noble Viscount suggested, move an amendment that was more suitable in their eyes, when the Bill reached another place.
I will not accept lectures from anyone on my commitment to human rights or to consultation. My record in Suffolk bears testament to that. However, there are clear examples here of how people's lives are being endangered, besides the question of the recreation and amenity of people who wish to use the routes. I am not happy, therefore, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ezra, L.

Alderdice, L.

Falkland, V.

Astor, V.

Feldman, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Attlee, E.

Fookes, B.

Avebury, L.

Freeman, L.

Barker, B.

Glentoran, L.

Berkeley, L.

Goodhart, L.

Biffen, L.

Greaves, L.

Blackwell, L.

Greenway, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hamwee, B.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Hanham, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Burnham, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hogg, B.

Byford, B.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Hooson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Howe, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Jacobs, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kilclooney, L.

Colwyn, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Laird, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Luke, L.

Cuckney, L.

Lyell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Denham, L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Marlesford, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elles, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Methuen, L.

Elton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

1040

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Moynihan, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Newby, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Noakes, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Northesk, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Northover, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Swinfen, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Taverne, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Taylor of warwick, L.

Palmer, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller]

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Razzall, L.

Tope, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rennard, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Vinson, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Waddington, L.

Russell, E.

Wakeham, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Saatchi, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sandberg, L.

Walmsley, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.[Teller]

Watson of Richmond, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gale, B.

Amos, B.

Gavron, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Andrews, B.

Gilbert, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Golding, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Bach, L.

Goudie, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Billingham, B.

Harrison, L.

Borrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Brennan, L.

Hayman, B.

Brett, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Brookman, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jeger, B.

Carter, L.

Judd, L

Chan, L.

Layard, L.

Chandos, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Christopher, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McCarthy, L.

Crawley, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Croham, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Marsh, L

Desai, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Parekh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Paul, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rea, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Filkin, L.

Rooker, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

1041

Sawyer, L.

Uddin, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Warner, L.

Sewel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Sheldon, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Simon, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Slim, V.

Whitaker, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Turnberg, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"OPERATING CENTRES
In section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23) (determination of applications) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
"(dd) in permitting goods vehicles operators to establish an operating centre the Traffic Commissioner is satisfied that the Centre is available, suitable and of sufficient capacity and must take into account the suitability of the local road network for the establishment of such a centre.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House for long. We have previously discussed the question of operating centres and the Minister wrote to me on the subject and sent me a copy of the traffic commissioner's report, for which I thank him. We will not divide the House on this matter although I would have done if time had allowed, but it does not. However, I give him notice that we do not believe that the use of traffic orders is appropriate or that the police have anything like sufficient numbers of officers to enforce them. When the amendments to the Road Traffic Act, to which he referred, are considered by the department, it should turn its attention away from traffic orders to a more useful form of amendment, whereby when an operating centre licence is granted and access is agreed to the road network, the traffic commissioner should be permitted to take into account whether the road is suitable. Will the noble Lord seriously consider that suggestion? As a specialist, he knows what sort of vehicles are likely to use it and he can set the sort of operating parameters that are more suitable to that centre. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, chose not to argue the case for the amendment because I have great difficulty with it as drafted. I do not believe that it meets his own concerns. He asked me for an assurance that when the issue of traffic regulation orders is considered, those issues should be taken into account. I can certainly give him that assurance.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
After Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—
"ROAD TRAFFIC:TESTING FOR DRINK AND DRUGS
1 For section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (testing for drink or drugs) substitute—
"6 POWER TO ADMINISTER PRELIMINARY TESTS
(1) If any of subsections (2) to (5) applies a constable may require a person to co-operate with any one or more preliminary tests administered to the person by that constable or another constable.
(2) This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a) is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b) has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug.

(3) This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a) has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while having alcohol or a drug in his body or while unfit to drive because of a drug, and

(b) still has alcohol or a drug in his body or is still under the influence of a drug.

(4) This subsection applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person—

(a) is or has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b) has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion.

(5) This subsection applies if—

(a) an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and

(b) a constable reasonably believes that the person was driving, attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident.

(6) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposed under this section.
(7) A constable may administer a preliminary test by virtue of any of subsections (2) to (4) only if he is in uniform.
(8) In this section—

(a) a reference to a preliminary test is to any of the tests described in sections 6A to 6C, and

(b) "traffic offence" means an offence under—

(i) a provision of Part II of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14),

(ii) a provision of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27),

(iii) a provision of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) other than a provision of Part III, or

(iv) a provision of this Act other than a provision of Part V.

6A PRELIMINARY BREATH TEST
(1) A preliminary breath test is a procedure whereby the person to whom the test is administered provides a specimen of breath to be used for the purpose of obtaining, by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State, an indication whether the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath or blood is likely to exceed the prescribed limit.
(2) A preliminary breath test administered in reliance on section 6(2) to (4) may be administered only at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed.
(3) A preliminary breath test administered in reliance on section 6(5) may be administered—

(a) at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or

(b) if the constable who imposes the requirement thinks it expedient, at a police station specified by him.

6B PRELIMINARY IMPAIRMENT TEST
(1) A preliminary impairment test is a procedure whereby the constable administering the test—

(a) observes the person to whom the test is administered in his performance of tasks specified by the constable, and

(b) makes such other observations of the person's physical state as the constable thinks expedient.

(2) The Secretary of State shall issue (and may from time to time revise) a code of practice about—

(a) the kind of task that may be specified for the purpose of a preliminary impairment test,

(b) the kind of observation of physical state that may be made in the course of a preliminary impairment test,

(c) the manner in which a preliminary impairment test should be administered, and

(d) the inferences that may be drawn from observations made in the course of a preliminary impairment test.

(3) In issuing or revising the code of practice the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that a preliminary impairment test is designed to indicate—

(a) whether a person is unfit to drive, and

(b) if he is, whether or not his unfitness is likely to be due to drink or drugs.

(4) A preliminary impairment test may be administered—

(a) at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or

(b) if the constable who imposes the requirement thinks it expedient, at a police station specified by him.

(5) A constable administering a preliminary impairment test shall have regard to the code of practice under this section.
(6) A constable may administer a preliminary impairment test only if he is approved for that purpose by the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs.
(7) A code of practice under this section may include provision about—

(a) the giving of approval under subsection (6), and

(b) in particular, the kind of training that a constable should have undergone, or the kind of qualification that a constable should possess, before being approved under that subsection.

6C PRELIMINARY DRUG TEST
(1) A preliminary drug test is a procedure by which a specimen of sweat or saliva is—

(a) obtained, and

(b) used for the purpose of obtaining, by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State, an indication whether the person to whom the test is administered has a drug in his body.

(2) A preliminary drug test may be administered—

(a) at or near the place where the requirement to co-operate with the test is imposed, or

(b) if the constable who imposes the requirement thinks it expedient, at a police station specified by him.

6D ARREST
(1) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if as a result of a preliminary breath test the constable reasonably suspects that the proportion of alcohol in the person's breath or blood exceeds the prescribed limit.
(2) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—

(a) the person fails to co-operate with a preliminary test in pursuance of a requirement imposed under section 6, and

(b) the constable reasonably suspects that the person has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug.

(3) A person may not be arrested under this section while at a hospital as a patient.
6E POWER OF ENTRY
(1) A constable may enter any place (using reasonable force if necessary) for the purpose of—

(a) imposing a requirement by virtue of section 6(5) following an accident in a case where the constable reasonably suspects that the accident involved injury of any person, or

(b) arresting a person under section 6D following an accident in a case where the constable reasonably suspects that the accident involved injury of any person.

(2) This section—

(a) does not extend to Scotland, and

(b) is without prejudice to any rule of law or enactment about the right of a constable in Scotland to enter any place."

2 In section 7(3) of that Act (provision of specimen for analysis) after the word "or" after subsection (bb) insert —
"(bc) as a result of the administration of a preliminary drug test, the constable making the requirement has reasonable cause to believe that the person required to provide a specimen of blood or urine has a drug in his body, or".
3 In section 9(1) of that Act (protection for hospital patients)—

(a) for "to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test" substitute "to co-operate with a preliminary test", and

(b) in paragraph (a), for "it shall be for the provision of a specimen at the hospital" substitute "it shall be for co-operation with a test administered, or for the provision of a specimen, at the hospital".

4 In section 10(1) of that Act (detention of persons affected by alcohol or drugs) in subsection (1) after "a person required" insert "under section 7 or 7A".
5 In section 11 of that Act (interpretation)—

(a) in subsection (2), omit the definition of "breath test", and

(b) in subsection (3) for "A person does not provide a specimen of breath for a breath test or for analysis unless the specimen" substitute "A person does not co-operate with a preliminary test or provide a specimen of breath for analysis unless his co-operation or the specimen".

6 In section 184(1)(f) of that Act (application of sections 5 to 10 to military personnel) for "in section 6(1) the reference to a traffic offence" substitute "in section 6 a reference to a traffic offence".
7 In Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (offences to which certain provisions apply), in the entry for section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) for the description of the general nature of the offence substitute "Failing to co?operate with a preliminary test".
8 In Schedule 2 to that Act (prosecution and punishment of offenders), in the entry for section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) for the description of the general nature of the offence substitute "Failing to co-operate with a preliminary test".
9 In section 34A(1D)(a) of the Army Act 1955 (c. 18) (testing for drugs) for sub-paragraph (i) substitute—

1045
"(i) any provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52),".
10 In section 34A(1D)(a) of the Air Force Act 1955 (c. 19) (testing for drugs) for sub-paragraph (i) substitute—
"(i) any provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52),".
11 In section 12A(1D)(a) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53) (testing for drugs) for sub-paragraph (i) substitute—
"(1) any provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52),".
12 In section 34(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (arrest) for "section 6(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988" substitute "section 6D of the Road Traffic Act 1988".
13 In section 32(8)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2001 (c. 19) (testing for drink or drugs) for sub-paragraph (i) substitute—
"(i) any provision of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52),"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 75, line 8, at end insert—

"Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

In section 11(2), the definition of "breath test"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF A CERTAIN COMMONS AMENDMENT NOT INSISTED UPON, COMMONS INSISTENCE UPON A CERTAIN COMMONS AMENDMENT AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO
[The page and line refer to Bill 73 as first printed for the Commons.]
COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 47, page 27, line 33, leave out from "practitioner" to end of line 35

LORDS REASON
The Lords disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
21A Because the Bill should make provision about the registration of prior and paramount interests in registered premises.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons do not insist on their Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, but propose the following Amendments to the Bill in lieu of that Amendment—
21B Page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (d)
21C Page 16, line 17, leave out from "he" to end of line 21 and insert "may give the relevant licensing authority a notice to that effect"
21D Page 19, line 22, leave out subsections (6) and (7)
21E Page 27, line 31, at end insert "or"
21F Page 27, line 33, leave out from "practitioner" to end of line 35
21G Page 85? line 24, leave out "or"
21H Page 85, line 25, at end insert ", or
(e) a notice within section [Right of freeholder etc to he notified of licensing matters](1) (notice by freeholder etc conferring right to be notified of changes to licensing register)"
21I Page 97, line 35, at end insert—
"Rights of freeholders etc.
Right of freeholder etc. to be notified of licensing matters
(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person with a property interest in any premises situated in the area of a licensing authority gives notice of his interest to that authority, and

(b) the notice is in the prescribed form and accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(2) The notice has effect for a period of 12 months beginning with the day it is received by the licensing authority.
(3) If a change relating to the premises to which the notice relates is made to the register at a time when the notice has effect, the licensing authority must forthwith notify the person who gave the notice—

(a) of the application, notice or other matter to which the change relates, and

(b) of his right under section 9 to request a copy of the information contained in any entry in the register.

(4) For the purposes of this section a person has a property interest in premises if—

(a) he has a legal interest in the premises as freeholder or leaseholder,

(b) he is a legal mortgagee (within the meaning of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20)) in respect of the premises,

(c) he is in occupation of the premises, or

(d) he has a prescribed interest in the premises.

(5) In this section—

(a) a reference to premises situated in the area of a licensing authority includes a reference to premises partly so situated, and

(b) "register" means the register kept under section 9 by the licensing authority mentioned in subsection (1)(a)."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21B to 21I en bloc in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 21, to which the Lords have disagreed.
These amendments were made in the Commons further to the undertaking that I gave in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, in the House on 19th June. They were drawn up following consultation with those involved from the industry and they meet the concerns that they had in relation to the important issue of the registration of interests. I hope that the House will agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 B to 211. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21B to 211 in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 21, to which the Lords have disagreed.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise simply to say that we welcome the amendments.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also welcome the amendments.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
62 Schedule 1, page 112, line 31, leave out paragraph 12

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
The Lords disagree to this amendment hut propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
62A Page 112, line 30, at end insert—
"Small evens: live music
(1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—

(a) the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and

(b) the entertainment ceases no later than I 1.30pm.

(1) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place."

COMMONS INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU
The Commons insist on their Amendment No. 62 to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagree to the Lords Amendment (No. 62A) proposed in lieu of that Amendment, hut propose the following Amendment to the Bill in lieu of Amendment No.62A—
62B Page 97. line 35, at end insert—
"Special provision for pubs etc.
Dancing and live music in pubs etc.
(1) This section applies where—

(a) a premises licence authorizes—

(i) the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

1048

(ii) music entertainment, and

(b) the premises—

(i) are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

(ii) have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.

(2) At any time when the premises—

(a) are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

(b) are being used for music entertainment, any condition of the premises licence which relates only to the music entertainment, and is imposed by virtue of section 19(3)(b), 35(3)(b), 52(3) or 166(5)(b). does not have effect unless it falls within subsection (3) or (4).

(3) A condition falls within this subsection if the premises licence specifies that the licensing authority which granted the licence considers the imposition of the condition necessary on one or both of the following grounds—

(a) the prevention of crime and disorder,

(b) public safety.

(4) A condition falls within this subsection if, on a review of the premises licence,—

(a) it is altered so as to include a statement that this section does not apply to it, or

(b) it is added to the licence and includes such a statement.

(5) This section applies in relation to a club premises certificate as it applies in relation to a premises licence and, in the application of this section to such a certificate, the reference in subsection (2) to section 19(3)(6), 35(3)(b), 52(3) or 166(5)(b) is to be read as a reference to section 72(3)(b), 83(3)(b) or 86(3).
(6) In this section—
"music entertainment" means—

(a) the provision of entertainment of a description falling within, or of a similar description to that falling within, paragraph 2(1)(e) or (g) of Schedule 1. or

(b) the provision of entertainment facilities falling within paragraph 3 of that Schedule, in circumstances where the conditions in paragraph 1(2) and (3) of that Schedule arc satisfied;

"permitted capacity", in relation to any premises, means—

(a) where a fire certificate issued under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (c. 40) is in force in respect of the premises and that certificate imposes a requirement under section 6(2)(d) of that Act, the limit on the number of persons who, in accordance with that requirement, may be on the premises at any one time, and

(b) in any other case, the limit on the number of persons who may be on the premises at any one time in accordance with a recommendation made by, or on behalf of, the fire authority for the area in which the premises are situated (or, if the premises are situated in the area of more than one fire authority, those authorities); and

"supply of alcohol" means—

(a) the sale by retail of alcohol, or

(b) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club."

Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the House do not insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendment No. 62, do not insist on Lords Amendment No. 62A, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62B, but do propose Amendments Nos. 62C to 62J to Commons Amendment No. 62B and do propose Amendment No. 62L in lieu of the words left out of the 13111 by Amendment No. 62—
62C Line 4, leave out "This section" and substitute "Subsection (2)"
62D Line 7, after "(ii)" insert "the provision of"
62E Line 12, leave out from "when" to end of line 18 and insert—

'(a) the premises—

(i) are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and

(ii) are being used for the provision of music entertainment, and

(b) subsection (2B) does not apply, any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of music entertainment does not have effect, in relation to the provision of that entertainment, unless it falls within subsection (3) or (4).

(2A) Subsection (2B) applies where—

(a) a premises licence authorises the provision of music entertainment, and

(b) the premises have a permitted capacity of not more than 200 persons.

(B) At any time between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight when the premises—

(a) are being used for the provision of music entertainment which consists of —

(i) the performance of unamplified, live music, or

(ii) facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment within sub-paragraph (i), but

(b) are not being used for the provision of any other description of regulated entertainment, any licensing authority imposed condition of the premises licence which relates to the provision of the music entertainment does not have effect, in relation to the provision of that entertainment, unless it falls within subsection (4)."

62F Line 30, leave out from "licence" to end of line 32 and insert "except that, in the application of this section in relation to such a certificate, the definition of "licensing authority imposed condition" in subsection (6) has effect as if for "section 19(3)(b)" to the end there were substituted "section 72(3)(b) (but is not referred to in section 72(2)) or which is imposed by virtue of section 83(3)(b) or 86(3)"."
62G Line 33, at end of line insert—
""licensing authority imposed condition" means a condition which is imposed by virtue of section 19(3)(b) (but is not referred to in section 19(2)(a)) or which is imposed by virtue of 35(3)(b). 52(3) or 166(5)(b) or in accordance with section 21;"
62H Line 35, leave out "the provision of"
62J Line 38, leave out from "(b)" to end of 41 and insert "facilities enabling persons to take part in entertainment within paragraph (a);"
62L Schedule I, page 112. line 12, at end insert—
"Morris dancing etc.
The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act to the extent that it consists of the provision of—

(a) a performance of morris dancing or any dancing of a similar nature or a performance of unamplified, live music as an integral part of such a performance, or

(b) facilities for enabling persons to take part in entertainment of a description falling within paragraph (a)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a matter on which there has been what I could almost describe as incessant' to-ing and fro-ing between various outside interests and this House and the House of Commons for a number of months. I hope that at what I hope is the final stage, we can have a sensible debate on the issues.
1050
There has been an awful lot of fundamental misunderstanding of the issues, particularly outside the Chamber. I think that that misunderstanding can be summed up in just a few words: generally speaking, nothing that does not need a licence now will need one under the Bill. Even the so-called two-in-a-bar exemption needs a justices' licence. What the Bill does is to make it much cheaper and easier to get a licence where one is needed. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated in its seventh report, it is legitimate to say that there is a pressing social need for regulation in this area. It is not legitimate to claim that, for example. the Bill will spell the end of folk clubs. If they need a licence now, they will need one under the new system, but at much reduced cost and bureaucracy.
For the first time the provision of entertainment in a school and sixth form college by the school or college will be free of charge from the licensing fee associated with that provision and we are maintaining the current exemption from the payment of fees for entertainment in every village hall, church hall and community building. which is the position outside Greater London now. It will cost nothing extra to get permission to put on live music in pubs. So this Bill is good news for live music. It sweeps away bureaucracy and slashes through cost.
However, we recognise that some people are very worried that licensing authorities will try to sting venues for thousands of pounds worth of unnecessary conditions, even though the Bill as drafted makes that illegal. The charge is that this will discourage venue operators—notably publicans—from applying for permission to put on live music.
It is interesting to note that the people who are really concerned about this are the performers, who will not actually have to get licences, rather than the publicans or organisers, who are largely content. However, we are alive to those concerns. That is why in another place we made a concession to the effect that where a pub with a capacity of up to 200 wanted to put on live music of any kind, any conditions imposed on the licence by the licensing authority would be suspended except where they related to public safety and crime and disorder.
We kept public safety because we are simply not prepared to put lives at risk. No responsible government could act otherwise. Noble Lords might already know that in 2001 there were over 1,500 fires in pubs and clubs in England and Wales. Licensing provides a means of ensuring that experts such as the Fire Safety Authority can check premises to see that the customers will be able to get out quickly and safely if problems occur. This is a more effective regime than the health and safety and public safety regimes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in particular, referred when we debated this matter before.
We kept crime and disorder because of public concern over drugs, guns and extreme right-wing bands who excite the audience to racist violence as part of their act. It does happen. Unfortunately, live music is not madrigals on a summer evening on the village green: I wish it were. It still provides a major advantage for operators and organisers of small venues, in terms of

1051
public nuisance. Those people can forget the rumours about being made to install thousands of pounds worth of sound-proofing or double glazing.
The Government have provided a failsafe position. The licence remains reviewable so that those who exploit the concession and behave inconsiderately towards their neighbours can be brought to book. Another place agreed to that concession. Predictably, however, the Opposition in another place were not happy. They gave the powerful arguments put forward by the Association of Chief Police Officers short shrift. They prompted the association to write to all noble Lords yesterday. I hope that they have had the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers and one from the Local Government Association on this issue.
However, in the light of debate in another place, we have brought forward a further package of measures to lighten the load on pubs and clubs and organisers to provide the opportunity to open up the market to a wide range of performance. That package consists of four elements. First, we have tabled amendments to provide a significant concession on unamplified music. I shall explain that in more detail in a moment. Secondly, I can give today a firm undertaking that the Government will review the existing descriptions of entertainment in the Bill six to 12 months after the end of the transition period.
If it proves that the Bill has had an unintended, disproportionate, negative effect on the provision of live music, we will use the powers already in the Bill to modify the position through secondary legislation. I say now that the Government are convinced that the Bill will already provide a real shot in the arm for entertainment and allow it to thrive.
Thirdly, and in response to concerns put to the Government most effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we have tabled manuscript Amendment No. 62K which will exempt morris dancing and dancing of a similar nature from the entertainment requirements of the Bill. Furthermore, the review I have just mentioned will cover all aspects of regulated entertainment. It will place particular emphasis on other forms of traditional entertainment. If there is a case for further liberalisation we will respond to it.
I am sorry that I have had to table a manuscript amendment on this occasion, but the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will confirm that this is a topic on which we were negotiating late in the evening.
Fourthly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will convene a forum comprising representatives of performers, venue operators, local authorities and others, whose task it will be to maximise the take-up of the reforms.
I return to the main legislative element of the package. There have been calls in both Houses and elsewhere for the Government to introduce a de minimis measure to protect unamplified music in small pubs. Our starting point is that the Bill already provides such protection.
1052
Spontaneous performances will not be licensed, so if one arrives unannounced with one's dulcimer and begins to play medieval music with bagpipes—no, perhaps that is a bad example—but any instrument and plays Scottish airs, one runs no risk of offence, certainly in the legal sense of the word. In response to this House, we have exempted incidental live music already.
However, today's amendments go one step further. Their effect will be to suspend conditions attached to a licence which have been imposed by a licensing authority in respect of unamplified live music in any premises with a capacity of no more than 200, where it is performed between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight. To protect local residents and control those few inevitably unscrupulous or irresponsible operators, the licence will remain reviewable.
I believe that this removes all concerns that have been raised about low-level unamplified music like folk guitarists, for example, in small premises. I know that some people have raised the issue of instruments which require amplification in order to be heard such as an electric base guitar or an electric piano. They cannot benefit from the concession.
There are important points to be made here. First, the Bill's baseline is that it makes it easier and cheaper to put on any form of regulated entertainment. We have exempted incidental live music, whether amplified or not. That is a very powerful concession. We intend to retain the concession made in another place last week which lightens the load on amplified music in small pubs and we will work with our partners to maximise the take-up of the reforms on offer.
Perhaps I may say something about Amendment No. 62A, although there is not much more to be added to the lengthy debate we have had. This amendment is dangerous and misguided. The police find it totally unacceptable, and every Member of this House has had a letter to that effect. The Local Government Association finds it unacceptable as do residents' associations. It compromises public safety. It hamstrings the ability of the police to clamp down on drugs, guns and acts which incite the audience to violence. No responsible government could accept such an amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is amused. I do not believe that, if our positions were reversed and she was at this Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness would be saying anything different.
This Bill is a manifesto commitment. We are determined to see it through, but not at the expense of endangering public safety or encouraging crime and disorder.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendment No. 62, do not insist on Lords Amendment No. 62A, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62B, but do propose Amendments Nos. 62C to 62J thereto, and do propose Amendment No. 62L in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by Amendment No. 62.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

1053
4.15 p.m.
62K Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey, leave out from "62" to end and insert "but do insist on their Amendment No. 62A to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62B".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make it absolutely clear that I take this issue extremely seriously. I am sorry to say that I remain in fighting mood on this issue. We must disagree with the Minister that we have what we require for the future of musicians. Before we had the two-in-a-bar rule; now we have effectively none-in-a-bar if there is minimal amplification.
The Bill continues to penalise those who play live music by imposing extra bureaucracy and financial burdens on them. Why is live music the only form of entertainment that is being regulated in this way? We simply do not understand or accept this differentiation. Why are the same rules not being applied to the screening of football matches, stand-up comedians, sword-swallowers, etc? If the Government believe that these provisions are necessary then they should have had the courage to apply them to all these forms of entertainment. Indeed, ACPO, which featured heavily in the debate, has previously stated,
"Very often such events, usually football matches, are accompanied by drinks promotion, they attract large crowds and are quite frequently the source of disorder … Because of these issues we are of the opinion that the applicant for a premises licence should be required to specify the intention to host such events within the operating plan. This would allow the licensing authority, taking into account police representation, the opportunity to impose conditions on the premises licence pursuant to the licensing objectives".
There are also key safety issues; for example, during the World Cup a pub in Bristol had to be evacuated as football supporters jumping up and down on the first floor caused the ceiling plaster below to crack and fall on people in the ground floor bar—nothing to do with music. The Bill as drafted favours premises devoted solely to the consumption of alcohol and what is called "vertical drinking" over a more civilised social drinking environment that includes live music.
Ministers have raised bogus points about health and safety, noise and fire risks, which are already covered by existing regulations. That view is supported by an official at the Health and Safety Executive, who has said that the issue of electric cables should be covered by existing safety provisions, irrespective of the licensing regime.
The police already have extensive powers to intervene where there is a risk of public disorder. The idea of a notification system has been put forward to the Government to ensure that they would have had such powers in all premises even if there were an exemption.
Ministers clearly regard the playing of live music in local communities as a potential danger rather than a cultural and social benefit. As well as the community and social inclusion role of live music performance, the
1054
opportunity to perform live is regarded by all in the music industry as a crucial component of building future talent.
The Government are just plain wrong to assert that, in the words of Richard Caborn,
"nothing that does not need a licence or other authorisation now will need one under the Bill".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/03; col. 1004.]
The Government seek to regulate all live music on the grounds that a few heavy metal bands in the North East espouse extremist views. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the very ministry designed to support and nurture our musical talent, and indeed a highly successful creative industry—has managed as never before to alienate artists, musicians, songwriters and composers, and the audiences that support them, throughout the country.
Today we are fighting again for freedom of thought in live music, which is seriously under threat. The Government are about to do so much damage to the music industry for no good reason. As I have said, the Government are happy to allow big-screen broadcast entertainment to be exempt, no matter how noisy and large the audience is. Yet one guy with an acoustic guitar or double bass, with minimum amplification equipment, must be licensed. Where is the logic in that?
I turn to the government amendments. Our interpretation is that as they apply only where a premises licence, entertainment permission and a safety capacity limit are in place, they are of little use and there are no details on how, where and when the safety capacity limit can be imposed and where it cannot. If all premises had a safe limit imposed, any legal activity could take place as long as the limit was not exceeded, without any need for additional entertainment permission or conditions.
This proposal in practice will make no difference at all, except still to require all entertainment permissions to require a safe capacity limit to be imposed just to see if that pointless exemption to the condition applies and for no other reason. How is overcrowding to be prevented in premises not providing entertainment? The fact will still remain that if premises do not apply for the optional entertainment licence, any live music will be criminal without it—and the Bill being able to increase the take-up figure from the current 5 per cent is still a gamble.
Almost 90 per cent of musicians use some form of amplification. While we are grateful that the Minister has made some considerable movement on the issue, we do not believe that the Government have gone far enough. I make it absolutely clear to the House that I am grateful to the Minister and the Secretary of State for providing me with the opportunity to debate some of those issues during what we know as "ping pong" between the two Houses. But we do not feel that the concession goes far enough.

1055
I finish by quoting a musician from Gloucester who emailed me today:
"Do not he bullied into giving up the fight. It cannot be right in principle that live music, even unamplified, should require licensing when the provision of big screen broadcast entertainment or jukeboxes can be exempt no matter how powerfully amplified".
A musician from the Portland folk club said:
"The provision of one or two musicians performing in 110,000 liquor licensed premises has been exempt since 1961 not 1964 as the Government often claims. But the Licensing Bill now does away with this deminimus and now will ensnare these performances, with no evidence provided for this. For as this exemption applies only where a licence is held—it simply reflects the control already in place in the 95% of licensed premises currently without additional Public Entertainment Licenses".
The Bill was supposed to make so much difference and to free us all from unnecessary regulation. It has failed comprehensively to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey, leave out from "62" to end and insert "but do insist on their Amendment No. 62A to which the Commons have disagreed and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62B".—(Baroness Buscombe.)
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, there is a danger in listening to debates in this House, especially debates initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The noble Baroness made a powerful case—one that might have changed my mind if it could have been changed at this late stage.
The Minister could have changed my mind the other way. It is a worry when he speaks because he puts a powerful but slightly dangerous case in that he paints the bleakest of pictures of our intentions in the amendments we have tabled.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, that was not the intention. I try very hard—I failed yesterday once—never to impute motives.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I start with an interesting matter, which has not been part of the long and arduous debates on the Bill: Amendment No. 62L. Although it causes a massive degree of hilarity, the issue of morris men, folk dance and traditional dance is one in which we on these Benches believe passionately.
It should be remembered that there are 14,000 morris men in the country. Some people have expressed the view that that is quite a scary thought. However, all those people take part in something that has gone on for many years and is part of the traditions of this country. They take part in 11,000 events that could have been licensable. The concession made on that basis means that a possible 11,000 licensable events will be taken out of the licensing regime, which will save them a great deal of money and will save all local authorities time, effort and money.
We are in the third stage of ping pong. I still hold dearly to many of the arguments that led us to reject the Government's arguments. We cannot dismiss the issue that the Bill could infringe on Article 10.2 of the
1056
European Convention on Human Rights. It is a question of proportionality over introducing regulation. At what point do we say that rights and freedoms have to be limited by consideration for other issues?
Some of the examples given for why we should introduce legislation have gone from the rare to the bizarre, especially the skinhead punk bands in the Midlands, who I do not believe ever use unamplified music. However, putting that aside, there is a history to why we have pushed so hard on the issue and why the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has worked so hard: the history of problems with allowing live music in pubs. It is an issue that only 5 per cent of licensed venues put on live music. If we went to Dublin, it would be unthinkable that only 5 per cent of pubs would have music on.
The Government have said that the purpose of the legislation is to deregulate and to make it easier. The reason we have put forward such a staunch argument and gained so many concessions from the Government is that so many councils in the past have abused the privilege of the public entertainment licence and made it difficult for live music to be heard. Frankly, I find it unacceptable that one is unable to listen to live music in many pubs unless one really hunts down such places.
I also want to raise the "two in a bar" issue. I wondered whether we should press the amendment further and go for grandfather rights in relation to the "two in a bar" rule. I have campaigned over a number of years against that rule. I have supported the Musicians' Union and those who have worked so hard for the union in attempts to remove it. I do not consider it acceptable to return to having the rule. It would introduce a limit on numbers which would become fossilised in the way we regard music. I believe that far more people should be allowed to play music in a pub. At an earlier stage of the Bill, the Minister said that a whole orchestra could be fitted into a pub to play music. Rather than seeing it as dangerous. I rather like that idea.
There is incompatibility in this legislation. On the one hand, large-screen televisions are exempt and, on the other, three people, say, with guitars are seen as a danger to the public. A large-screen television, especially when a cup match is broadcast, draws into a pub vast numbers of people whose primary aim is to watch football. They become excited and drink a great deal of beer. That could have some implications for public disorder. However. it is my understanding that, on many occasions, three musicians playing in a pub tend to empty the place rather than fill it.
That being so, I find it rather strange that if those three musicians went in front of a video camera, videoed their performance and then put it on the large screen, just as many people could watch them doing exactly the same thing, if not in person. Therefore, an issue does arise in that respect.

1057
Having said that, it is not my intention to reject this measure. Many musicians will believe that I am betraying them by not throwing this matter back to the Commons. I, together, I believe, with other Members of the House, do not consider that the amendment would pass as it stands. We pressed for amendments from the Government and they have come forward with a number of concessions.
The most recent concession concerns unamplified music. I have a problem with the concept of the unamplified music exemption because, in order to obtain the concession, a licensed premises must first obtain the licence for the provisions of the licence to be made exempt. I take on board the Minister's view that that gives the police a backstop to remove the licence, but it seems a rather strange way of going about the matter.
I am supporting the Government because I believe that they have put forward these amendments in good faith. They have made two more concessions. One is the review which will take place after a period of between six and 12 months to ascertain the effect of the measure. If there is an outcry and vast numbers of music venues start to close, I very much hope that the Minister will move as soon as possible to reverse any difficulties caused by the Bill. Although I know that it will be difficult to do so, I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking now that a debate will be held in this House about the outcome of such a review. The concept of putting forward a forum to promote live music is also to be welcomed.
I believe that the measures could still lead to a flourishing of live music. We very much hope that the provisions of the Bill will not be affected by over-zealous interpretation of the law.
I have one question for the Minister. It is on the issue of incidental spontaneous music, especially if it is amplified. Earlier, the Minister implied that, so long as spontaneous music, even if amplified, did not break health and safety requirements, it would not fall within the ambit of the Bill. I should like clarification because I believe that it would help to ease the minds of many musicians worried by this measure.
I still hold true to the belief that the provision could have a detrimental effect, although I take on board what the Minister said, and I very much hope that the amendment clarifies the situation.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend has fought such a long and determined battle for live music to be performed in pubs without unnecessary regulation that it would be churlish not to support him in accepting what he regards as a fair compromise. I shall therefore do so, but I hope that he will not mind my saying that, having thought about the matter and listened carefully to the enormously powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I very much regret that we must accept this compromise. I want to say in a few words why I have that regret.
1058
For me, the starting point is John Stuart Mill's injunction that one does not regulate unnecessarily unless a particular activity causes serious harm to other people. It seems to me that the amendment that we should like to be able to maintain is proportionate. It keeps in place fully the general law—the criminal law and the law relating to public nuisances and so on—and it does so expressly. It limits the time and number of persons and, as my noble friend said, it simply does for live music what is done for large screen television in pubs and what has been done for places of worship and religious occasions.
I find the distinction drawn between live music in pubs and dead music or dead entertainment on mass television in pubs arbitrary and somewhat discriminatory. Perhaps it reflects some kind of cultural bias. I believe that it shows a complete lack of proportion to insist on unnecessary regulation in licensing. I should be interested to know how the Minister, for whom I have such high regard, would explain, if he had to do so in a court of law, how this kind of regulation is proportionate and how it satisfies the basic principle of proportionality. Are the means being used really necessary to achieve the Government's legitimate aims, or would some lesser sacrifice of free expression be proportionate?
My own view—to some extent, this was considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when we examined the issue in another manifestation—is that, if necessary, the courts will have to use the principle of proportionality in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights if unnecessary and heavy-handed use of regulation takes place in this area. Therefore, although it is always excellent when there is a fair compromise, I simply wish to express my general support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said in her speech.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I hope that the House will not have to divide on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It was nice to hear her declare herself once again in fighting mood. I submit that, over the weeks that it has been discussed by the House, the Bill that we now have has been much improved by those fighting qualities.
Noble Lords who have taken an active interest in the Bill and who have participated in the many debates will surely agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, many accommodations have been arrived at. We certainly have a far better proposition in front of us today than we had when we started down this road. If the amendments were agreed by the House, that would cause further delay and further disagreements with the other place. Members there would inevitably insist on the "ping" becoming a "pong" and the "pong" becoming a "ping" again.
However, my main reason in rising to oppose the amendment is to draw attention to the Local Government Association's clearly stated support for what has come out of these deliberations. After all, it is local government that will have the major part of enforcing this Bill in their localities. I recognise the wonderful contributions made through the passage of

1059
the Bill by the noble Baroness but the time has come when we should bring these proceedings to an end. I admire those who have fought the good fight on this issue but we should now reject the amendment and carry on with the business.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, my particular interest in this Bill has been public amenity. It was notable that in the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and my noble friend Lord Redesdale, not one word was spoken about public local amenity. The position that we have reached in this Bill is a most bizarre one. For my money, we are dealing with the lesser of evils. Amendment No. 62 which the amendment from another place seeks to overturn requires no licence at all for amplified live music in pubs where there are up to 200 people present at the knees-up. I have to tell those who think I pursue an esoteric case, that the number of people potentially affected by the huge noise such music often gives rise to will far outstrip the 200 which is the limit of the amendment to be overturned. However, we have the Government proposing an alternative that, frankly, is even more bizarre. Their amendment requires a licence for live amplified music where numbers are up to 200 but then allows the playing of that music to go on 24 hours a day. There is no time restriction at all on a licence granted for the playing of live amplified music under the government amendment. At least the amendment that this House put into the Bill has a requirement that the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30 p.m.
Even more extraordinary is that Amendment No. 62B says that of the four licensing objectives around which this Bill is supposed to revolve the one that deals with amenity—very inadequately—is not even allowed to hold sway with regard to music licences granted under this amendment. One has the extraordinary situation that local residents may protest against the noise consequences of the licence being applied for. Their local authority say they will impose a restriction on live amplified music beyond midnight and yet subsection (3) of the amendment strikes down that condition as being unallowable and unlawful. I find that bizarre. In either case, with either amendment, the only remedy that residents have in the case of Amendment No. 62 is to pursue a private nuisance action or a public nuisance action. That is also the case under Amendment No. 62B. This House knows what a massive enterprise it is to pursue a private or public nuisance action. It is long-winded, complex, expensive and uncertain. The alternative would be for them to call for a review of the licence. That, I would concede, is marginally better as a remedy than being forced into the courts.
I am sorry to sound a discordant note. At least I can support my noble friend Lord Redesdale and congratulate him on the morris dancers. I am sure that is an achievement that he will cherish to the end of his parliamentary days. But for the rest, I believe this House and the other place have ill served the people of this country. Amenity in this age, noise pollution in
1060
particular, is of huge concern to millions of our fellow citizens. We have heard a debate today where that did not seem to be an issue in our lives.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, sits down, is it not the case that the government Amendment No. 62E does specify a time limit between 8 a.m. and midnight? So it is not the case that music could go on for 24 hours as he claimed.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, to which amendment is the noble Lord referring?
Lord Monson: My Lords, Amendment No. 62A.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords. I was referring to Amendment No.62B—sorry, 62E.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I was going to start by saying I felt sure that the Minister would have an answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. It looks like it has been answered already. I support my noble friend Lady Buscombe. It still makes no sense that small groups of musicians should he penalised and yet large widescreen TVs and sound systems are exempt. The Government have made concessions and I am grateful for those. But I am still concerned about the interpretation of the word "unamplified". I thought for one moment that the Minister was going to address it but he did not go into detail on it. I have a note here from Ken Dibble, a well-known expert in court cases involving noise nuisance and a member of the Institute of Acoustics. He says:
"The ambient noise level in a bar, just from general talking, is about 75 to 80 decibels".
A jukebox is not much louder. He goes on to say:
"Musical instruments cover a huge range of natural loudness. An unamplified singer is typically 70 to 75 decibels. An unamplified guitar about 70 to 80 decibels. A trumpet—."
I play one myself—
"105 to 110 decibels. A flute 85 decibels. A drum kit 105 to 110 decibels.
It follows, that unless the voice, the guitar or a flute are amplified, they will not be heard against other instruments or against crowd noise. To sing in a bar without amplification, will result in a sore throat after about 10 minutes simply because of the effort involved. Also the performance is marred because everything must be sung forte in order to be heard.
Modern music making in any event increasingly relies on electronic instruments—electric piano, electric keyboard instruments, rhythm machines, electric guitars and basses, none of which could be used if such an absurd provision were introduced.
In essence, the proposed exception would still preclude live music. A better provision would be to permit live music subject to the music not being audible at any residential or noise sensitive premises and subject to time limits".
That would cover the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Ken Dibble goes on to say:
"I accept that there will need to be a limit on crowd numbers otherwise one would find full-scale concerts and rave events held in pubs without the necessary controls. There should be a requirement that any pub or restaurant intending to put on live music should be fitted with a volume restriction device which

1061
could be set up to the satisfaction of the local environmental health officer before any amplified music is played. There are some sophisticated devices available".
I have been shut down myself on many occasions by these machines. We are getting closer but we still do not have it right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that at such a late stage there are still things being said which do not reflect the provisions of the Bill. I fully accept that that must be my fault. The contrast was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, between provisions in the amendments. She used the example of widescreen television and football matches. She, like me, has had a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers. It takes the view that widescreen television, pool competitions, quiz nights, theme food evenings and so on tend to be in various venues with similar events which dilute their impact. ACPO says it can handle that. It says, on the other hand, that live amplified music can generate a leisure magnet even in smaller venues. It goes on to state:
"Live music always acts as a magnet in whatever community it is being played. It brings people from outside that community and having no connection locally behave in a way that is inappropriate,"—
it says, "criminal". I think that is a bit strong—
"and disorderly. The public expect the police to be able to deal with these incidents and the powers as outlined"—
that is, the concessions the Government have made—
"would seem to be a sensible way to do just that".
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said: "Well, only 5 per cent of pubs put on live music". That is exactly the case. That is why we are making it so much easier for pubs to put on live music. That is why we have made the concession to the effect that should a pub with a capacity of up to 200—even the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, agreed that there should be a capacity limit—want to put on live music of any kind, any conditions imposed on the licence by the licensing authority would be suspended except those which relate to public safety or crime and disorder. Can anyone seriously disagree with that?
The noble Lord said that if these live musicians were to put the music on a video they would evade the requirement for a licence. That is not the case. The showing of a video, as he described it, would be a licensable activity. Only simultaneous live broadcasts are excepted.
Coming back to the noble Lord's 5 per cent point, yes, of course, the existing system is expensive and bureaucratic. We are making it cheaper and easier. We are knocking down the hurdles. I would be astonished if there were not a significant increase in the proportion of pubs putting on live music as a result of this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, talked about juke boxes. I think she has been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who gave the decibel limits for juke boxes. But they are not exempt. They are like live music; they are exempt if incidental. Recorded music is licensable.
1062
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about spontaneous music. Spontaneous music, whether or not it is amplified, is not licensable. He asked, in the case of the review we have undertaken, whether it would be debated in this House. I cannot give that assurance. That is a matter for the usual channels, of which I am glad to say I am no longer a member.
The issue of human rights was raised, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. There is no greater authority than he on that matter. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which we must rely, agreed that there has to be a balance between the right of freedom of expression and the legitimate aim of public safety and the right of peaceful enjoyment of property. In its seventh report, it said:
"The licensing regime serves legitimate aims, namely the protection of public safety, the protection of the rights of others and the prevention of crime and disorder. It is legitimate to say that there is a pressing social need for regulation".
Of course there will be cases at the interface. Wherever we draw the line, there will be the possibility of litigation. I do not think that there will be what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, always describes as a "bonanza" for his profession because there will always be some place where there will be dispute about whatever rules apply or do not apply. We are indeed, I believe, properly respectful of human rights and properly respectful of the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised a completely new red herring about 24-hour live music. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out the provisions in Amendment No. 62E. In any case the licence remains reviewable. One can have the position of "one strike and you are out". That is the protection for residents, other interested parties and responsible authorities.
When we come down to it, I have two things to say: first, I have huge respect for musicians from Gloucester or Portland, particularly if, as I hope, they are good musicians, but I have to put that against the views of those who are responsible for public safety and the interests of residents—"public amenity" if one wants to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Association of Chief Police Officers, on behalf of the interests of public safety and crime and disorder, and the Local Government Association, which will be responsible for these licensing activities and has as its interest the protection of residents, are firmly against the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I have to put that against the views of individual musicians, much as I wish to respect and accommodate them.
I also have to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, we are at the third stage of disagreement between this House and another place. Yes, of course, it is legitimate for this House to continue to insist on matters of high import—for example, Lloyd George's People's Budget of 1909 and matters of profound conscience such as the War Crimes Bill—but ambient unamplified bass guitar? I

1063
suggest that the Government have gone as far as they can in meeting the legitimate concerns of those who have been expressing those concerns. Without abandoning our profound duty to preserve public safety and to prevent crime and disorder and public nuisance we can go no further.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full response. I think that he has sensed that I am not willing to step down at this stage. I want first to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. First, and most notably, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. It is right: we have both worked hard on this to improve the legislation. I believe that we have made some considerable progress. However, other noble Lords have encouraged me to believe that it is right to press on.
There is no question: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Colwyn who put the question of noise in its real context. He has introduced a sense of reality as to what we are talking about with acoustics and what that means in terms of realistic parameters for live music.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, suggested that in proposing the amendment I and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, had not mentioned the word "amenity". I fought with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on the question of amenity during earlier stages of the Bill. We care very much about local residents. We believe it is important to strike a balance, but we do not believe that this Bill as currently drafted does.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, said—that he respects what I have done thus far and believes that enough has been done. I have to disagree. I do not care to disagree with him, but not enough has been achieved today.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, succinctly put the argument on behalf of our amendment. He quoted John Stuart Mill that one does not regulate unnecessarily. Our amendment does not conflict with general law, as the noble Lord said. There are time limits and limits on the number of persons. The regulation proposed is not proportionate and it is not, in our view, consistent. While we are grateful for the concessions for incidental music and for unamplified music, there continues to be this enormous problem for most musicians who need some form of amplification.
We have come a long way, but I remain convinced that I must test the opinion of the House.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62K) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 145.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Kilclooney, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Attlee, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Luke, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Buscombe, B.

Byford, B.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Moynihan, L.

Chadlington, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Northbrook, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Northesk, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Cumberlege, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Elton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Erroll, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Fookes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Freeman, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Stern, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanham, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Higgins, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hooper, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Howe, E.

Trumpington. B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Vinson, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Waddington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wakeham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Chorley, L.

Addington, L.

Christopher, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Alderdice, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Alli, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Amos, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Andrews, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Crawley, B.

Avebury, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Bach, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Barker, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Berkeley, L.

Desai, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Dholakia, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Borrie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Brennan, L.

Dubs, L.

Brett, L.

Eatwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brookman, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting. L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L (Lord Chancellor)

Carter, L.

Chan, L.

Falkland, V.

Chandos, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton. B.

1065

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Parekh, L.

Filkin, L.

Paul, L.

Gale, B.

Peston, L.

Gavron, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Redesdale, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rennard, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rooker, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Russell, E.

Harrison, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Haskel, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hayman, B.

Sawyer, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sewel, L.

Hooson, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sheldon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Simon, V

Jacobs, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jeger, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Judd, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Layard, L.

Taverne, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lipsey, L.

Tope, L.

Lockwood, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Turnberg, L.

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Walmsley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McNally, L.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Whitaker, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitty, L.

Mishcon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Newby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicholson of Winterboume, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Northover, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Union (Accessions) Bill
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is a short but momentous Bill. Three months ago, heads of state and government from the 15 member states of the European Union and 10 new members from central, eastern and southern Europe signed a new accession treaty. Following that event, this Bill paves the way for the Union's largest ever expansion on 1st May next year.
The Bill has two main purposes. First, it implements our obligations under the accession treaty by amending Section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and by approving the treaty's provisions on the European Parliament. Among other things, those set out the numbers of Members of the European Parliament in all 25 member states for the parliamentary term starting in June 2004.
1066
Secondly, the Bill provides a power to grant nationals of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia the same rights to work in the UK from 1st May 2004 as are currently enjoyed by nationals of existing member states, and will be enjoyed automatically under the accession treaty by Cypriot and Maltese nationals from the date of accession.
Let me start with Clause 1, by saying a few words about the accession treaty and the principles underpinning it. As in all previous accessions, the new member states have undertaken to take on board the full body of Union and Community laws, subject to transitional measures of limited duration and scope. The accession treaty, which we have published as a Command Paper, sets out exhaustively the terms of accession and the necessary, consequential adjustments to the founding treaties.
Unlike the Bill, the new treaty is an enormous document: more than 5,000 pages long. It is testimony to an extraordinary volume of work: five years of hard labour and preparation by the candidates themselves, by successive presidencies and by the European Commission. But the scale of the treaty, while exceptional, merely reflects the unparalleled historic significance of this enlargement, which promises to transform the face of Europe strategically, economically and politically.
Strategically, enlargement will complete the transition of Europe from a continent scarred by warfare, national and personal tragedies and ideological divisions to a strong Union of nation states, secure in their borders, sharing the same democratic and humane values, and enjoying peace, prosperity and stability.
Since the end of the Second World War, statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic have dreamt about achieving security in Europe. With this enlargement, we shall finally achieve that dream. There has been nothing inevitable about that. The creation of the Marshall Plan; the foundation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; the signature of the treaties of Paris and Rome; and, later, the rise of Solidarity in Poland, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism were all events central to the evolution of the Bill that were brought about by the courage, idealism and determination of successive generations of peoples and their representatives across Europe and in the United States.
The enlarged Union will be a more secure Union. Eight of the new member states have joined, or are due to join, NATO. Accession to the EU will complement and reinforce the benefits of NATO membership across the continent. But, as with the accessions of Greece, Spain and Portugal in the 1980s, we also expect EU accession to produce a dividend through stabilising and strengthening democracy in new member states.
Enlargement will also help us address new challenges to our security, such as global terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the chaos caused by failed and failing states. New

1067
partnerships in Europe will help us to confront those threats. We will need to build on the tried and trusted EU methods: co-operation across borders; intelligence sharing; and joint law-enforcement operations.
Economically, enlargement will give the new and current member states new opportunities: opportunities for greater trade; to invest and attract investment; and to widen markets for producers and consumers alike. Since 1989, reforming governments in central and Eastern Europe have pursued the goal of EU membership with remarkable determination. In little more than a decade, failed command economies have given way to functioning market economies. Enterprise and entrepreneurship have been liberated. Successful economic reforms and restructuring in those countries have given the whole of Europe food for thought and laid the foundation for a prosperous future. We need the economic dynamism of the new member states.
Integrating the accession countries into the Union will, of course, entail costs. The financial package agreed at last year's Copenhagen Council amounted to £26.6 billion between 2004 and 2006. But that is well within the overall budgetary ceilings for enlargement agreed at Berlin in 1999. Between 2004 and 2006, the EU budget is expected to commit an annual amount equivalent on average to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product of the new member states. Given the disparities in wealth between new and current member states, that amounts to a total cost to the EU 15 of only 0.1 per cent of EU gross national product in any one year.
The costs of expansion are far outweighed by the benefits. Studies estimate that enlargement could increase the UK's GDP by £1.75 billion in the medium term and create up to 300,000 jobs across the Union. Our workers will enjoy freedom of movement across the world's largest trading bloc. Our companies will enjoy unfettered access to a market of some 450 million consumers.
Politically, enlargement will stimulate and, in some cases, necessitate further reform and modernisation across a range of Community policies. It will also change the way we do politics in the EU. In this new Europe, decision-making will be more fluid and alliances more diverse. Through the interim arrangements now in place, the new member states are already active participants in the Council and the European Parliament. Although they cannot vote, they can speak. We are working productively with them, collaborating on matters of joint concern. It is already clear that the UK's support for enlargement and our excellent relationships with the new members make us well placed to act as a pivot of influence.
If the EU is to make the best use of enlargement, the institutions originally designed for six founding members will have to be reformed. All advocates of EU expansion on all sides of the House would, I hope, accept that institutional reform is necessary. The task of agreeing such a reform now falls to the intergovernmental conference beginning in October.
1068
This is not the time to comment on the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe; we shall have the opportunity to do so in the weeks ahead. For the moment, suffice it to repeat the words of the European Council in Salonica: the Convention's work is a
"good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference".
Final decisions on the new treaty will depend solely on the governments of the 25 member states, meeting together in the IGC and taking decisions only by unanimity.
The 10 new member states will participate fully on the same basis as the EU 15. Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey will be observers. The new treaty will he signed
"as soon as possible after I May 2004".
Entry into force of this Treaty would then be subject to ratification by the constitutional procedures of the member states. In the United Kingdom such procedures are parliamentary procedures. Ratification by the Crown takes place only after full and proper scrutiny by Parliament, which is the case with the treaty and the Bill that we are considering today.
I turn to clause 2 of the Bill. Under the Accession Treaty, nationals of all the new member states have the right, immediately on accession, to enter and reside in any member state for all purposes envisaged by the founding treaties—except for work. Rights of nationals of the eight central and eastern states to work in the current member states are covered by optional restrictions for up to a maximum of seven years after accession. Under the Treaty of Accession, these restrictions do not apply to Cypriot or Maltese nationals.
Clause 2 will grant nationals from the eight central and eastern European accession countries the same rights to work in the UK from 1st May 2004 as are enjoyed by nationals of the existing member states.
This measure is patently in the national interest. It would attract the workers we need in key sectors, such as hospitality and construction. It will ensure that they contribute to the national exchequer and are subject to decent minimum standards at work, such as the national minimum wage. It will remove the temptation to work illegally and to claim benefits and it will cut through unnecessary red tape. It will help us focus resources on real immigration problems, rather than trying to stop EU citizens enjoying fundamental EU rights.
Recent studies, including research published by the Home Office, suggest that we will not see a substantial increase in immigration from the accession countries. We should look at the experience of Spain and Portugal. Following their accession to the European Community, Spanish and Portuguese workers actually returned home as economic prospects and standards of living improved. When Spain joined the European Community in 1986 there were 109,000 Spanish workers in France. Within eight years that figure had fallen to just 35,000.
However, if such a threat were to emerge—contrary to this experience and all of the available evidence—we would be able to introduce restrictions until the end of April 2011.

1069
Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and the Netherlands have taken the same decision that we have taken. Many of the other member states are still deciding what to do. However, we expect some of them to follow our lead. Our current estimation is that at least half of the EU 15 will lift restrictions on 1st May 2004.
The Government regret that in Cyprus it did not prove possible for a settlement to be secured before Cyprus signed the Treaty of Accession, despite the exceptional efforts of the UN Secretary-General and his team. Again, I would like to pay special tribute to the Government's Special Representative on Cyprus from 1996 to 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who was indefatigable in the search for a solution.
The EU has repeatedly made it clear that it will accommodate the terms of a settlement—most recently at the European Council in Salonica. We now call upon the two sides to negotiate a comprehensive settlement, based on the United Nations' proposals, so that a reunited island can join the EU in May 2004 and all Cypriots can enjoy the benefits and rights of EU membership.
The Government very much hope to introduce a Bill during the next Parliament that would endorse the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. Turkey should follow thereafter.
The prospect of accession is also helping to stabilise the western Balkans. The Government will continue to encourage and support all the countries of the region as they move towards eventual accession.
The United Kingdom's strong support for enlargement is well recognised—not least by the new member states themselves. Many in this House—on all sides of this House—have played important roles in bringing us to this point. We should be in no doubt that this enlargement is a real success for United Kingdom policy. It is a success for this Government and for the policy of this Government's predecessor. I am sure that all of us here today would wish, in the clearest possible terms, to welcome the 10 new member states as our equals and partners. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which is, in her words, one of "unparalleled historical significance". Indeed, why we should be tackling it at rather a late hour on a Thursday evening baffles me. I shall never understand the ways of the usual channels in these things but that is because I have never been a Whip. I would have thought it deserved a greater prominence. There lie ahead vast and very important debates that your Lordships will have about the changing nature of the European Union, to which these countries are seeking accession.
Perhaps I may put four points before your Lordships. First, we support this Bill. We support it very strongly. In our view it carries far forward a brave story and the ambitions of past generations. It is part of that dream of a Europe of free and independent
1070
republics and monarchies for which our parents fought and sometimes died. In the eyes of some of us it is already years overdue. However, we are nonetheless thankful that at last the moment has arrived when these vigorous and independent states, many of which have been through terrible trials and experiences, join the enlarged European Union.
This is not a story that ends there. I would advise against the use of the words "completion" or, as is sometimes said, "final settlement". This is because, as the Minister just reminded us, there is further expansion ahead of an open Europe, with more members queuing up. These include Bulgaria and Romania, which are aiming for 2007 and after that Turkey. Those three will change the character and structure of the Union again. Further ahead there are the Maghreb countries and the Ukraine and other nations seeking to join the enlarged and open structure of which the original European Economic Community was the embryo and the seed.
From now on, we can be sure that the whole treaty structure of Europe—of which the accessions treaty is a part and, in a sense, of which this Bill is part—will be under more or less permanent renegotiation. We are not afraid of that. In or out of government, we on this side shall be there, urging and nudging the Union in the direction of greater democracy, much more accountability, much less centralisation of powers and free markets. That is the kind of Union we seek and so do many of the accession states.
This is a highly positive approach and no one should say this is being anti-European —that charge will not stick. Wanting reform of the EU and wanting a larger more flexible European Union that is adapted to the new global conditions is being the best kind of European. To deny that is, in our view, an insult to the public intelligence.
Secondly, the new members epitomise what is being called "the new Europe". They are largely pro-American and Atlantic-minded. They were almost universally appalled at the anti-American stance taken in some Western European member states during the recent hostilities.
We particularly welcome Poland as a major new balancing factor in the European equation. I believe we should lose no time in developing the warmest links with the Poles and with all the central Europeans. These are nations that have suffered terribly. They used to regard Britain as their champion. In some instances, they have been saddened to see us in recent years seemingly siding too much with the big boys in the playground and being too focused on the Paris-Berlin agenda rather than being fully sympathetic to their needs and concerns.
As I have said before and will say again, a change of emphasis in our European policy is very badly needed. Mr Straw, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, has said that we "need more partners in Europe". He is absolutely right. So let us hope that that period is now over and that we shall seek a more equal Europe in which all nations, large and small, have a full voice.

1071
Like the noble Baroness, I too am sad that we are to see Cyprus come in while it is still in a divided state. Let us hope—against hope, I am afraid—that progress can soon be made in the ways that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others have worked so hard to achieve.
Thirdly, the Union to which these new countries are acceding is undergoing huge internal change even while we speak. Indeed, in the language of some, it is in turmoil. If only half the new proposals from the European convention are agreed, the new countries will join next year and then be asked to approve a very different Union from the one to which they originally applied for membership. The noble Baroness has urged that this is not the time to enter a long debate on all that, although she did have something to say about the convention proposals. However, I agree that we do not want to have that debate during this one, although we shall certainly need many hours in debate to consider those issues.
I simply want to say briefly that the new countries will be asked to sign up. Although they will have taken part in discussions beforehand, as soon as they become member states, they will be asked to sign up to a very complex new written constitution; a large accretion of executive, legislative and judicial power to the central EU institutions; a large new charter of rights, applying in theory only to the Union hierarchy itself, but in practice going much wider; a President of the Council, which many of them dislike intensely—and have said so; and a Foreign Minister who will report, in part at least, to the Commission. It will be a Union of weakened states and stronger, more remote central institutions if that kind of agenda goes through. Obviously, we hope that it will not do so.
Qualified majority voting may help from time to time. Ministers often remind us of how it can help this country's interests, but it is a fact that every step in this direction must be a step away from intimate and direct national accountability. Moreover, I reject the rather bullying point of view, which I have not heard expressed on these shores, but I have elsewhere in Europe, that QMV is a necessary instrument to crush the recalcitrant smaller nations even when their crucial national interests are threatened.
Nothing has been done to unwind the 97,000 pages of accumulated powers at the centre of the Union, the acquis communautaire, to which these new countries have been compelled to sign up, or indeed to give back either to the existing or the new states a single competence. So I believe that a huge opportunity has been missed, one that if at all possible should again be seized by us and by the new members, in the near future. It is no wonder that the Czechs, to take one new applicant, are planning a further referendum on the prospective new constitution over and above their recent referendum on the accession treaty. The vote was strongly in favour and I welcome that. It brings the Czechs into line with up to eight other existing member states which have planned, rightly, to hold referendums. The most glaring exception, to which the noble Baroness so candidly drew attention, is that of the United Kingdom.
1072
I am sure that that is a debate for another day, but I note in passing the views of President Chirac, who has not been the most popular figure on this side of the Channel over recent months. He has said that:
"I am logically in favour of a referendum. It is the only legitimate way".
I leave the issue there, but no doubt many of our debates will return to it.
Finally, on the question of the new countries that are about to join the new Union, I would say that to refer to this set of proposals for major change as an exercise in "tidying up" is ridiculous. That must be one of the most stupid statements uttered by a Minister of the Crown in modern times. I hope that we shall see a much more refreshing candour, frankness and honesty in the many debates ahead on this matter.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister of Poland resents and has spoken out strongly against the downgrading of his country in the draft constitution, which he thought had been settled at Nice, as did many others. So that matter will certainly have to be reopened.
The draft constitution has nothing whatever to do with enlargement. It is a quite separate project and I do not understand what the Prime Minister sought to suggest the other day when he appeared to link the two. It is a separate matter, but it has an influence—one that I believe will be largely negative. As the Economist magazine put it—it is not a tabloid and not a hysterical, isolationist or nationalist journal—the draft constitution is,
"a blueprint for accelerated instability".
It will not be a great help to all these bright new nations.
My fourth point is that we have to face the fact that enlargement will not please everyone. There are dangers which we have a duty to monitor extremely carefully. The first of those is that it will intensify competition. The noble Baroness spoke bravely and positively about new trading opportunities, but there are some in the manufacturing sector who see a rather different side. They certainly believe that accession will intensify competition. Personally, I welcome that because competition is always good when it operates within the proper rules and a market framework. But undoubtedly that will be tough for some.
The new nations joining the Union, after years of suppression, are now very sparky and dynamic. Their workers have high skills—an oddity of the communist legacy is that, while most of it was hideous, it left behind quite good educational and skills structures—and low labour costs, so long as they are not tied down by EU red tape and asked, as they have been in some cases, to implement new regulations, controls and tariffs in their existing free markets. Those countries already are and will continue to be tough competitors, which will mean that adjustments will have to be made on our side.
The second issue to which the noble Baroness rightly referred concerns freedom of movement. With the accession, some 73 million more people will be joining the EU, and that is good. Obviously, only a tiny

1073
fraction of those millions will contemplate moving westwards. But there is bound to be some increase in migratory pressures, a fact recognised in a number of countries of the Union. Many of the people from central European countries are among the most creative and hard working of all and this nation has benefited vastly from their arrival in the past. I make it absolutely clear that, in my view, if the creative and hard-working ones choose to come here they should be nothing but welcome. However, we must be realistic and acknowledge that there are less-desirable elements. That explains why many member states—like the noble Baroness, I am not quite sure how many at this stage—will apply national restrictions after the accession date for anything between two and seven years to ensure that their labour markets can digest the newcomers smoothly. That is a legitimate aim.
I hope that the Bill will allow the United Kingdom the right to consider restrictions if necessary. I hope that they will not be necessary. Studies have been published since the Second Reading of the Bill in another place which indicate that the impact will be minimal. I hope that is correct. But, if there are doubts, we shall need strong assurances—otherwise we shall need at the Committee stage a further explanation of the United Kingdom stance, which is in contrast to that of several other member states. I hope that is a reasonable way of approaching what we hope will not be a problem.
Thirdly, there remains the question of the common agricultural policy. It now looks at last—one has to cross one's fingers—to be in a process of reform. But it is a very slow reform which still leaves a vast number of farmers of the new states—especially Poland, where the number of farms is larger than in the whole of Germany and France put together—facing competition from imports from French farmers and others who are receiving subsidies four times as high as theirs at the beginning of the transition period. That will not be good news for some of those people. It is bound to cause problems of unemployment and perhaps problems of migration. We shall have to wait and see.
These brave countries—eight of which threw off tyranny only a short while ago—are joining a Union which has still very uncertain ideas on how to organise its future security and foreign policy, and, therefore, their future security and foreign policy.
Most of the newcomers have no difficulty at all with the concept of a reformed NATO, of which most of them are already members, or with a much stronger European branch of NATO, or with a NATO which is developing a global role, an out-of-theatre role, in peacemaking and peacekeeping. Unfortunately—and we have to face this—some of the so-called "core" countries of the existing Union—notably France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg—have recently proclaimed a quite different idea. They want a separate command structure and a separate force, and their language is redolent with anti-Americanism. Where Her Majesty's Government now stand on this I have
1074
no idea—they seem to have moved—but these are matters on which the accession countries will want great clarity and I am not sure that they yet have it.
At the heart of the Franco-German ambitions, which have been pronounced at various meetings and in documents, lies a flawed concept—the Prime Minister made the same point the other day—that the EU must somehow be a rival and counterweight to the United States rather than a partner. I believe that, for all its technological might, the United States cannot go it alone in the world. The so-called neo-conservatives—the "Neo-cons"—in Washington are wrong about that. Even if it is tired of alliances, the United States needs willing allies, especially in intelligence and nation building. I fervently hope that we will now work with the new accession states, not to form a rival bloc or super-power—heaven preserve us from that utterly false ambition—but to be effective partners in the global security network of which the United States is inevitably the senior partner.
I have one final concern. At the Laaken summit the European leaders called for measures to bring the great EU institutions closer to the people. The draft constitution now before the inter-governmental conference per contra calls for the people to be brought closer to the institutions. In that small inversion lies all the real seeds of wrong thinking which, if not weeded out, will bring a choking crop of measures which may be good for bureaucrats but bad for a truly democratic and flexible Europe and bad for the new partners and new members of the Union. The best news about the Bill is that it may at last bring us lively democratic allies who will help us to change the course of the European Union away from many damaging trends and towards a much better Europe.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill—a very short Bill summarising a very long treaty. Not thinking carefully, I made the mistake of going into the Printed Paper Office yesterday and asking for Command Paper 5805. The ever-helpful staff said, "You don't want that, you couldn't carry it out of the room, but we'll give you the summary".
The underlying principle of west European integration was, after all, to share security, prosperity and democracy, and in that it has been resoundingly successful. At the end of the Cold War, we found ourselves with a choice of importing insecurity and instability from eastern Europe or taking the opportunity to extend our zone of democracy, prosperity and security eastwards and southeastwards. That is what this now achieves. It has a number of consequences, noted only briefly in the Bill. There are clearly institutional consequences, many of which are dealt with in the convention. I am rather puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, does not see the link between the convention and enlargement. It was inherent in all the discussions at Laeken and before.

1075
The treaty has a number of financial consequences. If I am not wrong, 0.1 per cent of the EU GDP is very nearly 10 per cent of the current EU budget. That is a not insubstantial figure, particularly if it is going to rise and, as I shall expand on later, if more funds will necessarily have to be transferred to the next neighbours—the ones that are both candidates next in line and those, like Ukraine, Belarus and, of course, Russia, with which we will have to have increasingly complex relationships as an enlarged European Union.
The treaty says a great deal about extending the Schengen arrangements to the new borders and the problems of making sure that co-operation with the police forces and judiciary authorities of these new members are operated according to the highest possible standard. I was privileged to be chair of your Lordships' EU sub-committee when we looked at the eastern border controls of an enlarged European Union two years ago. It was an encouraging and interesting study.
The Bill goes into more detail on the free movement of labour. I see that noble Lords on all three Benches are agreed that this ought not to be a substantial problem for Britain or, indeed, for the EU 15 as a whole. The Minister remarked on the experience with the Mediterranean countries of Spain, Portugal and Greece after they joined. Rising prosperity at home led to a return of not just Spanish farmworkers but also Portuguese and Greek farmworkers. Indeed, those three countries have gone through a very rapid transition from being countries of emigration to countries of substantial immigration as they have become more prosperous over the last few years.
I recall that immediately after the dismantling of the Berlin wall, a number of western European studies by the OECD, the Council of Europe and others suggested that up to 25 million people would move from the former socialist states into western Europe. There was a real fear, mostly in Germany, that there would be a mass migration west.
I still recollect with amusement a conference in 1987 at which a young Russian said to a number of French participants, "We all think Paris is the centre of civilised Europe, and as soon as the wall comes down, we shall move to Paris". They did not, and people have not. All the evidence we have is that as prosperity extends across eastern Europe, so people will be happy to stay there and work there. Indeed, people from further east are moving in to add to their working population. The problems of migration from further afield, which raise awkward questions of border controls and co-operation with the neighbouring countries, are ones to which we should pay more attention in future.
I was fascinated to read in some detail, in the note on the treaties of the implications of the common agricultural policy, the transition period for Czech hen cages, Latvian animal waste plants and Maltese raw milk. It increased my sense that the common
1076
agricultural policy is the most amazingly over-complex set of centralised institutions which we all encourage Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost to decentralise as far as possible.
I note that there are implications for Cyprus, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, remarked. There is a sad possibility—still not necessarily an inevitability—that Cyprus will join as a divided state. I note that there are some very difficult issues about the future of the sovereign base areas whether or not Cyprus enters as a divided island or a united island. My heart sinks at the thought that the United Kingdom may be about to add to the anomalous position of Gibraltar and the Crown dependencies a third anomalous area, half in and half out of the European Union, in which, if I understand correctly, farmers inside the sovereign base areas will he entitled to benefit under the common agricultural policy but will not otherwise be members of the European Union, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera—the sort of thing that only the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, will ever understand.
The weight of interconnected European business in both Houses over the next six to nine months will he considerable. We have this Bill, which I hope will not detain us too long; we have the proposals from the convention to discuss; and then we will wish to follow the intergovernmental conference in some detail. It is very important that we have a proper and informed debate on the convention, which seems to many of us very closely linked to the institutional implications of enlargement. Indeed, those of us who remember the Laeken declaration in detail recall that the greater involvement of national parliaments was one of the underlying points in the entire convention exercise.
I wish that I were more confident that the Government were yet doing enough to encourage an informed national debate. I look forward to seeing a good and well-informed White Paper. I do not know when it is going to be published. I regret that there will not be an opportunity to have a proper debate in this House before the Summer Recess. I trust that there will he adequate time for a proper debate and inquiry when we return in September.
It is also important, I think, to maintain the traditional good humour and tolerance of this House in an area where opinions differ passionately. I came in last Friday to the debate on the Second Reading of the European Union (Implications of Withdrawal) Bill which in many ways lacked that tradition of good humour and tolerance. There were references to the "corrupt octopus of Brussels". There were suggestions that any British citizen who has ever been in the paid employment of the European institutions must unavoidably be tainted by that corruption—which seemed to me to cast unworthy aspersions on a number of Members of this House. There were suggestions that the referenda undertaken by some of the applicant states were not really with the full consent of the population because the turnout had been relatively low. There were, not to put too fine a point on it. undertones of paranoia, even xenophobia, in the belief that there is a vast and malign conspiracy against honest Englishmen.

1077
There were, in a number of the final speeches, some aggressive and repeated interruptions which I felt were a threat to the tradition of self-regulation of this House. I wish to say that because we will be having a number of further debates within the next few months on these issues and I think it extremely important that we maintain the traditions of this House and not allow them to slip.
The Minister said in her opening speech that the process of enlargement will continue—to Bulgaria and Romania, which we may hope will hit the date of 2007, although current developments suggest real problems in reaching that date; and then to Turkey and the western Balkans.
Policy towards the remaining neighbours of the European Union requires much more active attention. I was struck when I read the Commission paper of March 2003, clumsily entitled Wider Europe—Neighbourhood: A New Framework for Relations with Our Neighbours, at the ambitious agenda it was setting out for further extending the zone of security and stability beyond our present boundaries. The Thessaloniki European Council repeated the phrase that we do not wish to draw a new dividing line in Europe. If we are not to draw a new dividing line in Europe, our relations with Ukraine, heaven knows our immensely difficult relations with Belarus and our relations with our neighbours on the Mediterranean are going to have to be a matter of much greater priority. The response of the Foreign Ministers Council to the Commission paper in June was, I thought, flabby and mean. It suggested that our Foreign Ministers are more concerned with haggling among themselves about benefits within the current EU than with thinking about the broader set of issues of Europe's responsibility to the wider world.
I would also like to ask the Minister about the paper that Javier Solana, the High Representative on Common Foreign and Security Policy, presented to the European Council at Thessaloniki which is entitled A Secure Europe in a Better World. I am not entirely sure about the status of this paper. It appears not to have been published exactly, but lots of copies were available in Washington when I was there last week, and lots of people in Washington have written about it. So it is certainly being circulated, but not exactly pushed for larger consumption here. A member of Mr Solana's secretariat, however, told me that it had been put out with the intention of promoting a broader debate on a wider European international strategy intended to lead up to the European Council in December. If that is the case, it would be helpful if it were easier for Members of this House and of the other place to get hold of a copy. I quote from that paper:
"It is not in our interest that enlargement should create new dividing lines in Europe. We need to extend the benefits of economic and political co-operation to our future neighbours be the East—Ukraine, Moldova. and Belarus—while resolving political problems there … We need to extend the zone of security around Europe".
I agree strongly with that view. The deal is a welcome start to extending that zone of security and prosperity. In the next few months beyond this Bill, I
1078
urge the Government to provide the maximum amount of information and political leadership for the lengthy debate to come, with all the misperceptions, myths and deliberately misleading arguments that that will sadly include.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I intervene in today's debate because the approval by the United Kingdom Parliament, when this Bill is passed, for the enlargement of the European Union by the membership of 10 sovereign states in central, eastern and southern Europe is a political event of the highest importance. I do not wish this occasion to pass without having the opportunity personally to salute it. It is indeed a great event in European history.
I have two reasons to welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. First, there is the substance of the decision. It is evident that the EU will be strengthened by the new members in terms of its common purpose as a community of sovereign states, because the new member states will bring their distinctive contribution in terms of their national attitude to the many questions that will probably confront us for many years to come. For example, I cite: the protection of the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources; the responsibilities of richer countries for development and humanitarian aid elsewhere in the world; the use of energy from fossil fuels, nuclear or renewable sources; and the balance between centralisation and regional policies within the EU itself.
Your Lordships will note from those examples that I look forward to constructive co-operation with the new member states over a long-term perspective. This Bill, by endorsing their membership, sets up that long-term vision. I am relatively indifferent in the context of this important enlargement to some of the minor issues that sometimes cause commentators in the United Kingdom to fret, such as the precise number of full or associate European Commissioners. Nor do I have any particular anxiety about problems that some have signalled about the EU budget for the enlarged union. There will, of course, be some modest re-balancing of the budget in favour of the new member states so that each would be better off after this enlargement.
The transfer of funds between 2004 and 2006, as the Minister mentioned, will be about 3 per cent of the new member states' gross national product. In due course—which I believe is rather too slowly—the costs for agriculture and rural development in the EU as a whole will fall, certainly in real terms. It is also important to bear in mind that total EU expenditure is definitively capped by unanimity, and can only be increased with the agreement of the UK Parliament. Also the budget of the enlarged EU proposed for next year will still be below 1 per cent of the enlarged EU's gross domestic product and probably only just over 2 per cent of total public expenditure in the EU.
The second reason for my wholehearted support is an unashamedly personal one. Over very many years, I have supported the enlargement of the Union, which

1079
I believe will add to the voice of reason in international affairs and to a higher quality of life within the Union itself. When I worked in Brussels I made some personal contribution to the basic document "Agenda 2000", which sets out the case for a stronger and wider Union, the challenge of enlargement and the European Commission's opinions on the applications for accession. It effectively launched the negotiations on the basis of a first assessment of what the applicant countries might need to do and, more importantly and wisely, what the existing European Union might need to do in respect of its own policies.
I participated in one way or another in the negotiations for the United Kingdom's accession, together with Ireland and Denmark, and for the Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, Austrian, Finnish and Swedish accessions, so your Lordships will understand that I did not want to stand on the sidelines in this debate. I wanted a royal flush.
Although I believe that the most important gain from enlargement—for existing member states, particularly the United Kingdom, and the new member states—is based on the long-term perspective of a fair and wealthier Europe, better equipped to fight crime, drugs and some of the other problems of modern society, I shall also say a word about the short-term perspective, which I also believe to be favourable.
It is important to realise that, in trading terms, the new member states are already closely tied into the European Union and that the almost complete opening-up of bilateral trade has already shown advantages. United Kingdom trade with the new member states has increased in a little over 10 years by over 400 per cent; over 10,000 United Kingdom firms trade with them. The growth in the exports of the new member states, some of it directly beneficial to our consumers, has been substantial—for example, it has been over 200 per cent for the Czech Republic, 290 per cent for Hungary and 250 per cent for Slovenia. About 67 per cent of the exports of the new member states go to the European Union. For some, the percentage is as high as 77 per cent, as in Estonia, or 75 per cent, as in Hungary. That has contributed to a big increase in wealth. There has been growth of about 40 per cent in the gross domestic product of the former Soviet zone countries. If we believe in a European economic community, this is surely it. In today's terms and in trading terms, we are in an area of mutual benefit.
What of the future for trade, inward investment and the capacity of the new member states to compete in the single market? Many of their exports are highly competitive. In the other direction, substantial improvements in banking and financial services have been introduced, following the arrival of western banks and financial institutions. Despite the element of disruption that goes with the opening-up of markets, such as has taken place, growth has been good. I am sure that the new member states will compete effectively in the single market.
As well as trade liberalisation, direct foreign investment has played a part. The central and eastern European countries have had about 120 billion dollars
1080
of foreign investment in the past 10 years. I expect substantial foreign direct investment to continue, although there may he a slight pause for breath, while investors look to see how wage levels, currently about one third of the European Union average, develop.
There has been some concern that the enlargement of the Union will give rise to increased migration into western Europe. That was mentioned by earlier speakers. It is thought that it might exacerbate public disquiet here about illegal immigration and the inflow of asylum seekers. The two questions must be separated. The treaty grants nationals of Cyprus and Malta the same right to work in another member state as is currently enjoyed by nationals of existing member states—that is simple. For the other eight new member states, the Bill provides a power, as the noble Baroness made clear, to grant the same right to work in the United Kingdom as is enjoyed by nationals of other member states.
The treaty would have allowed the United Kingdom to defer the application of that right up to 2009 or, in exceptional circumstances, 2011. The United Kingdom Government have decided not to do so, but to grant it from 1st May, 2004. On balance, I think that this decision is right—although controversial, perhaps—and that the British public will understand that we are speaking of legal entry to work that we are granting, not of illegality or lack of control. It is important to make that point. I put it in that simple form and do not go back to the precedents about migration to or from Spain because I do not wish to enter into any further discussion about Mr Beckham. Furthermore, there will, if I understand the position correctly, be a safeguard power in the regulation to reapply some control if necessary. It is a satisfactory situation, although a little controversial, and I support it.
It is very pleasing that the European Union at this time is dealing with the two big issues of enlargement of the Union and the preparation of a better basic treaty as a result of the consultation of national parliaments and others in the convention. I am very glad that enlargement will be speeded forward in the House today.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, as a prologue, I must say that I deplore what happened in the European Parliament last night. While the Italian presidency got off to an inauspicious start, I hope and believe that the Italians will recover their poise. They are taking up the presidency at a very important time. I say that with all the more feeling because I and the noble Baroness. Lady Crawley, in an earlier incarnation, were friends and colleagues of Martin Schulz, who deserves respect, not insults.
Like Julius Caesar's Gaul, my contribution is divided into three parts. First, I draw attention to the astounding fact that 10 more countries are freely and keenly joining the European Union. That is astounding because for many of us who have lived in the shadow of the Iron Curtain the prospect of a

1081
Europe whole and free has always been but a distant hope. However, as each accession occurs, that hope is being gradually realised. It is also astounding because the change has been effected without one applicant country turning down the chance to join the EU. Indeed, eight out of the 10 countries that have already decided did so by handsome majorities in referendums: in Poland and the Czech Republic by about 77 per cent, in Hungary by 84 per cent and in Slovenia and Slovakia by 90 per cent or more. Equally astounding has been the lukewarm—indeed, curmudgeonly—reception given to those countries by our own Eurosceptic press and the Europhobic members of the party opposite. Instead of a fanfare proclaiming the unification of Europe, the Eurosceptic press resorts to belittling the turnouts of the referendums held in the accession countries. It is its last gasp of ill will towards the European project. In turn, it is supported by the politicians who campaign for the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union. That was exemplified in your Lordships' House last Friday in the form of the Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
I am constantly amazed by the desire of some noble Lords to leave the European Union while the rest of Europe and beyond knock on the door to come in. I am reminded of the old riddle:
"As I was going to St Ives, I met a man with seven wives".
Like the man bound for St Ives, the Eurosceptics march off into their self-imposed internal exile in the mistaken belief that others in Europe support their vain charge of the lightweight brigade. However, how should we think differently of the party opposite, which is led by the Europhobic lain Duncan Smith, a man who by conviction would prefer Britain to be left abandoned on the continental shelf? I understand that when the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, makes criticisms, he does so from a positive stance; we always listen to and welcome his criticisms as we advance further down the road.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord was very kind in his remarks about me but he cannot pick and mix in that way. I speak for the Conservative Party as a whole and the proposition that we are Europhobic or anti-European is completely untrue and should not be asserted, whether in relation to myself or any other member of my party.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, looking at the Benches opposite and after listening to the debate last Friday, pick-and-mix is characteristic of the party opposite.
My second point is that I support the accession of these respected countries. It will be good for them and us. My confidence in this matter is bolstered by the experience of the earlier accessions of Ireland, Spain, Greece and Portugal. For those states joining the European Union meant anchoring democracy, securing human rights and promoting market economies. Prosperity has taken root in those countries aided by the
1082
European regional and cohesion funds, which have succeeded in boosting their economies despite their geographical peripherality.
My confident prediction is that the new batch of accession countries will considerably benefit over time. Indeed, independent research suggests that those countries may expand their GDPs by some 20 per cent in the medium term as a result of joining while Britain's own economy will also benefit to the tune of £1.75 billion. In this Eurovision contest of expanding economies, everyone can be on song. I reject the fears of those like David Heathcoat-Amory MP, the Conservative representative on the recently completed Convention on the Future of Europe. He told BBC Radio 4 that he is very worried about enlargement when we try to absorb a lot of other countries with different cultures for which our judicial and legal systems are quite unprepared. He continued by saying that it is also going to be very expensive. What a relief that Great Britain never tried to establish an empire and that the East India Company so quickly faded.
The truth is that we all stand to gain culturally and politically and also in terms of promoting peace, improving the environment and deepening democracy. But the grouting of the Union, which binds it together, is the establishment of the world's richest and largest market which, in May 2004, will swell to about 455 million people. I make that point because all too frequently the disciples of Mr Heathcoat-Amory complain that the single market was all that Britain signed up to back in the 1970s. They scarcely acknowledge that it is the market which has been the engine of the Union and, moreover, that their constant backbiting undermines the efforts of British entrepreneurs seeking to penetrate that widening single European market. If one keeps trying to tell British business people that Europe is the home of red tape, foreign tongues and funny money, then one cannot be surprised if they stay at home. The Europhobes are the very worst ambassadors for Britain backing Europe.
That brings me to my third and final point, which is the Government's wise and intelligent decision in Clause 2 of the Bill to grant immediate free movement for workers from the accession countries to ply their trades and skills in Britain. Not only is that in conformity with the single market's four freedoms of free movement of people, capital, goods and services, but it will also allow Britain to fill the current skills gap in the British workforce. Indeed, I ask the Minister whether the Government are devising any specific strategy to welcome and place such skilled workers when accession takes place in May 2004.
There is one further point as to why the Government's move is both astute and intelligent. By offering freedom of movement to workers from accession countries right at the outset, we immediately stake our claim to be first, firm and fast friends of the accession countries. Such an act of spontaneous friendship will store up for us a pool of goodwill towards Britain, capable of being called on for many years to come as Europe new and old unites in common purpose.

1083
Those with the gall to oppose these beneficial changes prefer to leave Europe a divided trinity. The Bill signals their defeat and provides for a better Europe. I, for one, applaud it and encourage the Minister to proselytise for the Bill as part of the Prime Minister's campaign to promote Europe in Britain and Britain in Europe.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, I have a personal reason for wanting to say at least a few words in the debate. I cannot claim to have had any practical input into the process of the accession of new countries, but ever since the heady and memorable days of what I call the revolution of 1989, which put an end to communist rule in east-central Europe and beyond, I have been a staunch and firm advocate of enlarging the European Union and having our European friends and neighbours inside.
The result is the present slim Bill, which the Minister has rightly called momentous. It is probably more momentous—if that is not offensive to anyone—than some of the massive tomes that come our way for scrutiny every now and again, and particularly in recent months. It marks a change in the face of Europe and in the direction of peace and liberty.
I said that I had no practical input into the process this time. I had a slight practical input into an earlier process of enlargement of the European Communities, as they were then called, when I was commissioner for foreign trade and foreign affairs at the time of Britain's application for membership. Even at that time I strongly opposed a view widely held in Europe that there is a conflict between deepening European co-operation and enlarging the European Union. I do not believe that that conflict exists. Every time the EU has seen enlargement it has also seen a process of intensified co-operation within. I am convinced that enlargement this time will have the same effect.
The accession comes later than some of us—including, I am glad to observe, Her Majesty's Government—would have wished. It is also rather less generous than the new members deserved, since they nearly became net contributors to a wealthy European Union on entering it. But at least enlargement will now be a fact. Europe is, in the words of President Bush the father, "whole and free"—nearly whole, as several noble Lords have rightly emphasised, for even apart from Norway and Switzerland, much of south-eastern Europe remains outside for the moment. The question of the open borders beyond is one of the major issues ahead of us.
Still, enlargement is a fact. While the United States of America and NATO remain crucial to Europe's security, the level of political and economic co-operation achieved in the European Union puts an end to centuries of internecine struggles and establishes—indeed to some extent guarantees—the constitution of liberty over an entire continent. Apart from North America, no other part of the world has managed such a feat.
1084
The European Union will be different once the enlargement has happened. Even without using the language of an "old" and a "new" Europe, one can predict that what some called "core Europe"—that is, essentially France and Germany—will no longer necessarily be the engine of closer co-operation. What may geographically seem the periphery is in fact the set of countries whose governments signed the "Letter of the Eight", affirming the Western alliance in the face of the Iraq war. After 1st May 2004, their view will be the majority view of the Union, and it is one which we should welcome.
The Bill before us emphasises one of the four liberties of the single market: the freedom of movement for workers. Perhaps it needs to be stressed, as others have done—and the House seems to be largely united on this point—that there is nothing to worry about in this prospect. My own hope is that the new members, especially those in east-central Europe, will begin a process of catching up economically, following in some ways the Irish model. However, it must be said that they would engage in this process at a time when the general economic climate is less favourable to rapid catching up by any country than it was at the time of Ireland's accession.
Workers may come to the old member states in the near future and help to provide essential services, for which we should be grateful. But, judging from the Polish experience—I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that Poland is not only the largest new member but the most significant country among those acceding—the people who come to us are just as likely to go back before long to help to create a sustainable economy of prosperity at home.
In short, the Bill sets the seal on one of the great steps forward in European history. I, for one, support it and its implications wholeheartedly.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I also welcome the Bill and especially the principle of enlargement of the European Union. I am delighted to see that, of the 10 new member nations, two are from the Commonwealth: Cyprus and Malta. I note also that all 10 are republics and, of course, that changes the happy balance between seven constitutional monarchies and eight republics in the present membership of the European Union.
But most important is the fact that eight out of the 10 new members are former communist countries. It is great to see them now becoming integrated as free, independent sovereign nations within the European Union. They are, of course, already all members of the Council of Europe and many are already within NATO. I recall revisiting Warsaw two years ago, having been there previously when the communists were in power. The most dramatic impact for me was walking past the ministry of defence headquarters in the centre of Warsaw and finding the NATO flag flying over the building. That is the kind of impression that one receives and the impact that is made as Europe comes closer together. In trade, we are creating

1085
a market of 450 million people. That must be good for United Kingdom business. It must increase the opportunities for trade.
However, the EU is a political, as well as an economic, union. I hope that the 10 nations from the new Europe will be more supportive of a union of independent sovereign states than a federal European Union. Here, I shall say something that may not be welcomed. In Europe, the British—or the English, as they call us—are not particularly popular. That is not because of the behaviour of some louts who follow the English football team—far from it. It goes much deeper. For example. in France, at most levels of society, there is a jealousy of the United Kingdom. In Europe there is resentment of Britain; a perception that the English are arrogant, behave as if they are superior and claim to know better. To deny this is to avoid the reality of politics in Europe. I have witnessed this over the past 17 years in European politics, 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament and seven in the Council of Europe. This perception of the United Kingdom is totally unfair. In the European Parliament and in the Council of Europe, United Kingdom politicians—Labour and Conservative—are among the most hard working and efficient. They make a major contribution to a peaceful and better Europe.
I hope that the accession of the new European nations will strengthen the role and the respect for the United Kingdom in Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf suggested. I agree that it gives us greater opportunity and support within a larger Europe. But it would be unwise to imagine that the United Kingdom will have no difficulties with old Europe so long as these perceptions exist.
With these 10 new members, the majority of the European Union, like the United Kingdom, will not have the euro as their national currency. I live in the only part of the United Kingdom having a land boundary with a euro-land country—the Republic of Ireland. I say "Long Live The Euro" so long as the Republic of Ireland has it and Northern Ireland does not. As chairman of a family business employing 250 people in five of the six counties of Northern Ireland, I know at first hand the impact of the euro.
The Republic of Ireland has suffered from one of the highest rates of inflation across Europe. In the past year it has had a 15 per cent currency appreciation against sterling, yet it is powerless to address these problems. Both industry and agriculture based in the republic are finding it more difficult to export to countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Businesses are being forced to close down and unemployment is increasing. This week alone, some 500 jobs in the Republic of Ireland were lost in long established companies such as Navan Carpets and Powerscreen. Both companies closed their plants and both blamed currency exchange rates—the euro—for their demise. Northern Ireland gets brisk business as a result. Thousands of Republic of Ireland citizens visit
1086
us each week to make purchases of food, drinks and household goods which are all much cheaper in Northern Ireland.
I am delighted that in addition to the 10 countries now joining the European Union, there is reference to Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. I consider the accession of Turkey to the European Union to be of great importance. I despair when I see some people opposing Turkey because its citizens are Moslem. If Turkey does not move towards integration with the European Union, it will go in the other direction towards Islamic fundamentalism. Anyone who knows that country knows that over the past 30 years there has been a tremendous growth in Islam throughout that land—not just secular, but fundamentalist Islam. Mosques have appeared at almost every crossroads. Europe faces a great challenge in how it reacts to Turkey. Reforms are taking place in that country but more have to come. Interestingly, its GDP per capita is higher than some of the 10 included in this Bill. I hope that a more favourable approach towards Turkey's membership of the European Union will continue in the years ahead.
The problem of Cyprus has been mentioned. I fear that we, within the European Union and its institutions, are now about to absorb the problems of that island. With regard to the negotiations, over the past few years I have always stated that we should not have given a blank cheque to the Greek Cypriots and said: "You can join the European Union whether or not there is a settlement". By taking that approach we were not giving the Greek Cypriots any incentive to reach an agreement because they knew they were going to get in without an agreement.
It has been said that the Turkish Cypriots should have accepted the United Nations proposals—proposals which were not even submitted to them in their own language, Turkish. They were asked to accept something which was not in their language. That was not a good start. Then 100 pages in the United Nations proposals, which have been praised by some colleagues, were blank. How can one accept proposals with 100 blank pages? Of course those pages which were not blank involved the movement of 60,000 Turkish Cypriots, who would again become refugees for the second time in 30 years. They included unfair boundaries for the two new entities and, worst of all, they abandoned the idea of partnership between the Turkish and the Greek Cypriots, as was involved in the original constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. Instead, the UN proposals created majority rule of the Greek Cypriots over the Turkish Cypriots. I hope that those who praised the United Nations proposals will read the hundreds of pages in them before they reach the bland conclusion that President Denktash should have accepted those proposals. It would have been great to get a settlement, but certainly the current UN proposals in my opinion are not very fair.
However, congratulation must be given to both Turkish and Greek Cypriots for the changes which have taken place in the island in recent months. Following the decision of President Denktash to open the Green Line, there has been positive movement in

1087
the island. Although the Greek Cypriot Government initially opposed that initiative by President Denktash, I am glad to say that the Greek Cypriot people voted with their feet and within 24 hours were moving in their thousands into northern Cyprus.
Greek Cypriots now spend three days per week in northern Cyprus, whereas Turkish Cypriots are still only allowed to spend one day in southern Cyprus. In recent weeks there has been a retrograde step in that the Greek Cypriot authorities are seizing all purchases made by Greek Cypriots returning from the north to the south. Such petty obstacles do not contribute to improved relations between the two communities. Let us see the positive side; that is, Greek and Turkish Cypriots are now allowed to go into each other's territory and they are learning to live with each other again.
In contrast to the opening of the Green Line, however, Her Majesty's Government, after 29 years, have now decided to close the border between the Dhekelia base and northern Cyprus. So United Kingdom citizens who live in northern Cyprus can no longer enter the British sovereign base territory to the east of the island, a territory which is mostly surrounded by northern Cyprus.
Within the sovereign base area, as has been mentioned, Greek Cypriot farmers will now benefit from European Union agricultural policies. All Greek Cypriots on the base will benefit from the European Convention on Human Rights. But, at the same time as movement across the Green Line begins, United Kingdom residents in northern Cyprus resent the decision by Her Majesty's Government to stop them entering their own British territory, having had that facility for the past 29 years. It is extraordinary. I ask Her Majesty's Government to explore an alternative which would allow UK citizens in the north to enter the sovereign base but not to use it as a means of access to the Greek Cypriot territory to the south. That is the issue which must be addressed. With that qualification, I welcome the enlargement of the European Union and support the Bill.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the debate and so far there seems to have been a unanimous welcome for the Bill. However, I fear that I shall have to shatter that unanimity, because I do not welcome the Bill. Many of your Lordships who know me will understand why. I shall explain, as briefly as I can, why I do not support the Bill.
Before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that I regret that he criticised our debate last Friday, because I do not believe that the people who took part went outside the traditions of this House. Those are to debate freely, forthrightly, rather than to make set speeches. Last Friday's debate was in the best traditions of this House. It was the epitome of decorum, decency and good order, compared with the deplorable and insulting behaviour of the President of the European Council towards the
1088
European Parliament yesterday. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, raised that point rather than myself, because I cannot now be accused of being a Europhobe simply and solely because I mention the bad behaviour of the President of the European Council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in introducing the Bill—as she always does with lucidity and clarity—said that the Bill had far reaching implications over how we are governed, and for the institutions of Europe. She said that it was a small Bill, but the treaty involved 5,000 pages, and there was to be a White Paper. Why did we not have the White Paper before the introduction of the Bill? Would it not have been sensible to have seen the detail of the treaty, and to have had it explained to us, before we and the House of Commons were asked to pass a Bill to ratify the treaty? I wish that that had occurred. We are now being asked to agree to the Bill before we have seen that White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, supported the Bill and said that it was part of the dream to realise the union of European nations. I hope that that dream will not turn into a nightmare; I fear that it may.
I have opposed all enlargements of the European Union, because I believe that they would lead inevitably to greater centralisation and eventually to a single European super-state—a united states of Europe. Noble Lords have heard me say that before. I have always believed that and I still do so. That is why I oppose the Bill. I have taken issue with those who believe that enlargement would lead to widening but not deepening. I have always believed that widening would always lead to deepening and centralisation. In the light of developments following previous enlargements—the Single European Act and the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties—and the new constitution proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe, my view has been proved to be correct. Widening inevitably means deepening and centralisation. We cannot get away from that; it will not work otherwise and it is absurd to say that it will not occur. Many people who previously took a different view from mine are now coming round in the light of our experience.
So I say again: I am opposed to the Bill, first and foremost because I believe that it is the enemy of freedom and democracy, not its friend, and the friend of undemocratic centralism and the corporate state. It undoubtedly paves the way—perhaps with the best of intentions—to a destination that is bound to lead to the destruction of the nations of Europe. Many European leaders say that that is their aim; they believe that that is desirable. They are entitled to that opinion, but it is not my opinion. That would lead to the destruction of the nations of Europe as we know them and the construction of a new European empire, whose power and impact we cannot foresee at present.
We are told—we have been told this afternoon—that the people of the 10 new countries are desperate to join the European Union. The referendums that have been held so far certainly seem to show that a majority of people are in favour of joining, although one must

1089
temper that by saying that the turnout in some countries has not been brilliant. The people of those countries have been promised great benefits from membership of the European Union by their own leaders and by the ubiquitous propaganda machine of the European Commission.
What will happen when those people find that they must submit to the 97,000 pages of the acquis communautaire and the 104,000 regulations that must be implemented, I simply do not know. Nor do I know how they will react when the promised financial, social and economic benefits do not immediately materialise. Many of them will not be theirs for many years—or perhaps at all. The accession states may also reflect that, because they must absorb and implement that mass of regulation, especially as it applies to industry and commerce, they may find themselves much less attractive places for inward investment, which may very well adversely affect job prospects and living standards. They should concern themselves with that.
Many entrant countries have a large agricultural component to their economies. That of Poland is 20 per cent. They will be required to modernise their agricultural methods quickly, but—as I understand it; I may be wrong—not receive subsidy until 2013. So people are likely to be driven from the land into towns and cities that will have difficulty in finding jobs, housing and services for them. As the United Kingdom is allowing free movement of labour immediately, are those poor people not likely to want to come here? That must be considered.
As to any benefits to Britain of this accession treaty, they are hard to find. We already trade freely with all the accession countries. We already have that market. It is not an addition to our export market; it is already there. That is not such a great thing, especially as their combined GDP is quite modest and barely more than the Netherlands. It is unlikely to give a great boost to trade for this country, if any at all. In the short-term, accession could cause a loss of manufacturing jobs in Britain, which also has to be taken on board.
There could be adverse consequences in some areas of Britain. As it is likely that enlargement will divert EU Structural Funds to the entrant countries which are poorer than we are, it is virtually certain that the four regions of the United Kingdom at present enjoying Objective 1 status—Merseyside, South Yorkshire, West Wales and the Valleys, and Cornwall—will have to lose that status after 2006. That is a legitimate concern which the British people might have about this accession treaty.
Where do we go from here? We know that Romania and Bulgaria are now on the invitation list to join. But what about Turkey? That has been raised previously in this debate. Turkey is an Asian country—we cannot get away from geography. It is an Asian country with a large and increasing population. That population has a great propensity to grow because it is a young population at present. The projected population of Turkey by 2050 is 110 million. At the same time the population of many of the Western European countries will be falling. For example, the projected population of Germany will be 60 million. Therefore
1090
there are great implications in allowing Turkey to join: first, because of its population growth and, secondly, because it is an Asian country.
What are the limits of a European Union? If we go into Turkey, it will no longer be a European Union, it will be a Eurasian Union. How much further do we intend to go?
This is a very important Bill. I am only sorry that the maximum number of people in this Chamber to listen to the debate—and I have been counting—has been 18. The Bill has huge and wide implications, as was pointed out by the Minister at the beginning of the debate. Matters of such great import should not be relegated to a comparatively late hour on a Thursday evening, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell said. However, there will be other stages and no doubt we shall have further debate about it.
Finally, it would be nice if we could have the White Paper before we deliberate further on the Bill.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I welcome the spirit in which this debate has been conducted and hope it indicates that the new member states can be sure that this country will warmly welcome them to the European Union as our partners in future years. I am also enormously grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for both speaking so forcefully on behalf of their respective parties.
Britain has prominently and consistently supported this enlargement. After the convulsions of 1989, this country—and, let it be said, under a Conservative government—was one of the first to grasp fully the implications of the emergence of liberal democracies and market economies on the borders of the Union; one of the first to understand the aspirations of peoples newly freed from authoritarian control.
John Major argued as early as 1991 that the ultimate destiny of eastern Europeans was membership of the Community. The last Conservative government, supported by us when we were in opposition, pushed hard to make that enlargement central to EU policy. Since 1997, this Government have carried forward energetically the British commitment to enlargement. Negotiations began under our presidency and we have encouraged successive presidencies to keep them on track.
Next year's enlargement of the Union is, first and foremost, a credit to the vision, energy and determination of the peoples and governments of central and eastern Europe, Malta and Cyprus, while the successful conclusion of the negotiations last year is witness to the skill of the Danish presidency and that of the Commission.
However, we should not understate our own role in this. Enlargement is a good news story for British policy in Europe. Our advocacy, under both Conservative and Labour governments, leaves us well placed to mould the shape of Europe in the years

1091
ahead. Our debate today has roamed around a number of issues and I shall do my best to answer the points which have been made.
I turn first to the question of freedom of movement in Europe. Although the noble Lord, Lord Howell, certainly did not oppose freedom of movement in principle, he raised some concerns about it. Other noble Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Williamson of Horton, and my noble friend Lord Harrison also touched on the subject. The free movement of persons is one of the Community's fundamental principles. The accession treaty grants citizens of all the new member states the right to move freely within the Union for most of the purposes envisaged by the EC treaty. We believe that it would have been quite wrong to deny citizens of the new member states such a fundamental right. While I understand that it is a difficult and sensitive issue, it was very much the view taken by the Government.
Such restrictions on free movement as the accession treaty creates relate only to freedom of movement for the purposes of work. However, as I indicated earlier, Malta and Cyprus are not covered by those restrictions.
Let me make it clear why the United Kingdom Government want to waive their right to impose restrictions on other states. We believe that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to do so. It makes no sense to refuse to allow those who have a right to enter and reside in the UK the right to work here. Those who can work legally do so in the open market. They make a positive contribution to the national tax base and they do not undercut the decent minimum standards of statutory protection that apply to United Kingdom workers.
We took the decision on the basis of a series of independent studies which argued that free movement will not cause large influxes of people into our labour market. Those who argued that the Iberian accession in the mid-1980s would have that effect were proved quite wrong. As a result of joining the European Union, more Spaniards returned home than moved abroad.
If our expectations are confounded, we will be able to repeal or amend the regulations made under this Bill. We will retain this right—and in saying that I respond to a point specifically raised by several noble Lords. I want to make it absolutely clear: we will retain the right, through the safeguards provided by the accession treaty, until the end of April 2011. So we have retained a flexibility of approach from 2004 through to 2011. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, was right to seek clarity on this point. I hope that what I have said reassures those noble Lords who were concerned about this.
My noble friend Lord Harrison asked whether the Government would devise a specific strategy to welcome workers from the accession countries. Employers in the United Kingdom already enjoy good relationships with workers in the new member states through schemes such as the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme and the Work Permits Scheme. We
1092
expect those relationships to continue and to strengthen after accession. They will continue to ensure that we attract skilled workers, many of whom are very much needed in the United Kingdom to fill our vacancies. But that is not devising new schemes; it merely takes forward the schemes we already have in place.
I shall turn to the points made about the European Convention. Several noble Lords touched on this subject, although I was grateful to noble Lords for not going too far into a convention debate. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that he looked forward to a debate. I very much look forward to the debate. The noble Lord quoted from an article in the Economist in regard to concerns about where the convention was taking us. Let me quote from Le Monde of 29th May 2003. In contrast to the article from which the noble Lord quoted, it states:
"The British Government is pleased with the Convention and has every right to be so. The text meets virtually all its expectations and allays most of its fears".
The noble Lord juxtaposed the position of Poland and other eastern European countries with what he described as the Paris/Berlin agenda. But, as he said, we are very much on the same side as the accession countries in the argument over Iraq. We are very much not on the Paris/Berlin agenda and have been severely criticised in many quarters for not being on it. The UK Government have taken the right decision in that regard and we have the common-sense to ensure that we will be strong allies and supporters of the rights of the accession countries to make up their own minds on where they stand on such issues in the future.
The noble Lord was concerned about the new countries not having a voice at the IGC. The new countries will be a negotiating party at the IGC and will therefore take part in deciding which of the convention proposals go forward. They are not being asked to sign up to anything upon which they will not have a say, and any of them can use their veto during the course of the IGC. It is important that I make that point to the noble Lord because I gained the impression that he was implying they would be faced with a fait accompli at the IGC that they would have to pick up as accession countries. That is not the case. They will be full participating members in the negotiations at the IGC.
I turn now to the reform of the common agricultural policy, a point raised in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Many Members of your Lordships' House have been strong critics of the common agricultural policy in its current form. The Council of Agricultural Ministers last week reached an agreement that I believe will set a new direction for European agriculture. It will simplify the common agricultural policy, reduce the burden on farmers through a single farm payment and free farmers to produce what the market wants, to optimise their production and to cut their costs. It also has the enormous benefit of giving the EU a strong negotiating position in the WTO negotiations.

1093
I mention this because one cannot say often enough how important this shift is on the common agricultural policy. We shall have to work very hard to ensure that it brings forward the benefits we need, but we have seen an important shift. I believe that the advent of the accession countries was one of the drivers in ensuring that we will go forward and at least reach the beginning of some of the new understandings.
The noble Lord was worried about the farmers in the new states not being able to compete without 100 per cent of direct payments. Even without direct payments, the common agricultural policy will provide guaranteed higher prices for most products, raising the incomes of those farmers. They will also benefit from lower costs, particularly in terms of land prices.
Many noble Lords referred to the issue of finances. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, is right. The financial package for new member states is generous and very fair. It grants a significant amount of money to the new member states—some £26.6 billion between 2004 and 2006, which, as I have stated already, is 3 per cent of their GDP. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, is also right that this has been achieved within the overall budget ceilings for enlargement which were agreed in 1999 at Berlin.
My noble friend Lord Harrison referred to the issue of economic benefits. The impact of enlargement on the existing EU member states is difficult to quantify but recent studies estimate that enlargement will add 0.2 per cent to EU GDP growth overall and that the UK's share of that will be about 14 per cent and worth about £1.75 billion. I stress that that figure is at 1999 prices.
I agreed very strongly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, about trade. The economic benefits of EU enlargement arise from substantial extra opportunities for trade in goods and services, rooted in the expansion of the single market. The UK's total trade with the candidate countries has grown at a faster rate than our total trade elsewhere. Since 1990, UK trade with new member states has increased by some 400 per cent compared with a 43 per cent increase in our trade with the rest of the world. Those figures speak very ably for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, cast doubt on the economic benefits for the accession countries. The noble Lord is a clever man, a sensible man and a logical man. Does he really believe that 10 accession states in Europe have simultaneously been struck by an aberrational desire to wreck their economy? Or does he believe that, after five years of painstaking negotiations, they have not realised that other countries which have joined the European Union enjoy an increase in their living standards as a result?
Some of your Lordships spoke about future accessions. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was concerned about not achieving the target dates for Bulgaria and Romania. The Prime Minister has publicly offered our support for closure of negotiations with Bulgaria and Romania, and has offered specific
1094
help. We have 20 and eight consultants and pre-accession advisers assisting the Romanian and Bulgarian Administration respectively to prepare for their EU accession. We realise that there is a lot of work to be done but we are doing what we can to help.
The noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Stoddart, raised the question of Turkish accession although, I am bound to say, from very different perspectives. Of course the United Kingdom strongly supports Turkey's EU candidature, as confirmed at the Helsinki European Council in December 1999 and subsequently at the Copenhagen European Council in 2002. Like all other candidates, Turkey must meet the political criteria for membership agreed by heads of government at the 1993 Copenhagen European Council before opening accession negotiations. These include the existence of stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for the protection of minorities. So in answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, we have long been a supporter of Turkey's EU candidature, and under this Government we shall continue to be so.
Questions were raised about what could be described as wider Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, touched on this point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. There are a number of countries which aspire to join us—Ukraine and Moldova, as European states, aspire to membership of the European Union, in line with Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union. But we have a long way to go down the path of reform with those countries.
Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia and the Union of Serbia and Montenegro are considered to be potential candidates, and the UK Government strongly support each country's aspirations. But I stress that, like any other aspirants, they must meet the objective criteria for membership.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, raised the issue of Cyprus, as he has on previous occasions. Under the terms of the accession treaty Protocol 10, the acquis communautaire will be suspended in the north of the island if there has been no political settlement by 1st May 2004. But if a settlement is reached, the Council will decide, by unanimity, first to lift the suspension and secondly on the terms of the accession for a united island. Whether divided or not, Cyprus will accede on 1st May 2004.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to the SBAs. I repeat that under the EC treaty it is clear that the SBAs are outside the EU. I recognise that that may cause him one or two difficulties. No doubt we can discuss this further.
We have a great deal of work before us. I hope that this Second Reading debate and the spirit in which it has been conducted is an indication of the way in which we will be able to take forward its Committee and further stages. Sadly, I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that today's debate has been in stark contrast to that which we had on Friday. It is not that there was disagreement on Friday—of course there is going to be disagreement in

1095
your Lordships' House; it is right and proper that there should be—but what I think was a little tricky was the note of somewhat sneering derision about the motives of those with whom some of your Lordships disagreed. I suggest that that was not helpful to debate and was not really in the best traditions of this House.
I should like to pick up on a point of confusion, I think, with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in regard to the White Paper. I am sure that it is my fault and that I have not been clear enough. The White Paper which is being discussed is a White Paper on the IGC, not on the accession treaty. I think that they are two different issues. The White Paper that is planned is on the intergovernmental conference. I also say to the noble Lord that I understand—none of your Lordships can fail to understand—his concerns about federalism and a superstate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords. I am most obliged to the noble Baroness. I did misunderstand her. I believed that she was promising a White Paper on the accession treaty.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wanted to clarify the point. The White Paper is not on this but on the IGC. However, on the question of the superstate, not only members of Her Majesty's Government but members of the French Government and the German Government have repeatedly said that some sort of federal superstate is certainly not in their vision of the way to carry forward the European Union.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, said. This Bill will change the face of Europe and the EU will indeed be very different. The Bill sets the scene for one of the greatest steps forward in European history. I was enormously grateful to him for his, as always, very thoughtful contribution.
We have spoken today about the historic nature of this enlargement, but I hope that we are now in a position to look forward. In Brussels the new member states are already making their presence felt as active participants in the Union's institutions. We are working with them on a variety of shared interests—of course on the common agricultural policy reform, on economic reform, and on institutional reform. Enlargement really is a success story for United Kingdom policy, but we do not always recognise that enough. The knowledge of enlargement remains low—yes, I think that it is too low—across the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that we will be able to address those issues. The Government are committed to doing what we can to rectify that.
Enlargement offers new opportunities for all sections of our country—for businesses, for civil society and for our citizens alike. I should like to see this country seize those opportunities. I think that enlargement is good for Europe and that it is right for the United Kingdom. So I urge your Lordships to grant this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Finance Bill
7.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I shall also be speaking to the Motion to approve Her Majesty's Government's assessment in the Budget 2003 for the purposes of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, and of course the report of the Economic Affairs Committee on the Finance Bill 2003 is also being considered today. Noble Lords will know that the Government have not yet had the opportunity to respond to the report, and so I shall be constrained in anything I might say.
It is appropriate that these three measures are considered together. The information that the Government report each year to the Commission on our main economic policy measures is based on the Financial Statement and Budget Report, and the Finance Bill underwrites the Government's agenda, outlined by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement, of building a Britain of economic strength and social justice. The procedure is set out in Articles 99 and 104 of the European Communities treaty, which relates to the broad economic policy guidelines, convergence and stability programmes and the excessive deficits procedure. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, usually known as the Maastricht Act, requires Parliament to approve the information sent by the Government to the Commission in order to ensure that member states' economic policies are consistent with the goals of the treaty. Sharing the information in the Budget with our European partners allows us to influence the development of the EU, bringing enhanced employment and growth to Britain and other member states. The information we are sharing confirms that we meet the Maastricht criteria for deficits and for gross debt.
As we set out clearly in Budget 2003, both the treaty reference values of 3 per cent of GDP for the deficit, and 60 per cent of GDP for gross debt, are achieved throughout the projection period.
It is thanks to the economic stewardship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and because we as a Government have been resolute in our commitment to stability, that we are able to increase public expenditure on health, education and our anti-poverty programmes, while meeting our fiscal rules at every stage of the economic cycle, including in the cautious case.
We meet the golden rule over the cycle, not merely achieving a balance, but with an estimated surplus at £32 billion, showing that it is right and prudent to borrow at this time, the right stage in the economic cycle. Adjusted for the cycle we meet the golden rule this year and we meet it every year to 2008.
We also meet the sustainable investment rule that debt should remain below 40 per cent of national income, with debt set to stabilise at 34 per cent of GDP, the lowest in the G7, among the lowest in the EU and down from 44 per cent in 1996–97.

1097
The context for this Finance Bill has been the world economic downturn that in recent years has affected Europe, North America and Asia simultaneously. Now, with sound economic fundamentals and, above all, low inflation—unlike in the early 1980s and the early 1990s—it is right that this Finance Bill is targeted at promoting enterprise and productivity, helping UK businesses to succeed as the world economy returns to trend.
Over the past six years, we have reformed the tax system to create an environment friendly to enterprise and entrepreneurship, promoting investment, innovation and skills. The OECD has said that the UK is the best place to start out and succeed in business, and its latest figures show that our corporate income taxes plus employer social security contributions as a percentage of GDP in 2000 were the third lowest in the EU, lower than France, Germany and Italy.
Our changes have already helped small businesses to employ almost 400,000 more people than they did in 1997. But we are not complacent: the Government are working to make the process easier still, and we have identified more than 500 regulations introduced by previous governments for reform or abolition. This Finance Bill, building on the Budget that introduced it, marks the next stage of reform, to give greater flexibility in capital markets, product markets, housing, planning and the labour market.
Clause 136 provides support for those who regularly work at home under flexible working arrangements. Employers will be able to meet some or all of the incidental household costs incurred by employees who work home without it giving rise to a tax charge.
The Finance Bill contains measures to tackle abuses of the system by non-compliant employers who gain unfair competitive advantage through deliberate late payments. Mandatory electronic payment for large employers is consistent with the VAT system in which the largest traders are required to pay electronically. The surcharge for non-compliance has been modelled, in part, on the VAT default surcharge.
Clauses 158 to 161 simplify capital gains tax, including an extension of business assets taper relief to improve access to let property for unincorporated traders. This continues the Government's strong record of simplifying the tax system for compliant traders and individuals. Clause 164 extends the 100 per cent first year allowance available to small businesses for spending on information and communications technology for a further year to March 2004.
Clauses 138, 139 and 140 simplify and modernise employee share schemes to make them easier for companies to administer. They give employees in such schemes more flexibility, remove anomalies and provide a statutory corporation tax deduction for contributions to employee share schemes. The zero per cent starting rate for corporation tax means that 150,000 companies pay none. At 30 per cent, the main rate is lower than in any other major industrialised country. Clauses 132 to 134 freeze those rates.
1098
The Bill improves the way in which the research and development tax credit works, helping to take us towards the American spend on research and development—about 2.8 per cent of GDP. We will continue to consult business on improving the definition of research and development to make sure that it keeps up with technological developments and remains internationally competitive.
Economic dynamism and participation in enterprise is central to tackling social exclusion. To reduce the costs to business of locating and investing in disadvantaged areas and to support the regeneration of brownfield sites, we announced in the Budget the removal of stamp duty from all non-residential property transactions in the 2,000 disadvantaged areas. That measure, which is covered by Clause 57, is part of our package of measures to encourage business investment in our most disadvantaged communities. Such measures, supporting enterprise, underpin our priorities of creating full employment, tackling child and pensioner poverty and delivering high quality public services through investment and reform. Spending Review 2002 set out our plans for an extra £61 billion of spending on public services by 2005–06. Three-quarters of the additional spend will go on health, education, transport, housing and the fight against crime.
That unprecedented programme of investment depends on a tax system in which everyone pays their fair share. Taxpayers rightly expect the Government to close tax loopholes and tackle tax fraud, so that the burden is not unfairly placed on normal taxpayers because a minority abuse the system. This year's Budget included a compliance and enforcement package to enable the Inland Revenue to counter direct tax avoidance and contribute an additional £1.6 billion over three years. Measures in the Finance Bill tackle missing trader fraud, which cost the UK exchequer between £1.7 billion and £2.75 billion in 2001–02. The fraud is largely run by organised crime gangs that also traffic drugs, contraband and stolen goods. Customs has deployed around 400 staff to tackle such fraud, and a nationally co-ordinated strategy has stabilised it. The House may have heard that, yesterday, Customs arrested 39 people in connection with an alleged major missing trader fraud estimated at £120 million.
The measures in the Finance Bill complement the strategy by curtailing the activities of businesses that allow themselves to be sucked into fraudulent supply chains and are complicit in or turn a blind eye to such fraud. We do not take the powers lightly, and they are balanced by comprehensive and effective safeguards to protect the innocent. Through such compliance activity, Customs aims to reduce the fraud by at least £750 million by the end of the current financial year.
The Finance Bill also includes a wider package of measures to ensure that there is a level playing field for taxpayers who fulfil their obligations. There are measures to close down other schemes that a minority of businesses and individuals have used to avoid paying their fair share of tax. There is action to prevent tax avoidance through the manipulation of share

1099
schemes, coupled with support for companies that want to implement employee share schemes in line with the legislation, and there are clarifications that we have included because we listened to business.
There is action to counter capital gains tax avoidance through offshore trusts and second-hand life insurance policies and to close a loophole in the controlled foreign company rules, which allow some companies to escape UK tax on profits from extended warranties and credit protection insurance.
One of the most important elements of this year's Budget was the comprehensive modernisation of stamp duty to counter widespread tax avoidance, which distorts the commercial property market, distorts business decision making and has given rise to complex and artificial vehicles for transferring property. The reforms will create a level playing field, to the benefit of all taxpayers who cannot engage in highly complex artificial arrangements to avoid paying.
The Government have listened to the representations that were made to us and accepted a number of important amendments during the Bill's passage. On other areas, where the issues were more complex, we agreed to consider the further changes that were debated in the House of Commons. In particular, on the charge of sub-sales, we listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed and, as a result, made changes to ensure that intermediate contracting purchasers are chargeable to stamp duty land tax only if the contract between them and the vendor is substantially performed.
We also took note of the concerns that were expressed about those who enter into contracts before Royal Assent and have made changes to ensure that no one who sub-sells or subsequently performs a contract on or before Royal Assent will be subject to an SDLT charge. We also agreed with the concerns that were expressed that the relief for those who part-exchanged their houses with builders should be extended to those, especially elder people, who "trade down" to a house of lower market value.
Of course there were areas in which we were not convinced by the arguments offered. In particular, we believe that reliefs targeted to where there is most need are preferable to across-the-board increases in thresholds. We have debated those issues thoroughly. However, we recognise that consultation and discussion do not stop when a Finance Bill receives Royal Assent. Over the next few months, we shall be continuing to consult with interested parties to ensure a smooth implementation of stamp duty land tax on 1st December. That is backed up by a comprehensive education programme for solicitors, licensed conveyors and other interested professionals.
On the environment, the Finance Bill takes forward the agenda of using well-designed economic instruments to achieve environmental objectives. Clause 4 establishes a duty differential for sulphur-free fuels of 0.5 per cent per litre relative to ultra-low sulphur fuels from 1st September 2004. We have also announced that from 1st January 2005 bioethanol will be subject to a rate of duty 20 per cent lower than the
1100
prevailing rate for sulphur-free petrol. We must also correct for market failures that send the wrong signals on waste management. Clause 184 of the Finance Bill provides for an increase in the landfill tax rate of £1 per tonne for this year and next to provide business certainty. The Government have also now introduced changes to the landfill tax credit scheme so that spending on waste is managed through a new public spending programme. Transitional arrangements for ongoing waste projects from the previous scheme are in place.
The Government have demonstrated their commitment to supporting those in need at home and abroad. The Chancellor, backed by all the main parties, proposed an international finance facility of 50 billion dollars a year to fund primary education, healthcare and lifesaving drugs for HIV, malaria and TB. Clause 167 makes changes to vaccine research relief to encourage further research and development into vaccines and medicines for the prevention and treatment of the killer diseases of the developing world. The 10 per cent government supplement on gifts to charity through the payroll is extended for one further year to April 2004 in the Bill to encourage employees further to make donations to UK charities working at home and abroad and builds on the success of the scheme, which has seen payroll giving increase to more than £70 million a year.
We also recognise in the Bill the important role of those who provide care and support to vulnerable children and young people through fostering. Clause 175 introduces an income tax exemption for foster carers to support their recruitment and retention by ensuring that they are not unfairly taxed on the expenses that they incur in making their valuable contribution to society. Clause 174 takes action to ensure that payments made to adoptive families under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 will continue to be free of tax.
In conclusion, this Finance Bill meets our responsibilities. We remain steadfast for stability, enterprise and employment, while tackling inequality and renewing public services. That is the programme set out in the 2003 Budget and that, with the approval of the House, is the programme that we will send to the European Commission. We are fulfilling our commitment, under the Maastricht Act, to report on our main economic policy measures, and maintaining our position, developed by this Government, at the heart of the EU policy process. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
7.25 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall concentrate entirely on the report of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee. I am not proposing to make a second speech winding up at the end as a chairman often does.
I am puzzled by one matter. I thought I heard my noble friend say—presumably because of the shortage of time—that he could not reply to the specific report of the Economic Affairs Committee. Unless the rules

1101
of the House have changed in the past few minutes, I believe that my noble friend is absolutely obliged to reply. In so far as he has mentioned matters such as stamp duty land tax, VAT and many other things, I say in terms to him that he is absolutely obliged to respond to whatever noble Lords say about those matters and that it would be very serious if, for reasons about which I know nothing, he were to ignore all our remarks on those topics.
I remind noble Lords that what the committee did resulted from a decision of the Procedure Committee on 24th July last year. The recommendations of that committee were unanimously accepted by your Lordships' House. Unless something has happened in the past few minutes, all Ministers and members of the Government Front Bench are Members of your Lordships' House and therefore part of the "all" of "unanimous" and therefore they too are fully committed to what we have done on your Lordships' behalf.
I say that just to make very clear, leading up to the main point I wish to make, the complete legitimacy of what your Lordships' committee has done. We received advice at the highest level, and I underline those words. Everything we have done is within the Erskine May conditions that limit what noble Lords can do. Indeed, we were advised even more strongly that the specific remit we were given was narrower that we were entitled to have, according to Erskine May. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that as chairman at no point did I allow your Lordships' committee to drift away from the remit or to get into an area which might affect financial privilege. I am quite certain that I, others who take over this job and your Lordships' House will never move in the wrong direction in terms of offending another place. That is a matter of great importance.
If your Lordships' committee had not been set up there was nothing to stop your Lordships investigating these topics in, for example, the Economic Affairs Committee. To take a specific example in terms of the narrowness of the remit, I felt as chairman that although a stamp duty land tax is an enormously important new tax, which I support very strongly, believing that it is long overdue for reform, the one thing we could not look at was the economic effects because that carried us into the incidence question.
But if I, as chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, had simply said to the committee that I would like to look at the economics of the stamp duty land tax, and it had agreed, there was absolutely nothing to stop us doing that. In other words, that brings out very clearly what we could have done, but for the sake of this year's good behaviour, we did not. I found that very frustrating because I believe that we would have shown many of the very good economic effects that would have followed, and will follow, from such a tax.
Again, to emphasise the point, it was my noble friend Lord McIntosh who introduced the topics of stamp duty land tax and all the other interesting topics in the Finance Bill. We can debate those topics at any
1102
length we like, although I hope not at great length, since I at least am rather tired. The difference, in so far as there might be controversy, is that we can do it ex post facto—in fact we have been doing it for years ex post facto when the Commons have already finished their deliberations.
What may have got up one or two people's noses is the suggestion that we might do it in time to make a useful contribution; namely, a contribution that the Commons could take into account. All that is by way of background to say that I think we did the job that your Lordships wanted us to do. We stayed totally within the rules and I remind your Lordships that it was a two-year experiment that will take place again next year. As always within the tradition of your Lordships' House, the committee operated in an entirely non-party political way. Other members of the committee will confirm that. We viewed the matter dispassionately and so long as I am chairman we will continue to do so.
We heard a great deal of extremely interesting evidence. We adopted our normal approach, which is that everything we say is evidence based. At no point did we simply say off the top of our heads, "We think this". That is very important. We had two excellent expert advisers in Leonard Beighton and Brian Shepherd, both senior Inland Revenue officials. So we were acting on the most informed basis possible. We are also enormously indebted to our Clerk, Gordon Baker, without whom I am certain the report would never have been written.
That is the background. There are three specific areas about which I want to speak. First, I think we would overwhelmingly agree that the Government are to be congratulated on the reform on stamp duty land tax. I started from a position of ignorance. I had no idea that the existing stamp duty was a purely optional tax. It was not optional for ordinary people such as many Members of your Lordships' House. When we buy a house we are told by our lawyers, "This is your stamp duty". It turns out that for many big businesses the idea that they might pay any stamp duty is inconceivable.
One point of the tax, which we strongly support—as your Lordships know, it is the oldest tax in our tax system and has not been consolidated for over 100 years—is that it a tax that bites and is fair. Speaking for myself—other noble Lords will say what they think—this is a tremendously good step forward. Our criticisms were not ones of fundamental principle. I understand—former Treasury Ministers will be speaking in a moment—that when Ministers decide they want to do something they want to get on with it. I am greatly in favour of that. Our main comment for those who read the report was to say, "Yes, we're sympathetic to that, but are you sure you want to get on with it at quite that rate, which means some errors might be made?".
Government did consult. My noble friend is right about consultation. But we received at least some evidence to suggest that they might have consulted more. I can see that the Government are always in

1103
difficulties on the issue. No matter how much one consults there is always someone who says, "Consult more". Sometimes their motives are not entirely because they want us to get it right; they have other reasons. None the less, we offer a word of warning that we should be absolutely sure before the tax gets going that it will work. Although all your Lordships are totally devoted to the interests of accountants and lawyers, in this case job and income creation for accountants and lawyers should not be uppermost in our minds.
Secondly, I turn to the subject of VAT abuse. Again, until I became involved in this matter, I had no idea of the scale of the problem. It is an absolutely fascinating fraud. Wearing my economics hat, I have always been interested in the economics of illegal behaviour and fraud. But this one is so clever that how several of us did not become involved in it ourselves and then retire overseas to a tax-free haven I do not know. But, again, we support the fact that the Government are trying very hard to sort out the problem once and for all. Noble Lords should have no doubt about that.
We are concerned with the detail of how one proceeds in dealing with such fraud. Our genuine question, which I put to my noble friend merely as a question, is whether at this stage we are offering enough protection to entirely innocent parties. I can see a problem of balance here. I do not argue that Customs and Excise will inevitably get that balance wrong. However, I believe that it is well within the remit of your Lordships, and very much in the tradition of your Lordships' House, to ask the Government at least to reassure people that this matter will be dealt with in an open and generous way and that an innocent party, who has behaved properly but is still innocent, will have some degree of protection. On the other hand, we want the bad boys and—as I am non-sexist—girls to be caught. Therefore, I do not believe that anything I say should be interpreted as suggesting that the Government should weaken in their determination to act in this area.
Thirdly, I turn to the subject of mandatory electronic payment. I have to tell your Lordships that this issue stayed on the agenda solely because of me. I am not sure that anyone else on the committee was very keen on it, but I am immensely keen on mandatory electronic payment. I believe I heard my noble friend say, more or less, that he is also keen on it and that, in particular, the Treasury will go ahead on the matter. I can say only that it will clearly not cause a problem for larger employers and, as a minimum, I believe that we should work the system so that smaller employers get into the habit of using electronic payment.
That covers most of the ground I had set myself. However, I should like to return to one point. We did the best we could in a very short period of time. At the beginning I was very doubtful that we could do anything useful, but I was wrong. I am convinced that we have done something very useful. But, again, speaking for myself and making the assumption that I
1104
shall be involved in part two of the experiment next year, I have to say that next year we cannot work under the kind of pressure that we have experienced this year.
Therefore, if I remain chairman of your Lordships' Economic Affairs Committee and chairman of the sub-committee, I propose to set up the sub-committee very early in the next Session so that we can work at a far more measured pace. Given that, in any event, the Government are rightly consulting on their tax reforms, we would become informed about that consultation process so that we, too, would know what was going on. Thus, having said that I thought we had done a good job, I believe that next year we could do a better job still and genuinely establish a role for your Lordships in this dispassionate, non-party but expert way of scrutinising the Bill.
Of course, I support my noble friend. Although I have not made a speech on the state of the economy, I do not disagree with one word he said. However, in particular, I want to commend the Economic Affairs Committee report to your Lordships.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and to congratulate him and the members of his committee and sub-committee on the report we are debating this evening. Certainly it was not only a very expert sub-committee but also a very distinguished one. I believe that the innovation which has been made as part of this experiment is important and particularly well timed, for reasons which I shall mention in a moment.
As the Minister pointed out, we are debating three things, which are related but separate. The first is the Finance Bill, and I want to say something about the question of scrutiny. The second is the Economic Affairs Committee report, and I want, in particular, to take up some points which the noble Lord has just made on value added tax. The third is the Motion relating to the European Union and the associated legislation, and I want to say a word or two about forecasting.
I believe that there is a growing concern in this House and, indeed, in Parliament generally at the way that the process of scrutiny in Parliament is being undermined. The process of so-called modernisation in another place, and the process of programming, is working in such a way that it is absolutely clear that on many Bills the House of Commons is not doing the job which traditionally it has done. This is crucial if it is to hold the Government to account. This is a matter of the gravest concern. Perhaps the worst case was the Pensions Credit Bill. It arrived in your Lordships' House in a totally unworkable state and had to be rewritten almost from beginning to end. One part of the Bill was unconnected with the other. There are many other examples, such as the question of the Speakership. The list is getting longer and longer. Perhaps one should put down a Question as to how many government amendments are put down in this place to clauses in Bills which have not been debated

1105
at all in another place. This is happening more and more. We really ought to be profoundly concerned about this.
This is an issue which it is right to raise, but it is of particular relevance as far as concerns the Finance Bill. This was spelt out very clearly in the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. The time available was restricted to a single day—nine hours. The Shadow Leader of the House—with whom I do not always agree; our views on the reform of your Lordships' House differ greatly—said this:
"As we know, their Lordships do a wonderful job of scrutinising legislation. They sit for more hours and more days than we do, and they do the job that we should be doing".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/03. col. 179].
He then went on to point out that the problem with scrutiny of the Finance Bill in these circumstances is that there is no longstop. We do not have the opportunity to pick up the fact—except in the limited context of the Select Committee report, which I shall come to—that the House of Commons has not scrutinised the Finance Bill properly.
This is a long way from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. He, together with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, sat on one side on Finance Bill committees. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and I were on the other. Sometimes we were on one side of the House and sometimes the other. Unlike the House of Commons now, the question was whether we stop at 7 o'clock in the morning rather than seven o'clock in the evening. One would go all night. We scrutinised every line, and that is a huge advantage to Ministers. It means that mistakes in legislation come out if the draftsman got it wrong. Nowadays that simply does not happen. That is a real problem as far as drafting is concerned. The report of the Select Committee has done something to pick up some of the points which have not been given as much attention as they warranted in another place. Obviously this is not an alternative to what ought to happen. We may be able to sort this out with a Joint Committee of both Houses to agree on how legislation should be handled. But it is a particular problem as far as Finance Bills are concerned.
This Finance Bill will be administered by the Treasury, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. This again gives one cause for concern. Mistakes in legislation may not come out until years later when some case arises. But it is still an underlying problem. We cannot be sure it has been scrutinised properly. There are reports in the Financial Times today about:
"Taxing times for the 'serial bungler'"—
I am not sure where the quotes come from—referring to the Inland Revenue. There is a suggestion that it and Customs and Excise might be amalgamated or taken over by the Treasury. Many of the problems we face—I shall not list the whole series of bungles the paper mentions—result from the present Chancellor's empire-building. He has certainly taken over large chunks of work and pensions.
1106
The Inland Revenue has been burdened with a huge amount of work in relation to tax credits. That is not just the Contributions Agency, but it is paying out tax credits, which is really part of the distribution of social security rather than otherwise. All that gives one cause for concern as to whether the complex measures in this particular piece of legislation we are debating today will operate properly.
I turn to the Select Committee report. It could not be more timely because it coincides with a situation where scrutiny otherwise is deteriorating. No doubt we should perhaps consider whether the historic division of powers, which goes back to the beginning of the last century, is right. I shall not suggest that your Lordships should examine Finance Bills in great detail. We have huge expertise, but I have some doubts as to whether we have the stamina.
The Select Committee concentrates in particular on the question of value added tax. Since I had the responsibility for steering that original legislation through the Commons, I was very annoyed by an article in The Times of 1st April. I do not think that it was intended as an April fool joke. It was an article by a Mr Waller, which said:
"The House of Commons has seen some outrageous statements, but few can match the claim in 1973 by Anthony Barber … in that year's Budget statement: 'VAT will be a simple tax'"—.
It was then a simple tax. It was a standard rate of 1 per cent with a zero rating for essential items of expenditure. Once we had debated every conceivable borderline case it was simple. Since then—and I speak with some hesitation as there are various former Treasury Ministers sitting on the Benches—successive Chancellors have not simply upped the rate but have greatly complicated it.
The Select Committee report deals particularly with the question of fraud, which itself is vastly more complicated. It has taken them 30 years since the tax was introduced to work up a fraud which is this sophisticated. The committee is right to draw attention, as did the noble Lord, to the importance of balancing the powers of the Revenue and whether people who are not really guilty of any offence may be dealt with too harshly.
When I introduced the enforcement clauses in relation to Customs and Excise in the original Bill, I received a massive deputation from more senior colleagues in the House, saying, "You cannot possibly do that". All we had done was to re-enact powers which Customs had had since time immemorial. They are of course very great powers. But it is important, as the Select Committee, pointed out, that that balance should be achieved as far as concerns the Customs and Excise operation.
The hour is late and I do not want to go on for much longer. I am not entirely clear from what the Minister said exactly what is submitted for the purposes of the European legislation requirement. I presume that essentially it is table B.10 in what used to be the Red Book—it is no longer a Red Book but is largely a large chunk of propaganda—and perhaps the Minister will

1107
confirm whether that is so. If so, is it updated between the date it is produced at the time of the Budget and the date it is submitted to the European Community?
One should consider whether the vast mass of paper on the Chancellor's advice in relation to the euro will also be submitted. The noble Lord shakes his head. It seems a shame because some of it is extraordinarily good. I refer, for example, to an article by Mr Peter Kenen, professor at Princeton University, on optimum currency areas. I think that it would be wise if some of this documentation were sent to the other members of the European Community. They might realise not only why there is a very strong case—in my view—for not joining the euro, but also what the dangers might be to the stability of the euro-zone itself as there are already great strains on the "one size fits all" monetary and fiscal policy.
I shall not go into the detail of that article. One needs a blackboard and a great deal of algebra. None the less these documents that were produced in conjunction with the Budget and the Finance Bill are valuable, and I hope that we can give them further consideration. Those are the main points that cause me concern. They are serious, and we have to make sure that our parliamentary system is not undermined in the way that it is at the moment.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, if the House feels a little strange to some this evening, that is understandable. Like Snow White, we are waking from almost a century of slumber so far as concerns detailed discussion of the Finance Bill. As we rub the sleep from our eyes, perhaps even flex our muscles a little, let us resolve to make this a refreshing and a constructive process, not a destructive one. We do not seek, as the noble Lord. Lord Peston, said, to reopen the financial settlement between the Houses, dating from 1671 and 1678—that was sealed after this House's futile defiance of Lloyd George's great people's Budget of 1909.
The sub-committee's terms of reference are clearly limited to issues of administration, clarification and simplification. Heaven knows, there are plenty of those in this Finance Bill, rushed as it was through the other place with enough knives and guillotines to satisfy Robespierre, Danton and the tricoteuses all rolled into one. The new stamp duty land tax is one striking example. It was described to our sub-committee by the Institute of Chartered Accountants as,
"the most significant new tax for 30 years".
Yet it received not a single minute of scrutiny or debate in Committee, and only two and a half hours on its final day in the Commons on Tuesday.
As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said—I was struck by the comments of his right honourable friend in the Commons—the Finance Bill is in a special category, because there is no safety net and no alternative to the scrutiny that the Commons can bring to bear. As the Liberal Democrat shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
"This is the fourth longest Finance Bill on record".
1108
He was also concerned that the Commons was,
"faced with an accelerated timetable in circumstances in which we cannot rely on the other place to mop up some of the aspects that we are unable to cover".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/03; col. 181.]
Frankly, that process is a denial of democracy. It is also a shame that the Minister feels constrained in replying tonight, because the Government have not yet responded to our sub-committee's report. The Government should have tried harder—we did. Can the Minister assure us that next year the Government's response will be ready in time for this debate?
As the sub-committee report states, there are substantial criticisms of the way the stamp duty land tax is being rushed through, and the "abrupt halt" in the consultation process. Our private sector witnesses believed that the tax would not be in a fit state to introduce on 1st December. We report a wide range of outstanding problems to be solved on the stamp duty land tax, covering property purchases and new leases, such as,
"the lack of certainty over potential tax liability for commercial property transactions, lease duty provisions that are still to be decided, difficulties of fair assessment where lease revenues depend on turnover … potential inflexibility over reclaiming tax releases that are terminated",
and,
"apparent inconsistencies over the qualifications for disadvantaged area relief".
How much notice have the Government and the Inland Revenue taken of the criticisms that we made? They were based on a thorough examination of eminent expert witnesses, and of both the timing and the substance that we were criticising of the consultation process on stamp duty before the Budget. Not a lot. In passing, I declare my interest as an investment manager, responsible for the past 22 years for property investment for institutional investors, such as pension funds, investment trusts and charities. The property industry remains deeply critical of the consultation process on the new lease duty. At a meeting of the lease duty discussion group with the Inland Revenue on 19th June, the Inland Revenue said that interested parties must submit alternatives backed by numerical evidence by 5th July. That is the day after tomorrow. Industry bodies such as the British Property Federation believe that that is an impossibly tight deadline, given the lateness of the announcement and the work that needs to be done.
What is the rush? Surely, as our report states, it is more important to get the tax right and as fair and simple as possible than to meet an arbitrary target date. Otherwise, the so-called consultation process will appear more and more one-sided—or simply a sham.
I ask the Government to think again about two particular dangers in their proposed new lease duty that could distort competition and undermine the security of property as a long-term investment for pension funds and insurance companies. Perhaps I can clarify the issues for them.
First, on competition, stamp duty on new leases is to be increased substantially in three-quarters of the country and abolished in one quarter. The boundaries

1109
for that feast or famine are based on residential micro-statistics and completely ignore the wider catchment areas of commercial property. For example, lease duty will be abolished on Harvey Nichols in Leeds, on offices in Holborn, or, to take two vast regional shopping centres serving similar populations—Lakeside in south Essex and Bluewater on the other side of the Thames, in north Kent—one will pay stamp duty but the other will be exempt, giving Lakeside a considerable competitive advantage.
The second threat lies in the way that the new lease duty discriminates against long leases—especially those running for more than 15 years—which many retailers, hoteliers, nursing homes and leisure sector operators typically sign to secure the future of their business and justify the investment that they need in equipment, fixtures and fittings. In recent weeks, we have spoken a good deal about pub tenants. They especially need the security of a long lease and will be hit especially hard by the new duty.
To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, I of course agree that the Government are fully entitled to raise more revenue in total from lease duty. It is not up to us to argue with that. But why the penal increases—typically more than 1,000 per cent for tenants taking 20 or 30-year leases? The Treasury seems to think that taking a lease on a property is a form of tax avoidance. It is not. It is merely the normal way in which most commercial occupiers pay each year for that space, which is just another factor of production, no different from labour or power supplies. Because leases in one quarter of the country will be exempt from duty, the rise in the rest of the United Kingdom will be one-third higher still.
Attacking long leases in particular could deal another hammer blow to the solvency of pension funds, which have increased their weighting in property to recoup the loss of income that they suffered from the withdrawal of dividend tax credits. Institutional investors set great store by what we call the "bond element" of rental income, which is a much better match for pension fund liabilities if it is secured for 20 or 30 years, rather than just for five or 10.
Anything, such as this biased lease duty, which undermines that key prop for pension fund property investment, could hardly be worse timed. The Government may raise the duty by all means, but fairly, across the board, on short leases as well as long and over the whole country. There is still just time for the Government to listen.
I end with a suggestion that would be especially helpful for us in our work next year. The second latest spring Budget for 20 years, which we received this year on 9th April, made the timetable for our work eye-wateringly tight. Perhaps next year, the Chancellor will give us and the Commons more time to read the small print, to help to improve the Bill. Dare I even suggest that it would be simpler for business and Parliament to plan the year ahead if we had a fixed annual date for the Budget—say the second Tuesday in March? Or is that a modernisation too far?
7.59 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, first I must express my appreciation for the work of my noble friend Lord Peston, who chaired the committee's investigation of certain aspects of the tax system that had not been examined for more than 90 years. We are setting quite a precedent—a useful one—and the way in which we limited our operations was valuable. Those matters were all within the limited powers of the House of Lords—we did not exceed them in any way.
As my noble friend mentioned, it is a two-year experiment. I hope that next year will be rather better, because we shall have more time. It was hurried; we met more frequently than almost any Select Committee meets, day after day, to ensure that we established a sensible and thorough examination of what we were investigating.
We have certain advantages over the House of Commons. Our committee is non-party political and there was no party political aspect to our aim of trying to improve the areas of the tax system we were able to examine. We know, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, knows, that the House of Commons does not proceed in this way: it is extremely party political and party politics are the main arguments made use of.
A different method of examination is used here compared to the House of Commons. That is necessary because, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, pointed out, the House of Commons is not doing its job. There was a time, as he and I recall, when we worked through the night on crucial matters, which were exhaustively examined. At that time nearly everyone who got into the Government and the Opposition at very senior levels was handpicked for the job. It was recognised as a very important job.
I do not see the same attitude today. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I do not have the same stamina today we possessed at that time, but at least we have the experience, which is valuable in looking at these matters in a slightly different way from the House of Commons.
In our examination of taxation we must accept that the House of Commons is not only predominant but exclusive in the matter of rates of tax and other matters. This is the first time that we have looked at these matters. We have to make sure that we get it right so that we can come back next year with a greater appreciation of what we have in this House—expertise and experience. I do not want to make too much of it, but it is a difference between ourselves and the House of Commons and making use of it is of great value.
We took evidence in a way that the House of Commons does not. We heard from very senior people who came to be questioned by us. They added to our knowledge, which, although largely based upon the past, is still of great relevance. We were only able in the time allowed to select a limited number of issues. I think the ones we selected were the right ones. We picked on three taxes: the new stamp duty land tax; the VAT provisions against evasion; and electronic payment of tax.

1111
I agreed with the need to bring in these three taxes. My concerns were whether they were being introduced sensibly, whether the right attitudes were prevalent and whether the detail was properly examined by the House of Commons. My remarks on these matters will be largely on the VAT proposals in the Bill.
The stamp duty land tax deals with the changes to the tax system. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, mentioned some of them. Many witnesses said the tax would not be in a fit state to be introduced on 1st December 2003. That is despite the view of the Inland Revenue that the tax would be ready in time.
I am sorry that parts of the tax legislation went through in Committee in the House of Commons without being discussed or scrutinised: that could never have happened in the past. Minor matters of legislation one might concede—although not happily—but not on the Finance Bill where we deal with matters of great importance to certain individuals. If their tax matters are not properly discussed, that is quite wrong. We recommended that early in the autumn of 2003 the Government should review whether the tax could be put right in time. It is an important aspect that needs to be looked at.
My main contribution to the debate concerns VAT. Clauses 17 and 18 deal with the situation where a business receives a supply of specified goods or services in circumstances where the person had reasonable grounds to suspect that the VAT on those goods or services would go unpaid. The person would then he held liable for the tax due in the event of a default by the supplier.
Here we are dealing with very serious matters. I was surprised by the size of the Revenue losses. I had no idea that we would be dealing with losses of between £1.7 billion to £2.7 billion. Indeed, I wish that I could be convinced that those figures are correct; no doubt that will come out in due course. What is obvious is that the figures are extremely large and need to be dealt with properly.
The proposed legislation deals with the "missing trader problem" where a trader charges VAT to a customer but does not then pay that VAT over to Customs and Excise. We have seen that the estimates of the losses to the Revenue are extremely serious. At present it is by far the biggest single fraud confronting the tax authorities. So there is no question about the fact that it needs to be dealt with.
What we are dealing with here is a "simple acquisition" fraud where a trader imports goods free of VAT from another European Union state, sells them on in the United Kingdom, charging VAT, and then "goes missing" and does not account for the VAT charged. At a rate of 17.5 per cent, a large amount of money is involved. The new proposals will allow for a proportionate security requirement from each business that together would protect the total tax at risk in a VAT supply chain.
In evidence to us, high-level officials from the Treasury came willingly to give their views in a proper and sensible manner. We were most appreciative of
1112
that. They did not accept that volatility of prices meant that it was difficult for a trader to recognise when a deal offered to him was "absurdly good". They thought that traders would know that the market value of the goods they were buying was too low and that they should be suspicious. Their conclusion was that if a business had taken all reasonable steps, then they would accept that it was not involved in a fraud.
I have difficulty with that view. What is being asserted is that if a buyer is offered a certain batch of goods or services at a price much lower than normal, then that is an indication of fraud. I thought that that was a simplistic view. There are many articles which can command a wider range of price than Customs and Excise seem willing to accept. They may be surplus to requirements, in which case they have to be disposed of; there may be a weakness in demand, in which case again they have to be disposed of; or it may be felt that they have been superseded by more recent models. Occasions may arise where a seller has financial problems and would be willing to accept prices a little cheaper for a certain and speedy cash sale than that seller might otherwise have accepted.
Under the clause there is inadequate protection for the legitimate trader. One needs to understand the mentality of both buyer and seller over a whole range of different circumstances where the new arrangements might be unfair to the legitimate trader. We considered that part of the solution might lie in a suggestion from the Institute of Chartered Accountants: that before taking steps to require security, officers of Customs and Excise should be obliged to seek leave from a tribunal chairman. We recommended that consideration be given to creating statutory safeguards for legitimate traders which would ensure that the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer would be reviewed at board level within the department and by an external judicial authority before the power to require security was exercised.
Before you can or should take action against a trader, you should seek leave from the chairman of the VAT and duties tribunal. Before giving leave, the tribunal chairman would have to be convinced by Customs and Excise of the case against the trader and that the business was involved or was complicit in the alleged fraud.
Our view was that the concerns expressed to us by witnesses about the creeping widening of the categories of goods or services would be much allayed if the system of enhanced safeguards for the legitimate trader which we commended for consideration were to be adopted.
We had very limited time in which to examine all of these matters, but the ones we did examine we examined adequately in the very short time we had. I look forward to being able next year to deal with one or two other matters, which I think will be of use to the Treasury, to Customs arid Excise, to the Inland Revenue and to the Government as a whole.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his presentation of the Finance Bill. I offer him some sympathy because his noble friend Lord Peston has rather stolen the limelight for today's debate, and quite rightly so.
I intend to focus on exactly the same problem. The whole process of considering and enacting tax legislation still cries out for further examination, all the more so—as speakers on all sides of the House have said—as a result of the total disintegration of the House of Commons in this field. It is easy for us to stand like antique figures looking back nostalgically on those splendid nights, but, as the Shadow Leader of the other place, Mr Forth, said, and as another Member, Andrew Tyrie, said in this booklet about two years ago, the House of Commons has virtually abdicated from this field alongside a mounting clamour from the tax industry, from the lawyers and the accountants for the process to be improved. One message that must be driven home yet again to the Treasury—and above all to the Chancellor—is that this topic will require a huge, sustained, concentrated examination for a long time to come.
I am not going to say anything about policy simplification, about the volume of legislation, although that is equally daunting, or about the surging growth in the number of Inland Revenue officials. It is the procedure that needs to be examined. I welcome enormously the report prepared with such skill by the noble Lord's committee. It respects absolutely the boundary of propriety and indicates a huge field for further examination.
The report is one of two documents that have appeared within the past three or four months on this subject. The other report is from the Institute of Fiscal Studies working party under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Budd. It is entitled Making Tax Law and is closely related to the work of the committee of the House. Indeed, the noble Lord's committee examined as witnesses almost every member of the Budd working party and the ubiquitous noble Lord, Lord Barnett—who astonishingly is not in his place today—was a member of both committees.
This area requires a huge concentration of study. Both reports, this debate and the evidence given to the committee of the House should be required reading for the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers.
My concern is about the process of making and shaping our new law. I start with an issue to which reference has already been made, the manifest failure of the process of consultation in relation to the Bill. Consultation is not something that the Revenue and the Treasury are entitled to expect. It is carried out through a huge effort of concentration by people doing work alongside their normal jobs. I was struck by the evidence from the representative of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, who said:
"My feeling about the consultation process is a little bit coloured because it was abruptly cancelled in January by the Financial Secretary. It was done in a very peremptory fashion and
1114
it did cause quite a lot of disenchantment amongst those professionals who had devoted considerable time and effort trying to assist the Revenue in getting matters right".
That is not something we notice en passant. It is something for which Mr David Hartnett, the vice-chairman of the Inland Revenue, and a member of the tax law steering committee, specifically apologised. It is not for an Inland Revenue official to apologise for something of that kind; it is something for which Ministers have to accept responsibility because it is at the heart of the tax-making process.
It is most important in this area to avoid focusing all—or, indeed, almost any—of the criticism on the Revenue. I have been working closely enough with them for the past several years on the rewrite project to be able to say that the last thing we should do is to shoot the pianist. He and they are working enormously hard and are trying their best.
Another piece of evidence given to the Select Committee came from Mr. Haskew from one of the other accountancy firms. He says on page 64:
"I think we should say here and now that the Revenue have tried very hard in I would say the last four or five years to consult openly and fairly and the result of things like the stamp duty consultation is particularly disappointing because I think they have been trying very hard".
We have to make a success of that. The Law Society made very similar observations on page 120, which are worth quoting. It, too, pays tribute to valiant work done by the Inland Revenue but says that despite that,
"there are significant areas that have not been properly thought through and that little more than lip service appears to be paid to the authority of Parliament".
I come to the other aspect which, perhaps understandably, concerns me even more—the extent to which this pattern of behaviour is challenging almost directly the work being produced by the Tax Law Rewrite Project. The repeal by Clause 139 of Schedule 22 of our second statute is astonishing. The Law Society says:
"Clause 139 and Schedule 22 was introduced without any warning and inadequate explanation in the Budget Day Press Release. Over 80 pages of legislation completely re-write rules which have developed over the last 15 years and more. That legislation had been re-written in the 'tax law re-write' style (which we fully support) in the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, which came into force on 6 April 2003".
Yet within eight days, on 14th April, a press release comes along, rewriting 80 pages of it. As the Law Society says:
"It is particularly unfortunate that that this Finance Bill replaces extensive tranches of that newly re-written legislation with some extremely opaque drafting, most of which is not in the new style".
It defeats the object of the exercise and is unforgivable. It is not the officials one should complain to in such a matter. What happened rightly caused huge dismay among those people from the Tax Law Rewrite Project, the Inland Revenue and the Parliamentary Counsel Office who had sweated their guts out to produce that material. The process of the tax law rewrite group is still developing. It is an extraordinarily sensitive, iterative process, in which draft succeeds draft.

1115
When I first encountered this at a meeting to consider it shortly after the Finance Bill was published, I wondered whether the Parliamentary Counsel Office had somehow reverted to an antique style out of tiresomeness or bloody-mindedness. Far from it. The very counsel who had been concerned at the coalface in helping us develop the new tax law rewrite style was grappling with this, doing what he could to put it into better form, but it simply could not be done.
This is what the chartered accountants have to say about it:
"This poor redrafting of a large section of newly rewritten provisions is disappointing. We are concerned that our members will start to question our commitment of time and resources to the"—
Tax Law Rewrite Project—
"if all that happens is that, within a few weeks of the legislation being enacted, the Government makes wholesale amendments to it with no consultation.
The result is that the case for us continuing our involvement in the Rewrite of the UK tax rules is undermined. We would welcome clarification as to the Government's policy concerning the Tax Law Rewrite Project given the above comments".
Noble Lords may think, perhaps understandably, that I have become obsessed in a proprietorial sense with this tax law rewrite process. I have not. It is only part of the whole exercise of trying to raise the quality of the way in which our tax law is prepared. When we considered it in the Tax Law Rewrite Steering Committee only a few weeks ago, we were very emphatic that if this is not taken seriously, it will undermine the morale of people inside and outside the Revenue who are trying to get this right. But it is not just that. It is the fact that in the stamp duty land tax section, one of the other official organisations complains, a huge chunk of antique legislation is left unamended, when the opportunity could have been taken had more time been devoted to it for a proper rewrite of it in a proper fashion.
I return for a moment to the Tax Law Rewrite Project. Ever since that started, we have been functioning by reference to what are listed in Appendix A to our latest plans as factors critical to the success of the process. However, those factors have been there since we started. One factor states:
"The lessons learned from the experience of successfully rewriting the legislation should be developed, in close consultation with the users, into new best practice for producing tax legislation in the future".
That is not being done in this case. The second factor, the important one, states:
"The operational implications of the rewrite work for the Inland Revenue must be identified and properly addressed".
That is not being done.
One has to look to Ministers to take responsibility for this. We have an opportunity to enhance this House's contribution to the process, if the committee proceeds as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has suggested. On that point above all I think they need to concentrate.
There is one other feature. Do we have to accept that the other place should, as it were, be allowed to abdicate from this process altogether? I think that it is
1116
being unfair to them to say that they are abdicating. The Public Administration Committee, for example, has looked very carefully and very critically at many of its own procedures. I think that we should at least look for an opportunity for both Houses, or committees of both Houses, to get together to see whether we cannot harness the talents in both Houses. That is another agenda item for the noble Lord's committee in the year ahead. I am delighted, of course, that he will be able to start his work on the volume of legislation that is already coming forward in so many different ways.
I close by repeating myself yet again. So many people have studied these mechanical processes with dismay and concern for so long, but it is an issue that has to be taken much more seriously by the Chancellor and his colleagues in government. We value the fact that we have been given the resources, and we are still getting the resources, to keep the tax law rewrite process going. But there is a huge challenge if we are to begin recovering this mountain of tax legislation into a form that can be understood and accepted by the people. Nothing, I think, could be more important than that. I am delighted that this House now has a committee that is able to work on it. I congratulate the noble Lord on the tact and skill with which he has got it under way. I am sure that we can look forward to even more exciting things in the future.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, being neither a former Treasury Minister nor a member of the current excellent sub-committee, I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with some, I hope, important or different issues. This is an account of how a Member of your Lordships' House discovered something seriously wrong and tried to have it corrected. It is, broadly speaking, a story of failure that may possibly have a happy ending. All the economists—I am sure that there are many here—will probably say that these are matters with which they are familiar. They may have recognised that there was a problem, but, if they did, they certainly did nothing about it.
The issue relates to the retail prices index, the RPI or, more precisely, the RPIX, which excludes mortgage interest. In 1995, a new component was added to the index—the depreciation of owner occupied houses. Your Lordships may say that surely house prices have not been depreciating since the war. Indeed, you would be right. The average rate of appreciation of houses is approximately 6 per cent a year, so why would it be necessary to charge depreciation as a cost in the retail prices index? This component was not in the index for 50 years—from 1945 to 1994—and we managed pretty well without it, so why would we need to include depreciation of one's home now?
First, let me explain—and I speak as an accountant—that depreciation effectively means setting aside a sum of money, in this case presumably weekly, in order to replace or reconstruct one's home within the next 100 years. If this is done properly, when one sells one's home, one would expect to hand over to the buyer a sum of money being the depreciated sum that one has reserved.

1117
I hope that your Lordships are following this and do not think we are in "Alice in Wonderland". Your Lordships may argue, "What is the harm in including this in the index?" Primarily, because it has the effect of increasing the rate of inflation. One of the main economic levers based on the rate of inflation is interest rates. First, the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee set interest rates, taking the RPI into account. When I met the new Governor of the Bank of England, Mr Mervyn King, he assured me both at the meeting and subsequently in writing that the MPC would take note of the effect of this depreciation component.
I will give an example of how distorting the component can be. I have taken the figures that I quoted to all members of the MPC when I wrote to them in February. I took as an example the RPIX for November 2002. In that month, inflation was 2.8 per cent. But if the new component of depreciation of homes had been excluded as it had been for the previous 50 years, the RPIX would have been 2.1 per cent—no less than 25 per cent lower. In other words, inflation would be much lower without the component being added. While the MPC and the Governor of the Bank of England certainly understand the issue very clearly and can make allowances for it when setting interest rates, that surely does not apply to employers and employees when negotiating wage increases.
It has always seemed to me that the depreciation of homes should never have been added to the index. However, having added it, at least its weighting should be adjusted as it is having a very adverse effect on the rate of inflation. When I first raised the issue with the head of the Office for National Statistics, a meeting was arranged to discuss the issue at my request. That meeting was also attended by a Treasury Minister. It was explained that, although mortgage interest and home repairs were included in the index, nothing was provided for the replacement of homes which might occur between 50 and 100 years hence. It was also explained that the decision to put this item into the index occurred because a committee was appointed to study the issue and it was the committee's decision.
What was not mentioned, of course, was that the minority report of the commission, which was led by known none other than Sir Samuel Brittan, opposed the addition to the index and, indeed, thought that it was a great nonsense.
Your Lordships may recall that I said that the story might possibly have a happy ending. In the past few weeks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that he will meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss bringing in a new index to be known as the—wait for it—harmonised indices of consumer price indices, or HICPs for short. I hope that Europhobes will forgive me for saying something good about the European Union, but the fact is that the HICPs are calculated in each member state of the European Union for the purpose of European
1118
comparison as required by the Maastricht treaty. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that that does not include any depreciation in owner-occupied homes. I am not sure that the present Governor of the Bank of England would not believe that to be a serious omission.
The HICP index is to be brought in in November. Currently, it would show a rate of inflation in this country of about 1.2 per cent, compared with about 2.9 per cent under our present RPI. Perhaps that explains why today in the United States the federal fund rate is 1 per cent. The equivalent rate in Europe is 2 per cent, and Britain's base rate is 3.75 per cent. It is good to know that the financial authorities are content with our relatively high level of interest rates. Presumably, they believe the economy is growing at a satisfactory rate. Would the MPC feel so alarmed about further reducing interest rates, if the rate of inflation, as indicated by the HICP index, were less than 1.5 per cent?
Let us assume that the new index is brought in. Is there anything to worry about? There is just one issue. Will the Government continue to publish the present inflation index alongside the new one? I am not worried about the Bank of England or the MPC having a problem with that, but it is certain that, in every employer-union wage negotiation, people will argue intensely about which index to follow. The Government will no doubt deny that there is a problem, but I cannot believe that there is a union leader worth his salt who would not go to the negotiating table and base his negotiations on the present retail prices index. He would want nothing to do with the new-fangled HICP index, which has been imported from the Continent. That is a problem that the Government have yet to grasp. Lest I be unfair, I ask the Minister whether, if the HICP index is introduced in November, the Government intend to continue to publish the present retail prices index each month.
We all recognise that the level of interest rates is determined by the state of the economy and by the rate of inflation. We all agree that the economy at present is not in growth mode and that lower interest rates could be the appropriate incentive to move things forward. Europe has the equivalent base rate of 2 per cent, and the latest figure for the rate of inflation under the HICP index for Europe is 1.8 per cent. In France, it is 1.8 per cent, and, in Germany, it is 0.6 per cent. The latest figure for the HICP index in the UK is 1.2 per cent. That would surely justify a significant reduction in base rate from 3.75 per cent.
We have a lower rate of inflation than many of the countries in Europe, yet we are forced to have interest rates at nearly twice their level. The Governor of the Bank of England and members of the Monetary Policy Committee should actively consider not a 0.25 per cent reduction in rates, not a 0.5 per cent reduction in rates, but a full 1 per cent. Might it happen? Perhaps—but then pigs might fly.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I declare an interest as an accountant and a consultant to PricewaterhouseCoopers. I shall concentrate my remarks on the report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Because the hour is late, I intend to be brief. Much of what I was going to say has already been excellently and comprehensively said by my noble friend Lord Higgins and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
In the press release for the Select Committee's work, it was reported—correctly—that the report was timely and constructive. There are two reasons why your Lordships should agree. First, as my noble friend Lord Higgins explained, the Bill was timetabled in another place, which, incidentally, gave each line of the Finance Bill exactly 10 seconds of debate. That is a disgrace. It is difficult to argue that the provisions of 100 years ago relating to the powers of this House should continue, while debate in another place is curtailed. Those two things are mutually incompatible. The work of the Select Committee has been very valuable.
The second reason is that, if we read volume II—second volumes are not normally read—we must congratulate the committee on the number of witnesses and the quality of the evidence. The document produced by the Treasury Select Committee—chaired many years ago by my noble friend Lord Higgins— was not quite as thick as the volume produced by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I very much hope that this exercise will continue beyond the two-year experiment and that the Government will reply. We must admit that the Government do have a weapon in dealing with Select Committees: delay in response. It has always existed, continues to exist and probably will exist in future, but if a timely response from government is lacking, that does not help debate or help to reflect the value of reports such as this one. I suspect that Her Majesty's Treasury and Ministers in the Treasury have been slightly resistant to the whole notion of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I hope that they will regret what appears to me to be a lack of cooperation with and response to the report.
I suggest with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that although he may be reluctant to take on the burden in future years, he should add one remit next year; that is, to look at the cost and effectiveness of implementing tax measures. I do not believe that that would be out of order and it would be very important. Someone must address the central issue: does the revenue raised justify the administrative burdens of specific taxes? Such issues are not regularly addressed—certainly not in another place—but the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is ideally suited to discharge that.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, hinted at starting the sub-committee's work earlier, perhaps even at the commencement of a Session. That must be right because some tax legislation—perhaps not enough—is
1120
exposed for consultation and the issues, which are trailed sometimes by the Chancellor in the preceding Budget, bear analysis and examination at the commencement of the Session.
The committee's terms of reference included tax clarification and simplification. The two are very different; they are separate issues, as my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said. On the clarification of tax, the Tax Law Rewrite Project, under the eagle eye of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, has done excellent work and made marvellous progress since the Finance Act 1995. I only add that we had enacted on 6th April the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 on clarification and rewrite. What happened? A matter of days later, we had 75 pages in the Finance Bill—Schedule 22—full of amendments to that very Act, although much work had gone into it in terms of clarifying tax law.
On simplification, which is a separate issue, I have another suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, might care to consider carefully. My suggestion reflects what the Tax Law Review Committee recommended; that is, that there should he a tax structure review project. That examines old legislation. Why should not a Select Committee of your Lordships' House perform that task? It would be all-party and I cannot see how Treasury Ministers could argue that in any way there was interference with tax policy. It is a very important area—granted, it is right on the cusp of tax policy as opposed to a legal clarification of the law. However, the Select Committee could and should take that on.
I turn to new legislation and the need to expose draft legislation properly to those involved in its implementation. There is a well established code of practice on consultation and, as other noble Lords have already pointed out, in relation to stamp duty land tax. I believe that my noble friend Lord Caithness, who will speak later, might dwell on that in view of his vast experience in that regard. As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, correctly asked, why the rush? The Select Committee stated in the executive summary:
"we think it is more important to get the tax right, and as fair and simple as possible, than to meet an arbitrary target date".
It is clear what happened. The consultation process was halted in January doubtless because the Treasury thought that anti-avoidance measures were a central part of the new stamp duty proposals in the Budget and the Finance Bill. Now we have a promise to resume negotiations very shortly. Could the Minister kindly enlighten us as to whether those further consultations, which must be about the regulations in relation to stamp duty, will commence—perhaps they have already commenced—and will they be as fair and constructive as noble Lords would wish?
I end on perhaps a slightly discordant note by disagreeing with the Select Committee's observations on mandatory electronic payment of tax. I believe that the Select Committee came to a conclusion too quickly on that point. I object to the idea of compulsion We already have compulsory filing for large companies and now we are moving to compulsory electronic

1121
payment of tax by large companies. I believe that the Inland Revenue should adopt a much more user-friendly approach: I regret the conclusions of the committee on this particular point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his committee. It is an excellent start and I hope that the committee continues its existence.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. I shall concentrate more on the Finance Bill, but I will make a few remarks on the excellent Select Committee report and join other noble Lords in praising it.
This year I feel a little less lonely than last when I was the only Back-Bench speaker. Looking back at that speech I make no apologies for putting forward several of the same points again a year later. First, the length of the Bill: last year it was 500 pages; this time it is a mere 447 pages; 214 separate clauses and 43 schedules. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, said that it is the fourth longest Finance Bill, even though, as stated by the Financial Times,
"the measures were seen as a non-event by many economists and tax experts".
Half the Bill by volume deals with just two areas. The first is a new stamp duty tax and the introduction of a lease duty which comprises 139 pages. The second is the issue of employee share schemes and the major changes to the law on employee share acquisition, which amounts to 91 pages. I shall come to the stamp duty area later. Overall it is again another very long Bill.
The Chancellor's economic forecast does not seem to have been covered very much by previous speakers. The Chancellor's prediction in last year's Budget was a growth rate of 2 per cent in 2002 and an increase in the expected growth rate from 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent in 2003 and to 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent in 2004. I was concerned about the optimism of those forecasts then; my concern was justified as the 2002 out-turn was 1.75 per cent. The 2003 forecast made this time last year has been downgraded for the second time since to the current range of 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent.
However, the first quarter revised GDP figures shows growth of only 0.1 per cent. The estimates now given for 2004 and 2005 of 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent make the celebrated Iraqi information minister appear a relative pessimist. The respected economic team at DKW Research are currently forecasting GDP growth of only 1.9 per cent in 2003 and 2.2 per cent in 2004, the latter in particular being well below the Chancellor's forecast. Indeed, the Treasury's own summary of independent forecasts made in March 2003 quotes an average of 1.9 per cent for 2003 and 2.3 per cent for 2004. Thus the Chancellor's forecast of 3 per cent to 3.5 per cent growth for 2004 is seen as optimistic by all bar six of the 35 independent forecasters surveyed by the Treasury in March.
The Chancellor has decided on another ruse to try to counter lower growth prospects, cloaking this as a measure to improve his European credentials. As the
1122
noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said, he has decided to change the basis for his inflation target from RPIX to the HICP basis used in Europe. HICP, as I understand it, excludes housing costs and council tax. At the stroke of a pen that cuts the current inflation rate by about 1.5 per cent, bringing it down to 1.6 per cent—not 1.2 per cent as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, said—which is well below the Bank of England's new target, which could be set at about 2 per cent.
That will put pressure on the Monetary Policy Committee to cut interest rates further to try to stimulate growth in order to save face and make the Chancellor's growth forecasts more realistic. Furthermore, once council tax has been removed from the calculation of the inflation rate, that will enable the Chancellor to introduce yet another stealth tax. In my opinion, council tax is set to soar, not only in London—thanks to Mr Livingstone's efforts—but nationwide, due to the reduction I predicted in central government support as the PSBR inexorably increases.
Can the Minister possibly disagree with that view? Lower growth results in lower tax revenues and higher borrowing. The Chancellor has been forced to apply the revisions he made to growth forecasts also to public sector net borrowing forecasts. They have all been revised upwards since the Pre-Budget Reports for the years until 2006–07 by an overall 20 per cent. I ask the Minister whether health and education services have improved by the same amount.
If funds for the above two areas continue to be needed at such a rate, will they come from increased borrowing, or does the Minister agree with the Leader of the House of Commons that the top rate of tax must rise, and, if so, by how much? Or will national insurance rates be raised further?
I turn to the Budget details. Last year I welcomed the cuts in corporation tax and capital gains tax for business assets. This year there is no repeat, but I applaud the extension of the research and development tax credit scope, the extension of IT investment allowances for another year and the lower rate of vehicle excise duty for environmentally friendly cars. However, nothing has been done to help pension funds. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, stated, stamp duty land tax would further damage them.
I turn to the Select Committee on Economic Affairs' most welcome report on the Finance Bill for a few cross-party observations. As many noble Lords have stated, the committee first focused on the stamp duty land tax. To repeat the words of other speakers:
"The early stages of pre-legislative consultation were widely welcomed by the professional and trade sectors involved. But the process was abruptly halted leaving some of the main provisions and a great deal of important detail to be worked out and implemented by secondary legislation by December 1 this year".
The committee went on to criticise that haste. Its private sector witnesses generally argued that the timescale was much too short, and that they would prefer its introduction to be delayed until next year while the legislation is redrafted to take more account of market factors. The committee also rightly argued

1123
that far too much was being left to regulation-making powers without proper parliamentary scrutiny. It gave a detailed list of concerns about the measure, which the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, described clearly and with which I shall not detain your Lordships.
But I repeat that this part of the Finance Bill takes up 139 pages, which is over 30 per cent of the total. I agree with the committee's conclusion that the Government should carry out a review this autumn to assess whether there is sufficient time for the task to be completed properly by 1st December 2003.
The second area the committee concentrated on was the VAT anti-abuse provisions, which were well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. I was surprised, as he said, that such abuse costs the Government between £1.7 billion and £2.5 billion in the UK alone. Like the committee I fully support the Government's effort to crack down on those abuses. But, as the committee states, a proper balance must be struck between those efforts and the need to safeguard the rights of legitimate traders. The committee's recommendation that enhanced safeguards should be considered to protect the interests of legitimate traders unwittingly caught up in an artificial supply chain without weakening the attack on fraud is most welcome.
With regard to the third area of examination—the mandatory electronic payment of PAYE—I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Freeman. I believe it very sensible that large companies should operate on this basis.
I warmly welcome the conclusions in chapter 7 of the report—particularly paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8. I agree that the sub-committee should be set up as soon as is convenient in the new parliamentary Session to review the outcome, as it emerges, of the ongoing consultations on the present Finance Bill and the pre-legislative consultation leading to next year's Finance Bill as well as considering the Bill itself, once published. I also support the recommendation that the terms of reference of the sub-committee be broadened so as to increase the scope of potential inquiry open to it. I agree that no issue of financial privilege arises.
One Budget measure that members of the committee might have considered if they had had more time was the proposal for the new child trust fund and how it will be administered. Will it be possible for it to be merged with existing funds, particularly accumulation and maintenance settlements? That would save many administration costs. Will separate trustees be required? Will a trust form have to be submitted to the Inland Revenue? I ask the Minister what the cost and extent of the Revenue's extra work in overseeing the scheme will be. We know that it is at its limits already with the extra work of the tax credits regime.
Therefore, in summary, the Chancellor continues to gamble on a quick recovery for the economy this year. But if that does not happen, we could see a ballooning deficit in the coming years and not a sinking one. People are waking up to the stealth tax system that he has been using and they are becoming more aware of the risks that the Chancellor is taking. Last Friday, a
1124
YouGov survey showed that, for the first time since 1992, the Conservatives are ahead of Labour on the central issue of economic competence. Increasingly, public mistrust of Labour's economic policies may prove well founded.
8.52 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on retaining his position as Treasury spokesman in the reshuffle. I am sure that, had he retained his position of Deputy Chief Whip, the Government would not have made such a mess of the timetable today as they have done. I believe that he would have guided them away from the pitfalls of trying to cram too much into a Thursday.
I declare an interest as a surveyor, and I want to concentrate my remarks on the stamp duty tax. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, in his excellent report, covered that subject fully, and he also explained to your Lordships why the committee could not look into the economic effects of the tax. I consider that to be a pity, but I thoroughly agree with him that it was correct that he did not do so. I believe that it would have helped his report but it would also have led to other huge problems.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that stamp duty needed reform, but surely not in the way that is proposed. This tax is being presented as an updated and improved stamp duty, whereas I believe that it is really nothing of the kind. By taking land transactions out of the stamp duty regime, there is scope for completely different tax rates to be applied at some time in the future, with differentials between residential and commercial property or land. It will apply equally to agricultural land if the length of lease or the amount of rent brings it within the scope.
Should it be called "stamp duty land tax"? Perhaps a better name for it is "son of development land tax". Son of development land tax, like development land tax, is a tax based on land transactions. It replaces stamp duty on those transactions but otherwise has only a partial resemblance to it, principally in so far as concerns the presently proposed rates of tax. It is, however, a tax on transactions, not documents. It is less complicated than DLT because there is no attempt to strip out development value from other aspects of value. But like DLT, it treats capital value of the right to receive rent in lease transactions as taxable at the effective date. However, in the case of SDLT the taxpayer is the tenant or purchaser of any land transaction.
I, too, would like to comment on the size of the Bill—Clauses 42 to 124 and Schedules 3 to 18. On Page 11 of the Select Committee report Mr McKie states it is the most significant new tax for 30 years. Surely that warrants a separate Bill in its own right. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, why it has not been given its own separate piece of legislation.

1125
I move to some of the detail. I particularly wish to concentrate on the consultation process. Before Christmas 2002, it was quite obvious that two major planks of the modernising stamp duty programme had not been resolved in consultation discussions. These included complex commercial structures and lease duty. On both these subjects those concerned submitted to the Government that they must consult further before drafting and introducing legislation. Not long after this, as many of your Lordships have commented, consultation in these areas was abruptly suspended with effect from 21st January on the initiative of Ministers. It was done not by telephone, not at a meeting but by e-mail.
One consultative committee was established to examine the highly complicated and controversial area of lease duty. The committee met on only three occasions. Tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, very skilfully tore a strip off his Government for the lack of time for his committee to do its work. He did so very cleverly without appearing to be disloyal to his party. Like my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, I do not blame my old department, the Treasury. The fault is entirely at the hands of Ministers.
What about parliamentary scrutiny? Stamp duty was not discussed in the Commons at any length. When he introduced the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that the Government were not convinced by arguments for change. I am not surprised. There was not time for any arguments, so how could they have been convinced? Worse is to come. There will be extensive use of regulatory powers. Finance Act orders are not laid before the House and therefore are not subject to our scrutiny. This is taxation by stealth and diktat—something which this Government promised they would not do but they have reneged on that promise. Any tax should be fair, transparent and easy to administer. SDLT, like DLT before it, is a complicated and sophisticated taxing mechanism and will undoubtedly involve a lot of extra fees and professional advice. It should also be a tax based on a proper valuation technique. This one is not.
I turn now to the system of lease duty reform proposed by the Chancellor. It has two main tenets. A new formula based on a net present rental value—NPRV—of the lease over the life of its term or duration charged at a flat rate of 1 per cent and an exemption from lease duty up to an NPRV of £150,000. The first significantly increases the cost of lease duty for businesses. The legislation also makes it clear that the duty will fall on the lessee or sub-tenant. The increase is equivalent to a tax hike of roughly five times the current lease duty levies on equivalent transactions, though that changes according to the exact term of the lease in question. Generally, the longer the lease length, the higher the lease duty imposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, mentioned. Retailers will be particularly hard hit owing to the rental values of their market sector. Indeed, they have argued that the lease
1126
duty reform could cost up to £130 million per year for their sector alone. This at a time when consumer spending is falling.
The second tenet of the Chancellor's reform has been to exempt all commercial property transactions under consideration of £150,000, whether freehold or leasehold. Leases will be exempt if their NPRV is below £150,000. That is welcome but it is likely to apply only to those in small properties and on short tenancies. Again, even small retailers in premises of 100 square metres across London, Leeds and Glasgow are likely to be liable for increased lease duty under the system.
I give a couple more examples. B & Q has estimated that the new lease tax may cost it £5 million a year and may cause it to review its future business plans. Another example given to the RICS is based on a real office rent cost to a medium-sized company in the West End of London, which pays £142,000 per annum on a five-year lease. That shows an increase in liability of 450 per cent for lease duty charges from £1,420 to £6,411. Many relatively smaller businesses—for example, pub lessees—will pay above £18,000 a year in rent and the new lease duty will be a relatively significant new burden for them.
Leases will be assessed on the net present value of the rental stream over the length of the lease, using a Treasury fixed discount rate—3.5 per cent in the Bill—without regard to the market value of that stream. Therefore, an office in the City of London let to the Government is assessed on exactly the same basis as the lease of a factory in the provinces which is let to a highly risky covenant, if the rent and the length of the lease are the same.
Furthermore, if the tenant goes bust, there is no ability to recover any of the tax which has been levied on the assumption that rent would be paid throughout the lease. There is no provision for repayment if the lease is terminated earlier by the landlord exercising a break clause, the prospect of which would have been ignored when the tax was assessed. There is no provision for repayment if the rent is reviewed downwards. There are nasty traps in assignments where there is a value in that assignment.
Another practical difficulty of the lease duty charge is its application to turnover rent where the rent is linked to the business turnover. This has many merits for a business but makes the calculation of lease duty difficult. With lease duty having been of limited importance before the proposed reforms, which greatly extends the amount liable for occupiers, this was not of major concern. Under the new lease duty legislation a charge will be payable by an occupier, who will be obliged to make a reasonable estimate of the turnover his business is expected to achieve. The Bill views this as unascertainable rent. To a degree, that will of course be a highly subjective estimate and may result in either significant overpayment or underpayment.
The compliance legislation on "unascertained rent" goes even further. There will be a requirement on the taxpayer that whenever the taxpayer is made aware of

1127
an increase in liability he must notify the Inland Revenue. For retailers on turnover rent, that could mean returning lease duty on a monthly or quarterly basis, which is a significant and onerous burden for the taxpayer.
The RICS in particular believes that the Government are opening a Pandora's box in reforming lease duty in this fashion. It has concerns over the use of the Treasury Green Book to calculate the discount rate for NPRV of leases. Companies undertaking an NPV analysis of their rental show little consistency over the discount rate they apply, and private practice has tended to use the borrowing costs of capital as a benchmark. Viewed in that light, the rate of 3.5 per cent is therefore low, as interest rates are between 4,27 per cent and 4.65 per cent.
The Government are effectively penalising smaller companies for imposing the smaller discount rate rather than relating the discount rate to the actual interest rate a small business would pay when borrowing capital.
I move quickly to the private finance initiative: do the Government agree that private finance initiative contracts should be exempt from stamp duty land tax? We fear that the Bill as drafted may inadvertently catch certain PFI contracts for SDLT. There is no specific exemption for them, even though certain PFI contracts will require the provision of land to a contractor for the purpose of the service required by the public authority. There may have been an intention to exempt PFI contracts within the Bill, but it has not been sufficiently well drafted, even when one looks at the definitions in Clause 48(1)(b).
What is the cumulative effect of the son of development land tax? Lease duty in 2001–02 brought in £282 million for the Government. The Government expect this to increase by £190 million in 2003–04 as a result of the new charge. Based on an average increase of liability to tenants of four to five times the current lease duty take, the RICS believes that this sum of £190 million may seriously underestimate the cost to occupiers of a new lease duty charge.
In conclusion, the Budget notes said that the son of development land tax would close loopholes, remove distortions and enhance the sector's contribution to economic growth, development and regeneration. That is rubbish. It is pernicious, it is contrary to other government policies, it is distinctly anti-business, it will create a substantial increase in tax, it is ill-considered and unfortunately creates a lawyers' paradise as well as, in due deference to my noble friend Lord Freeman, an open season for tax advisers.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am the last member of the Select Committee to speak from the Back Benches, and I am encouraged by the reception that our report has received. Therefore, I do not have to put into my speech the putting right of any misapprehensions that there might have been. The Minister and others will be delighted that I shall be considerably more brief than I had anticipated. All members of the Select Committee
1128
who paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, were right. He handled the committee with considerable skill, and got the best out of us all. It was a pleasure to serve on the committee with him.
I am also delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness, because I have a debt that I have wished to repay him from about 10 years ago, when he held a position on the Front Bench when I was Leader of the House. He was making a speech on the Finance Bill and I was sitting next to him. He made a brilliant speech. Afterwards I saw the briefing that he had received from the Treasury on which to make the speech. I put the whole of the briefing in a brown paper bag and sent it to the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, saying that I did not think that it was an adequate supply of information to enable a Minister to make a speech. My noble friend made an extremely good speech and the Permanent Secretary was gracious enough to apologise to him, and say, "I will see that we get better people on the job from now on." I think that that is now so. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made an extremely comprehensive speech, even though I might not agree with him. I have always felt that the annunciators should say, "all Questions in this House are answered by Lord McIntosh, unless otherwise indicated". I hope that that little episode ten years ago helped to improve the respect in the Treasury for this House.
When I was chairman of the Royal Commission on reform of this House, the area in which people felt that we had expertise and value was that we were able to revise and to scrutinise legislation in a way that the House of Commons did not. That reputation has been built up over the years—almost entirely excluding Finance Bill matters. That is quite right. I believe that it is vital for our democracy that we do not try in any way to infringe that division of responsibility. But that Select Committee work is a start on improving the scrutiny of legislation by Parliament as a whole, because there are helpful things that we can do.
When I first entered the House of Commons about 30 years ago, the scrutiny of Finance Bills was just about adequate, but it has steadily worsened from that date. That has been well ventilated in the debate and I do not need to add more to it. However, there was always a second problem, which I am not sure has been as well dealt with as it ought, although I suspect that the tax law rewrite project of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe will help in this respect.
That problem is that there was never room in the Finance Bill to put right a whole range of relatively minor but nevertheless important tax changes, because the Bill got bigger and bigger. This Government have a little more nerve about the size of Finance Bills than we had, but, nevertheless, there is always a whole bunch of things that should be done but cannot. When I was a Treasury Minister under my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, with his agreement I tried to devise a way in which we could address that problem. We thought seriously about whether we could try to persuade our colleagues to have a second Finance Bill—a technical one—probably introduced in the autumn, which would include all such measures.

1129
The problem was that it was simply impossible—this is not a party point—for an opposition to go along with that project, because they had to agree that whatever happened in the world, whatever circumstances occurred, they could amend it in only a minor way on detailed matters and not introduce anything controversial, important or significant. If there had been a major change in the world currency markets, the reality of the House of Commons is that the Opposition would have wanted to have done so. There was simply no way to solve that. So there are still matters at which we must work to try to improve how we do business. But there is clear agreement that we need better scrutiny, and the Select Committee exists to provide that.
The issue with which we had continually to deal was the age-old problem of taxation in a civilised society: the balance between the 99 per cent of people who want to discharge their liabilities with the minimum of inconvenience and the 1 per cent who would like to find every wrinkle in and way round the tax system. Over the years, if there is a criticism of our tax system, it is that there has been a slight over-concentration on the 1 per cent at the expense of the 99 per cent. But that is a matter of balance and judgment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others said, we discussed those matters totally impartially with no partisanship. My colleagues had no idea when we discussed stamp duty—when we all took the view that the Government were right to do what they proposed, with some criticism of how it was to be implemented—that when I was a Minister of State at the Treasury, I wrote a forward to an Inland Revenue discussion document on stamp duty in March 1983. I stated:
"stamp duty is a bad tax which ought to be abolished, because it is a tax on change, and the Government seeks to promote change rather than discourage it".
However, I know that I was strongly advised to include, and there was no way that I would not, the words:
"But it should be recognised that the loss of nearly £1,000 million of revenue will never be easy to bear".
I think that the revenue from stamp duty is now in excess of £4 billion a year, so whatever pious hopes I may have had of trying to persuade people that that is a bad tax are now part of history and unlikely to come to pass.
I need not detain the House any longer. I am very pleased with the response to our Select Committee Report. The committee has done a valuable job. The committee is only a small part of the improvement in the scrutiny of finance legislation and I hope nobody will be under any misapprehension that it should be considered as a rival to the work of the House of Commons. The committee has to be seen as an attempt by Parliament as a whole to try to improve the scrutiny of our financial legislation for the benefit of everybody.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, at this late hour I would like to concentrate my remarks on the process of scrutiny of the Finance Bill and on the Government's economic assessment. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Oakeshott on the substance of our report, not least on the issue of stamp duty.
The Economic Affairs Committee's detailed examination of a number of major issues about how tax is administered was the first time in over 90 years that your Lordships' House had had the opportunity to do anything more than nod the Finance Bill through.
There was some concern, not least on the committee itself, that our extremely tight timetable would mean that we had too little time to do anything useful. We were concerned that we would find it difficult to get to the bottom of extremely complicated issues about which none of us was the greatest expert at the beginning of the process.
We were very fortunate in receiving detailed and thoughtful evidence from a wide range of bodies who put a lot of work into producing evidence at extremely short notice. It is a measure of the attitude of professional bodies towards your Lordships' House that these bodies were prepared to put in this tremendous amount of detailed work to make our work possible. I thank them very much for that effort.
As a result of a combination of the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the extremely assiduous work by our Clerk and our specialist advisers, we managed to make sense of the material and produce sensible and constructive proposals. I believe we achieved what we set out to do.
However, what we set out to do was very narrow, partly because of the time we had and partly because of the remit we were given. It was interesting to find that because the committee was making recommendations about what was in the Finance Bill rather than attempting to amend it the question of financial privilege did not arise. It would not arise for a wide range of other issues besides the narrow range we looked at. That being so, I strongly support the final conclusion in the report, which is that if a subcommittee is established next year to look at the Finance Bill its terms of reference should be broader than those under which we operated this year.
I agree strongly with noble Lords who have said that our role is not to usurp or challenge the role of the Commons. I do not think there would be any point in your Lordships' committee spending most of its time arguing about whether income tax should be increased or whether duty should go up and down. I believe there are broader issues within the Finance Bill which we could look at and I hope we might be able to do so next year. Obvious questions arise after undertaking such a very intensive piece of work. They are questions that often arise in your Lordships' House. Was it worth the effort? Is anybody listening? And will it have any consequences?

1131
There are four reasons why it was certainly worth the effort and, arguably, it has made a difference. The first reason stems from the point made by many noble Lords, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. The recent record of the Commons on the scrutiny of financial legislation is poor. Whole sections, such as those covering stamp duty, of this Bill went through the Committee stage undebated. To quote one of many external pieces of evidence in support of that comment, the Tax Law Review Committee, which has been prayed in aid on a number of occasions, recently set out the case most succinctly when it stated:
"The truth of the matter is that the House of Commons has neither the time nor the expertise nor, apparently, the inclination to undertake any systematic or effective examination of whatever tax rules the government of the day places before it for its approval".
So undoubtedly there is a gap in the market.
Secondly, it may be hoped that, if we make recommendations, either the Government or, more likely, the opposition parties could then table amendments on Report in the Commons and debate what we have proposed. I was interested to hear the Minister say in his opening remarks that it was quite impossible to have expected the Government to respond to our report at such short notice; I parody him only slightly.
In effect Ministers have responded to a number of the principal proposals set out in our report because they have formed the basis of opposition or Conservative Party amendments to the Commons Report stage of the Finance Bill. Ministers then made detailed speeches on why they thought that reviews would not be possible within a certain timescale and on other matters. So I do not believe that that it is sufficient for the Minister to say that the Government could not have looked at our proposals by this stage.
The whole point of our undertaking this work was in order that both the Government and the opposition parties could consider it before the Commons Report stage and then, if they agreed with the proposals, put down amendments. If the Government do not agree, it would be helpful if they were to produce a quick response by Commons Report stage saying why our proposals are not matters they are prepared to take on board. I believe that it is valuable to bring to the attention of the Commons matters which they can look at again on Report. As we have seen already this year, amendments have been introduced based specifically on proposals made in our report. I found that extremely encouraging.
The third reason for hoping that this process will have a positive outcome is that while I have the highest regard for officials in the Revenue and in Customs and Excise, if they believe that what goes into the Bill is virtually unexamined and unamended in Parliament, then they know that they can take less care with the content of the legislation. They also know that, to the extent that they may be unhappy about what is set out in the legislation, they can deal with that by using what we discovered to be virtually catch-all clauses to the
1132
effect that—again, I parody only slightly—if the legislation proves to be practically unworkable it can be amended by statutory instrument.
That is a highly unsatisfactory method of producing legislation. More than almost anything else I learnt from our hearings that the growing practice of slipping in clauses that allow for huge rafts of secondary legislation is a most unsatisfactory way to proceed. If a Bill containing such clauses were anything other than a Finance Bill and so went before your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, the members of that committee would come down on it like a ton of bricks.
Finally, if officials and Ministers believed that the burgeoning annual taxation offering was likely to be critically scrutinised the Government might think twice about including some of the provisions at all. If the effect of a threat on the part of your Lordships' House to scrutinise legislation might be to reduce their willingness to put certain matters into Finance Bills, that in itself would justify our work.
I say that because tax legislation grows like Topsy. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, remarked that when VAT was introduced, it was a simple tax. My first job in Customs and Excise was to file all the original documents on VAT. I joined in the autumn of 1994 when the note about VAT from the Chancellor to the chairman of Customs and Excise was contained literally on one side of a sheet of A4. Three years later I was private secretary to the chairman of Customs and Excise, Sir Ronald Radford, whose greatest claim in his official career was that he had introduced VAT. He was then the only person left standing saying that VAT was a simple tax because, even within that three-year period, there had been an accretion of further legislation, detailed rules and regulations and codes of practice which meant that it had ceased to be a simple tax.
Let me sum up on this section of my remarks. It would be sensible to establish the sub-committee as soon as conveniently possible after the House reconvenes to enable it to start its work in advance of the Finance Bill itself. I hope that the Liaison Committee will treat this proposal favourably.
As to the question of the economic assessment, I was relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, raised the matter because, other than by the Minister, very briefly, the issue has not been discussed at all. The main thing one sees in looking again at the assessment—which is not very old—is that the growth forecasts look incredible. Growth in the first quarter was virtually nil and the growth forecast of 2 to 2.5 per cent for the year now looks unattainable. The forecast of 3 to 3.5 per cent for subsequent years also looks very unlikely.
The main consequence is that the Government's balance of expenditure is unlikely to be met and the Government will almost certainly borrow significantly higher sums than set out in the assessment. When Peter Hain suggests that there should be an intelligent debate on taxation, one knows that there will have to be one—it is to be hoped that it will be intelligent—

1133
before very long because the likelihood is that with lower growth rates either expenditure levels will have to be cut back or taxation increased.
The evidence about growth is mixed but, on balance, it is rather depressing. We have read today that HSBC has cut 1,400 jobs, as a result, in no small measure, of a reduction in activity among the manufacturing businesses that it serves. Therefore, manufacturing having contracted over a long period, we are now seeing the continuing knock-on effect in terms of job losses in the service industries that supply it.
I would like to have time to respond in some detail to the comments of my noble friend Lord Jacobs on the harmonised index of consumer prices. This was one of the big things that the Chancellor said when the economic assessments were announced, but, because it sounded very technical, everyone thought that it was a little matter. Introducing HICP within the course of this financial year will enable the Bank of England substantially to reduce interest rates in a way that would be completely impossible under the current target. I welcome that, but it has been a big change slipped through under the guise of a technical adjustment. No doubt we shall have plenty of opportunities to discuss that issue in future debates.
If I were in Brussels and receiving the Government's economic assessment, I would see it, metaphorically at least, as bearing a major health warning. But I suspect I would do the same with most other members of the EU.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on piloting no fewer than three Bills through your Lordships' House in a single day. It must be a record.
It was surely an act of disinterested statesmanship by the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to open doors that were closed for a century and, on behalf of the Government, to invite your Lordships' House to consider the Finance Bill at a much earlier stage. We now have our new committee and I am sure that everyone with an interest in the effective administration of the national finances will want to join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and all the members of his committee for what they have done, and the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for putting them in a position to do it.
With only two months from Budget day to complete their hearings of expert witnesses and to make recommendations, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, said, they had to work hard; they had to concentrate on technical detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said; and they also had to focus, as they rightly did, on the new stamp duty land tax. On that, their wise advice, which I hope that the Minister will shortly heed, was to delay implementation to allow fuller consultation on a tax which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, called enormously important. It is also a very complicated tax which, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, has caused uncertainty throughout the property and retail sectors.
1134
On the committee's work as a whole and its report, I do not think I can put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, who said:
"We will not roar; we will not have teeth; but we will speak with authority … and we will be heard".—[Official Report, 4/7/02; col. 427.]
That, my Lords, should make us all very happy.
However, I fear that there may be one Member of your Lordships' House who is not so happy tonight—and that is the Minister. I think the noble Lord may need cheering up, and therefore we should share his pain. The Finance Bill arrives in your Lordships' House today just as the Government's reputation for economic competence has unfortunately disintegrated. As my noble friend Lord Northbrook told us, a 26-point lead on this matter at the last election has become a three-point deficit today. At that election, 60 per cent of the public said that the Government were honest. Now 60 per cent say they are not honest.
Doctors apparently say that depression can be lifted if the patient can be brought to understand how he got into a sorry state. Is the Minister sad because the Government's future borrowing forecast has gone from £34 billion 18 months ago to £118 billion today? Or is it because the Chancellor's future tax receipts forecast reveals a chronic misunderstanding of the elasticity of tax revenues, so that while tax receipts have been rising by only 1.5 per cent recently, it is incredible—I think that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Newby—that the Chancellor now forecasts tax receipts to rise by 7 per cent each year for the next three years? The reality is that the Government now have five times more money going out every month than they have coming in.
Or is the Minister glum because the Chancellor has had to issue three warnings of lower growth, yet is still, as my noble friend Lord Northbrook, said, too optimistic according to 20 of the 26 independent forecasts surveyed by the Treasury? As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, the latest quarter's GDP growth was the slowest for 10 years. Or is it simply this? The bottom line is that people are actually worse off than they were a year ago. There has been a 0.3 per cent fall in real terms in earnings in Britain over the past 12 months.
We all value the Minister's sunny and cheery disposition, and we must not let these things get him down. Fortunately, help is at hand, in the unlikely form of a Treasury document which unites the two aspects of today's debate—the Finance Bill and the EU. Before this document, any impertinent functionary in the Treasury who embarked on the route of justifying tax rises by the composition, perhaps, of a page of prose of engaging frankness, would have found that a thunderbolt struck the ballpoint from his hand. No longer, my Lords. I stress that the document I am describing is not produced by Mr Hain or what he called "a Cabinet full of Kinnockites". The Treasury issued this document— the Chancellor himself. It goes under the innocent name of Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU, and it reveals that the Government are considering using tax rises to

1135
manage the economy after they have stripped the Bank of England of its power to set interest rates on the basis of Britain's economic needs.
Here are some extracts, some titbits. On page 85, it states:
"Investment in housing is relatively lightly taxed".
It continues:
"One option would be to extend the regulator power to additional taxes, such as stamp duty".
Over the page, it goes on:
"Tax instruments affecting the housing market have"—
chilling phrase, this—
"some immediate appeal".
It goes on:
"Stamp duty could be raised during a period of rapid house price increases".
The Treasury's fiscal stabilisation document proposes the most radical shake-up of tax policy in Britain for at least a generation. It warns us to be prepared for wholesale changes in the way that a huge range of taxes—from VAT to stamp duty to capital gains tax—are set. Changes in tax would have to be used to control the economy to compensate for the fact that interest rates, set by the ECB, would often be at inappropriate levels for Britain. So, yes, my Lords, you will be able to tune in to quarterly announcements from the Treasury such as, "VAT up to 22 per cent for three months. Stamp duty doubled for six months", and so on.
So, for example, the Government are planning to control the housing market with a tougher capital gains tax regime, or perhaps even the Danish-style property wealth tax system. Currently, any gains on one's principal private residence are tax free—an asset increasingly seen as a cashpoint machine from which people can borrow to fund their current spending.
To reduce lags in the system, both in the recognition of the need for tax rises and then in their implementation and taking effect, the document alarmingly suggests that taxes would have to be changed by the Chancellor reviving the long unused powers offered by "tax regulators", first introduced in 1961 to vary taxes overnight without recourse to Parliament. Chillingly, the document acknowledges that the scope for tax changes afforded by those regulators is only "quite large". So, it says:
"These limits could potentially constrain the ability of the existing regulators to offset large shocks by themselves".
So what it proposes is, yes, "widening the limits". When the existing regulator powers allow the Chancellor to increase VAT to almost 22 per cent, raising just under £16 billion annually, we can only pray that the widening is not too great.
The history of this sort of fiscal fine-tuning is a dismal one. By the time the Treasury got round to pressing on the accelerator and the effects fed through to the economy, it was time to apply the brakes, and vice versa.
The Chancellor's solution to these problems is a quarterly report on the so-called "output gap". That puts at the heart of Britain's economic policy a
1136
concept, a phenomenon, which—unlike the rate of inflation—is unobservable and theoretical. That was the sort of reason for the failure of "stabilisation" policy in the 1950s, which in practice tended to exaggerate rather than smooth the economic cycle, with intervention tending to be both too late and too great. Harold Macmillan as Prime Minister famously complained in 1956 that, since the figures always came too late to be useful,
"We are always, as it were, looking up a train in last year's Bradshaw".
The experience of economic upswings sharply cut off by credit squeezes and international borrowing came to be known as stop-go. By the early 1960s, stop-go had been identified as a significant constraint on economic growth and as a major failure of post-war economic policy. Yet, incredibly—again to take the word of the noble Lord, Lord Newby—apparently that is the model of inefficiency to which the Government plan to return.
We heard earlier about the lack of scrutiny of the Finance Bill and of the stamp duty land tax itself. We heard from my noble friends Lord Higgins, Lord Caithness and Lord Wakeham about their concerns, and from the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott, Lord Sheldon and Lord Newby. My noble friend Lord Freeman actually described it as a disgrace. My noble and learned friend Lord Howe hoped that the Chancellor would read the excellent IFS/Budd report on how these procedures are failing. However, although the unanimous view of every noble Lord who spoke in this debate is that the scrutiny of finance matters is inadequate, today would seem a golden age of scrutiny and consultation compared with the massive extension in the Treasury's discretionary power and the massive reduction in parliamentary scrutiny which would result if the document I described were ever put into practice.
The Minister will shortly deny that Her Majesty's Government have any such tax plans. He will speak of Aunt Sally and straw men, but the Prime Minister does want to take us into the euro. He does say that it is our destiny. We must never forget that the Prime Minister's promises on tax have proved no guide to the actions of his Government. Before he was elected he declared—and we should all pause for a smile— "We have no plans to increase tax at all", but since then, as we know, he has raised tax not once but 60 times—10 times a year to be exact.
After the old Keynesian consensus broke down in the 1970s, monetary policy came to be accepted as the principal tool of macro-economic management, with fiscal policy aimed mostly at securing sustainable public finances and delivering the tax incentives and spending levels judged to be appropriate. Our political parties may have disagreed over the details, but not, for some time, over the objectives. That consensus, which has brought such benefits to Britain, would be the first casualty should the Government decide that taking us back 30 years to the failed and long-abandoned policies of the past is a price worth paying for their euro ambitions.
9.41 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I came here prepared to defend the Government's economic policies and the Finance Bill and, in very large part, neither has been challenged. With the noble exceptions of noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Saatchi, and, to a lesser extent, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we have had a series of speeches in praise of the Economic Affairs Committee and its work. Therefore, since my noble friend Lord Peston started a rather threatening part of his speech by reminding me of my obligation to reply to the debate, I will do just that.
I remind the House of what I said at the beginning. In my opening speech I said that the Government have not yet had the opportunity to respond to the report. What I can now say—and I hope that this will show that I am responding effectively to the debate—is that the Government will now have the benefit of today's proceedings in your Lordships' House in any response that they make. I hope that that satisfies the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, "Is anybody listening?"
I start with the most important part of the subcommittee's report, which is the issue of stamp duty land tax. The claim has been made by the noble Lords, Lord Peston, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Lord Freeman, and others that the reform has been rushed through. The reform in this Finance Bill follows a consultation document at the time of the 2002 Budget. Since that time, there have been extensive consultations from a wide range of representative bodies and professionals. At the time of the Pre-Budget Report in November 2002, a further consultation document was published exposing in draft form 62 clauses and four schedules. Many representations were received and they helped to improve the legislation.
As far as the Government are concerned—and we have not heard anything other than speculation to the contrary—the commencement of stamp duty land tax is on track for 1st December 2003. Powers have been taken in the Bill to allow changes after Royal Assent in the run up to implementation and we are consulting with representative bodies on the modifications that we need to find through the law. The main charge that is made in the committee's report does not actually stand up. On the charge that this is a stealth tax, I can assure the House that is not our intention to widen the charge before it has even been implemented. Any measures introduced as a result of consultation are likely to take the form of additional targeted reliefs. That is certainly not to be described as a stealth tax.
The Government will continue to listen. In direct answer to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I can say that we continue to listen. We have started consultation again. We have already had two meetings on lease duty and complex commercial transactions. Of course, we broke off consultation during the purdah period before the Budget; we always do that, when rates are in question. It has been an accepted procedure and not one, I venture to suggest, introduced for the first time by a Labour government.
1138
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, made a point about the definition of disadvantaged areas. He has made much of that point in the press in recent weeks, and I have had the advantage of reading it. He contradicted the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, who claimed that there was an uncertainty about it. There is a certain amount of crudeness about it, and there are anomalies. However, those anomalies arise because we have been determined to have criteria that are clear to everybody and can be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the lease duty rates were too high. The new system removes the jumps in the rates of tax built into the existing system. It puts all leases on an economically level playing field. The length of commercial leases is distorted by the present rates structure, and the reform removes that distortion. Commercial leases with a net present value of less than £150,000 will escape tax, and many in disadvantaged areas will pay no tax.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about turnover leases and how they would be taxed. We have had many representations from a small minority with commercial leases for which rent is calculated as a proportion of turnover. We have no intention of requiring businesses to submit monthly or even annual returns on changes in turnover. The policy intention is to minimise the compliance burden and provide certainty on the charge.
The noble Earl asked why net present value was lower than market interest rates. The net present value is set to exclude inflation; rent reviews in line with RPI are ignored in the net present value calculations. He asked why the net present value formula for leases did not take into account the circumstances of the tenant. The principle of taxation is that tax rates are always the same for all taxpayers.
The noble Earl asked about PFI. In fact, he slated us about PFI contracts and asked why they should be exempt from stamp duty land tax.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, I say to the Minister that I did not slate the Government for that. I said that I thought that they ought to be exempt from development land tax. It is not clear in the Bill whether they are.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I misheard him. We continue to consult on that and other complex commercial transactions, in order to make the tax fair. I hope that I have covered some of the detailed points made on stamp duty land tax.
I shall comment on the missing trader fraud issue, which surprised my noble friend Lord Sheldon, among others. My noble friend asked whether the amount of fraud could be as great as £1.7 billion to £2.75 billion. The fact that, as I said, we have discovered only today a fraud of £120 million shows the seriousness of the problem.
The question raised by the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Peston was about safeguards to protect legitimate businesses. Those safeguards

1139
include the right to appeal Customs decisions to the VAT and duties tribunal; and a requirement for Customs to prove that the business knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that VAT had gone unpaid or that evasion was likely to take place. Those legal safeguards are backed up with statements of practice that set out clearly how and in what circumstances the measures will be applied. There have been representations about a two-stage review but we do not want a delay that will allow fraudsters to continue in their fraud; we want to crack down on those frauds as quickly as possible.
It has been suggested that it is difficult for legitimate businesses to recognise a dodgy deal. One example was that of mobile telephones. Those who trade in those sectors are surely aware of market prices from day to day. In most cases of fraud, transactions take place significantly below market value. That is similar to buying cigarettes on the street, as one can near where I live in north London, for significantly less than one pays in the shops. One entertains the fond delusion that one is not buying smuggled cigarettes but all those selling and buying them know that smuggled cigarettes are involved. If businesses have a legitimate low-price deal, they can produce evidence of it and the disputes will be considered by an independent tribunal.
Few comments were made on the electronic VAT issue, although the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, referred to it. However, even he was not particularly critical of the Budget's proposals.
I have given much consideration to the matters raised by the Select Committee. I turn to the wider issues, the first of which is that of parliamentary scrutiny. Several noble Lords—even such experienced people as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—described parliamentary scrutiny of the Finance Bill in another place as a disgrace or as having seriously deteriorated. The total time available for scrutiny of the Bill this year has been comparable with that for Finance Bills over many years under governments of both parties. When there was a complaint about that this year, further Standing Committee time was allocated. Within the total time, the allocation was agreed by the usual channels and I am not aware that there was a particular dispute about that because the Opposition always lead in deciding which issues are to be scrutinised.
On stamp duty land tax, twelve and a half hours were spent on it in Standing Committee and two and a half hours on Report. That is a substantial amount of time. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and others, who raised criticisms in that regard, seemed to think that something sinister had been going on in the House of Commons. I do not believe that that is the case. The freedom within a fixed allocation for the opposition parties to decide what they want to debate is the right way to proceed, given that the Government have embarked on programming of government business. It is not for me in this House—or, I suggest, for anyone else—to criticise that.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the fact is that that was programmed and was not agreed by the Opposition.
1140
The Minister should read Hansard of 1st July. It was suggested by the government spokesman that that was the case, but it was not true, as Hansard clearly indicates.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the total amount of time was not agreed by the Opposition but the allocation of time within the programme was agreed by them.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, that is the point. The total amount of time was not agreed. The amount of debate was curtailed. There was not adequate time to debate the details of the Finance Bill. That is clear from the fact that many clauses were not debated at all.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, that is not clear from the fact that many clauses were not debated at all. There have been guillotines on business in the House of Commons for many years under governments of both parties, but it really is not our business to debate that. Within the allocated time, which is always a matter of controversy, which clauses are debated and which are not is a matter largely for the Opposition to determine.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, the time may be the same but the Bills themselves are so much longer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was going to come to that. It is true that the Bills are longer although the Bill this year, as has been pointed out, is shorter than last year. Why are they longer? Interestingly, they are longer for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, suggested, which is that 99 per cent of the people of this country are not interested in the detail and 1 per cent are passionate about it. A great deal of the detail of any Finance Bill is, as the noble Lord suggested, directed to that 1 per cent. Why? If we do not direct the detail to that I per cent it will cost the Exchequer billions of pounds in lost revenue. It is the unfortunate fact that there is an industry comprising no more than 1 per cent of the population who are very well heeled and spending a great deal of time and money trying to ensure that they pay less tax. The Revenue has to respond, quite rightly, in our interests.
I do not know whether I can respond effectively to much of the remainder of the debate. I will deal with particular questions. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked me what the Section 5 submission contains. In this case it contains the whole of the Financial Statement and Budget report. Section 5 contains the submission which we shall make later in the year on the pre-Budget report. We do it twice a year and the whole document is included.
The noble Lord suggested that the review of the Revenue departments was because of bungles. The Chancellor has paid tribute to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise for their modernising agenda and for building in tax credits. The purpose of the review is not to deal with bungles but to build on success.

1141
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked me whether in future the Government's response will be ready in time for debate. That depends when the debate takes place, which is a matter for this House and not for the Government. I do not see how I can possibly answer that. He asked how much notice will be taken of the conclusions and gave his answer in advance, not a lot. I hope that I have indicated in my speech today that I have taken a great deal of notice of the conclusions. He suggested that there should be a fixed Budget date because it would bring certainty for business. I believe that that certainty is given not so much by a particular calendar date, but by the fact that we now have two Statements a year—the pre-Budget report, which introduces very effective consultation on Budget matters, and the Budget itself. I know that business organisations appreciate that greater degree of consultation.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I also suggested that it would be easier for Parliament and one might be able to get the response in time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, made a point about electronic payments. The coercion which is being introduced in this Budget is consistent with the VAT system as it is, including surcharges for default. It is necessary to stop abuse of cheque payment rules and to ensure that large employers pay on time. It will remove the unfair competitive advantage that non-compliant large employers currently enjoy over compliant ones. There will be a later date due for electronic payments, which will ensure that large employers do not lose cash flow. But we must deal with those who use the defects of the bank clearing system—if I may be so bold—to benefit themselves.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. I always listen to him with great respect, not least because of his work on the Tax Law Rewrite Project. The Finance Bill reflects lessons from the rewrite Bills, but the Tax Law Rewrite Project takes place within tightly defined guidelines that prevent changes of substance being made. That is why it is necessary to make the changes in Schedule 22.
The proposed new rules follow the structure set down by the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, which has been referred to. That structure is the way forward and replacement of blocks of legislation is much preferred to numerous amendments. The Finance Bill builds on the work of the Tax Law Rewrite Project because the tax system keeps moving, as it must. It does not undermine that work, the continuation of which we strongly support.
The noble and learned Lord asked about consultation, about which I want to make a general point and a particular point. We consulted on more than a third of the contents of the Finance Bill. We consulted formally on, among other matters, stamp duty land tax, offshore funds, first-year allowances for environmentally friendly equipment, non-resident
1142
companies, companies owning their own shares and many other points. There was also a great deal of informal consultation.
I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, who asked about consultation on stamp duty land tax, that the consultation is still going on. We had to have a break in SDLT consultation because we cannot consult on rate settings. But apart from that, consultation has been extensive.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked about RPIX and HICP. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, will know that it was made clear when the EMU assessment was made on 9th June—and I made it clear in this House—that the intention is that HICP will be used for monetary policy purposes only, and it will certainly not be used as the basis for calculation of changes in pensions or index-linked gilt. I made that point to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, in response to a Starred Question after 9th June.
Yes, of course we will continue to publish the retail prices index: we will need it for those purposes. The Monetary Policy Committee remit continues to be RPIX; any move to the HICP target will build on the success. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, we have after all the longest period of sustained low and stable inflation since the 1960s.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I appreciate with due modesty the noble Lord's tribute to my tenacity. Would he be kind enough to undertake, when he goes home tonight or preferably tomorrow morning, to look at the evidence given to the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, by the professional bodies on the particular example that I cited in my speech, which depicts a scene wholly different from that which he has described so benignly in terms of consultation and satisfaction?
If we look in particular at the judgment they offer on Schedule 22, it is not a sufficient response to produce a bland, characteristically impressive, benign answer at this time of night and to believe that that has dealt with the problem. Will he undertake to look at it in that way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have read the evidence. I will not undertake to do any more reading tonight, but I will undertake to look back at it again.
The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, made an interesting point about the tax structure review project to which I would like to respond. He said that a new tax structure review project should be established to simplify the structure of the tax system. The issue is that there cannot be a clear distinction between the structure of the tax system and the policy decisions about tax. That is the difficulty which the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Peston has had in defining the limits of its remit. That has been commented on by a number of speakers. The structural design of a tax system is largely a reflection of the functional necessity of policy

1143
implementation. It is difficult to see how changes to the structure could be enacted in a way that would not distort the implementation of policy. I am afraid that that is a very general point.
I would like to respond in more detail to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, and there are things that I would like to say about public borrowing and growth. In all cases, those comments are consistent with what we have said in the past. In response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, our growth in the first quarter, although low, is fully consistent with our forecast of 2 to 2.5 per cent for 2003.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, criticised public borrowing. At its peak this year, that borrowing is likely to be 2.5 per cent, compared with 8 per cent of GDP in the early 1990s. The noble Lord criticised the revision of the forecasts. Those are based on finances which are sound and sustainable and they remain fully affordable. I must confess that, if I had known he was going to make the same speech as the one he made last year, I would have looked up that speech and checked whether his predictions for the coming year have, in fact, been borne out. I suspect that they have not. I shall certainly be more prepared if he makes the same speech next year.
I have exceeded the time available. I am sorry if I missed out any of the significant points made. I can assure noble Lords that all their points will be taken into account in future policy-making.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 2nd July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Finance Bill 2003
10.9 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It falls to me only to thank noble Lords for taking part in the
1144
debate, which I, at least, have found extremely interesting. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I was not threatening him, although, as he knows, I am quite capable of doing so; I was simply reminding him of the job that I thought he was going to do. Perhaps I may say to him that I believed he did exactly the job that I wanted him to do. What I cannot understand is the whole rigmarole of the difficulties that the Treasury has in replying to our committee. As my noble friend mostly did that, he could have done the whole job with no trouble whatever. But, subject to that, I consider that he did an admirable job and I thank him very much.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs on the Finance Bill 2003 (3rd Report, HL Paper 121).— (Lord Peston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Taxation (Information) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I am glad to say that the usual channels have agreed that I can move this Bill on Wednesday, 9th July. Therefore, for tonight, I shall not move that the Bill be read a second time.

Financial Statement and Budget Report
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Budget 2003 for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Fire Services Bill
(First Day)
Thursday, 3rd July 2003.
The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will he recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall he no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to he agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No.1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"MEANS OF LAST RESORT TO AVOID DISRUPTION
(1) The powers conferred by section 1(1)(a), (3), (5), and (6) shall not be exercised unless—

(a) collective bargaining has failed or the award of a mandatory arbitral tribunal independent of Government has been ignored or rejected, or

(b) the exercise of such powers in a state of emergency has been approved by both Houses of Parliament on affirmative resolution, in which event section 1(3) shall not apply.

(2) Collective action whether primary or secondary taken at the instigation of a trade union with the intention to disrupt Fire Brigade services shall be unlawful."
The noble Lord said: It was apparent from the moment when the first Marshalled List was available in the Printed Paper Office that, since Second Reading, the tide had turned against the concept of this amendment, which restricts imposition of the conditions of service by government decree under
GC 234
Clause 1(1)(a). That restrictive barrier had been lifted by a tripartite consensus, of which I was given no notice and of which I was wholly unaware.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): Perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to make one comment, for the record. He said that the tide had turned against the amendment, but what he really means is that the tide had turned against the Bill. He would not be moving his amendment if the tide had turned against it, would he?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am moving the amendment against Clause 1(1)(a), notwithstanding that a tripartite consensus has emerged between my party, the Liberal Democrat Party and the Minister's party that the provision should stand unamended. That being the position—and it is a rather strange position—the erstwhile consensus on Second Reading as to the setting up of some form of "mandatory arbitral tribunal", independent of government, binding on the parties and on government, which seemed to be accepted by the House, has somehow evaporated into thin air.
The situation is that, if such be the political reality—as I believe to be at the moment—unashamed but naked, the amendment stands all but beyond the range of reasoned persuasion. Assuredly, it has not been moved as an exercise in confrontation, with a tripartite policy.
However, the merits of the argument have not been considered yet. They are worthy of objective examination, having commended themselves not only to another place, on the 20th March in the Statement that heralded the introduction of the Bill, but also in your Lordships' House at Second Reading, which my noble friend was unable to attend.
It is a dual-purpose Bill, tightly and deftly crafted. Clause 1(1)(a), with which the amendment is concerned, lies within the remit of industrial relations, employment and trade union law and is without the remit of local government law. Clause 1(1)(b), with which the amendment is not concerned, as implemented by the White Paper is not only requisite but wholly welcome—save for its control over the process of negotiation and bargaining, and subject always to the consultation that the paper envisaged, in particular, with local government. Albeit that the Bill, in this sense, is within the remit of local government, it is not a local government Bill.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.52 to 4.2 p.m.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: That was a most fortunate interval, because my noble friend Lady Hanham assured me that she is party to no agreement such as I suggested. I am very relieved because that releases me from a direct confrontation with my own party, which is never a very attractive position to be in, although I find myself in it at times. That sort of thing happens on a complex Bill that contains intricate industrial relations terms, on which, unfortunately,

GC 235
through no fault of my noble friend, we could not consult or discuss. At any rate, the position is now plain. My party is not opposing this Motion.
The main question arising is whether the imposition of the conditions of service as proposed in the Bill is acceptable, not only in principle but as a means to resolve disputes and to avoid disruption in this industry in these circumstances. Whether the imposition, or the threat of imposition by decree, shall not—as I suggest it shall—inevitably engender further disruption and strife, which would be self-defeating and regrettable, as noble Lords know, there is no way in which individual members of fire brigades may be compelled to work. That was expressly acknowledged by the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister in another place on 20th March. This fundamental question simply does not lie within the remit of a local government. Is not, such as I have put it quite shortly, the essence of the reality of the situation of which, when I was considering the reality of some political consensus, that I would have suggested that that political consensus, if it had existed, could not have taken into account the actual reality?
So one comes to the question as to how (a) and (b) interact. This is a matter, again, of industrial relations. It has nothing to do with local government. I ask: is it not inevitable and acceptable that the restructuring process, which I welcome as requisite, will give rise to a variety of local disputes on use of equipment; extra duties; provision for terrorist emergencies, and conditions of service? Is it not possible—I do not say inevitable—that these local disputes could engender another general union dispute? Is it not requisite that resolution of these disputes should be sought by the traditional process of collective bargaining in the first instance, and if such resolution may not be had by collective bargaining, that some effective means of resolution be devised to avoid disruption of this public service, such as that proposed by this amendment?
So much for the interaction between (a) and (b); an interaction which does not fall within the remit of local government but industrial relations. The purpose of the amendment is to seek your Lordships' views—I am trying to put it very simply and shall very soon conclude—on the essence of the argument rather than to produce a detailed presentation.
The purpose of the amendment is that in a state of emergency the Bill, as drafted without amendment, could apply by affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Otherwise, the provisions of the Bill would not apply to disputes as to conditions of service. When I say that the Bill would not apply, Clause 1(1)(a) is what I am concerned with. If disputes are not resolved by collective bargaining, they would be settled by mandatory arbitration independent of government and the award would be binding on the parties and on Government as a measure of last resort to avoid disruption of services. Anyone who reads the Official Report of Second Reading will see that, on the question of the setting up of some form of mandatory abitral tribunal, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and
GC 236
I were at one. I acquit the noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn, of any over-complicity. I do not know what his views were, but we shall no doubt hear.
The other matter relevant to the amendment is that collective action, taken at the instigation of any trade union with the intention of disrupting these services and no other, be unlawful. However, the individual entitlement to withhold or withdraw labour shall of course be retained.
I want to raise only one other matter, which I think is on common ground but perhaps I should be uncertain about saying so. These particular disputes must be resolved, and disruption of the services must be avoided. The Government have devised one way of direct imposition that would work very well if it worked. It is a bit Irish to say so, but I shall try to explain why it might not. At least it has the same approach as me. My approach on the amendment is, as I have described, with the tribunal and so on. Come what may, I want to have a quick word in this context only about the series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, which I suspect must have been drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Does the noble Lord think that it might be more appropriate to discuss forthcoming amendments when they arise or in the groups to which they have been allocated by agreement?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have taken the advice of the Table, and I am perfectly within my remit. I am not speaking to any particular amendment, but on a comparative effect. I have only a few more sentences to say. I am speaking about common ground where the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I agree, and where we disagree. We agree on the end; we do not agree on the means.
I am not going to criticise the series of amendments. I easily could and may do so in future, but that is not the purpose. The purpose is to say that the amendments afford no effective means of resolution of last resort to avoid disruption, and are dependent on the agreement of the union. Therefore, they are useless. They do not add up. They do not fulfil the common ground between the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and myself, so I cannot accept them. I do not suppose that he will. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: I was going to say nice things about the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but he almost defeats me before I begin. I welcome the amendment because it starts us off talking about third-party dispute resolution. That is the way out of the woods. The Government pretend that their imposition, their third bite of the cherry, is independent arbitration. That is the scandal about the Bill. That is hypocrisy. There is no provision in the Bill for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and I want, which is third-party dispute resolution.

GC 237
Therefore, despite everything the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, I welcome the fact that he tables the amendment and I welcome the speech he made at Second Reading. He then said that there would be no way forward unless we tried to introduce as a specific initiative on the part of the Government, if necessary, a form of third-party dispute resolution.
There are things about the noble Lord's proposal which, if it did not go on to say the things it goes on to say, one could welcome. He is trying to restrain the scope of this monstrous Bill. He proposes that you should be able to invoke the powers in the Bill only if
"collective bargaining has failed or the award of a mandatory arbitral tribunal independent of Government has been ignored or rejected".
I can sign up for that. There is nothing like that in the Bill—you could not get an agreement between the parties and the Secretary of State having his third bite at the cherry and saying "I don't want that". So I welcome the proposal—it is a civilised way of conducting industrial relations.
The amendment goes on to state that,
"the exercise of such powers in the state of emergency has been approved by both Houses of Parliament".
That is a legitimate way of seeking to restrain the general, sweeping, undefined powers which the Secretary of State uses, or could use, in the Bill. I welcome that.
The amendment then goes on to state:
"Collective action whether primary or secondary taken at the instigation of a trade union with the intention to disrupt Fire Brigade services shall be unlawful".
I do not go along with that. Nevertheless, it is a limited way of looking at a reduction in the right to strike. After all, I do not know how on earth you would ever prove it, but you would have to prove that the collective action was taken at the instigation of the trade union—presumably, a ballot would be all right; I do not know—with the intention to disrupt fire brigade services. In most industrial action of this kind, the intention is to improve terms and conditions. The intention is to achieve a settlement. The intention is to make the employer a little more reasonable. But, there we are, we could have many arguments about whether subsection (2) would apply.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may clarify the issue. This used to happen in the days when I conducted such cases quite a lot. What was the intention of the union? Did it instigate it? It is a question of fact. The noble Lord is more experienced of trade unions than I. There are 101 intentions or motives, but if there is the intention to disrupt these services, that is it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps I may say in support of my noble friend Lord McCarthy that I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I commend him for the speech he made at Second Reading. That was on the side of myself and my noble friends who believe, quite rightly, that the Bill should never have been put before us.
GC 238
The problem is that almost any industrial action disrupts services. When calling a dispute, one of the objectives is to disrupt the service that your members were originally providing. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, knows, the right to strike is necessary and part of the ILO conventions. The ILO conventions, although not specific on the issue, make it clear as a corollary of the major conventions, that ultimately there should be the right to withdraw services.
I accept that paragraphs (a) and (b) are benevolently motivated, but he knows, because I have discussed it with him, that subsection (2) is not acceptable to myself and my noble friends. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, speaks from a basis of considerable experience in the industrial relations field and has a great deal of knowledge of industrial relations law.
Lord McCarthy: I want to complete the few words I was saying. I am not saying that you cannot have limits on the scope of industrial action. I am saying that it cannot be done in the form in which the noble Lord advances it. I do not see why one wants to do it in particular, or because we have had a dispute in the Fire Service which has now been settled.
I do not see why one wants to attempt to introduce some alternative to the fiendish proposals which the Government put in the Bill, providing that the only way you can obtain conciliation, mediation and arbitration—you end with arbitration; you do not start with it—is by inserting into the Bill a no-strike clause; even the weak enough no-strike clause that the noble Lord suggests.
If you made a list of the workers in this country on grounds of the problems they could cause if they took industrial action, you would not start with the Fire Service. An equivalent argument could be made in relation to many other groups of workers. Once you say that you have conciliation, mediation and arbitration only if you rearrange certain circumstances and you ban industrial action, that is a precedent.
I know that the noble Lord is not for this, but I warn him that we are facing precedents. The misconstruction of the 1947 Act was a precedent. This Bill is a precedent. If you read the White Paper on the future of the Fire Service, the Government are clearly planning another series of precedents. One, two, three—it goes on. We do not want to do anything—and I am sure that the noble Lord does not—to strengthen these precedents that the Government have in mind. Therefore, I cannot support his amendment.
Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I congratulate him because his amendment encapsulates four or five key aspects which I can address. I shall answer them in some detail, but I do not intend to address them again. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall not make the same speech over and over again. If other amendments raise similar issues, I shall simply refer back to the points I have made.

GC 239
There are some aspects to Amendment No. 1 which raise four key issues which would be worth putting on the record. The amendment requires one or more of the conditions which the noble Lord has set out to be met before the Secretary of State can exercise his power to fix or modify the conditions of service. Members of the Committee will be aware that the purpose of the power is that in the event of a further dispute, the Secretary of State can take action to remove the cause of the argument.
If it becomes necessary for him to use the powers—and we hope it will not be; it is an issue of last resort—he must be able to intervene decisively and without undue delay so that the argument does not drag on in the way it has done during the past 12 months. If there were any professionalism about, arguments would not drag on for a long period of time and we could not afford undue delay. Placing the preconditions, however well-intentioned—and I accept that they are—on the powers would make a speedy decision-making process more difficult.
Let us take collective bargaining. The first part of Amendment No. 1 would require it to have failed before the Secretary of State could exercise his powers. There is a difficulty there. The noble Lord is a lawyer, but his proposition is that it will be a matter of judgment as to whether the collective bargaining has failed. Some people could argue that collective bargaining did not fail in the recent dispute. They live in a time warp and think that constant dispute, constant chatting, constant negotiations over a 12 month period did not ultimately fail.
Therefore, it is arguable how one would define the point when collective bargaining has failed. There is no precision in that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord is quite right: the drafting is defective. In practice, one of the parties to the collective bargaining will say that it has failed and apply to the tribunal, which will then decide whether it has failed. If it obviously has failed, the tribunal will get on with it; if not, they will be remitted. That should have been included in the drafting, but I tried to put it simply. The noble Lord is quite right to make the point.
Lord Rooker: With due respect, we are legislating here; we are making an Act of Parliament. I can address only the issues on the Order Paper. The Government have proposed a Bill that the other House has sent to this place. There are amendments, so I shall have to look at the words. The thrust behind the probing amendments will be slightly different—it will go wide of the mark. The noble Lord's amendment is fairly precise. I shall do my best to answer the four points.
Most reasonable people might accept that there were a number of occasions during the recent dispute where the prospect of a negotiated settlement seemed extremely remote, and where the sort of intervention that the Bill will allow would have been appropriate. If the amendment were accepted, in those circumstances
GC 240
it would theoretically have provided an opportunity for the employers or the union to challenge the Secretary of State's exercise of the powers on the grounds that, in their view, collective bargaining had not failed. There would be an argument about whether or not it had failed. At the very least, that could delay the Secretary of State's intervention—
Baroness Turner of Camden: But—
Lord Rooker: I have not finished the sentence yet. The Secretary of State's intervention could be delayed, with the result that a potentially damaging industrial dispute could drag on, or that the fire-fighters would not get the pay rise in those circumstances. That is the issue ultimately.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The Minister talks about whether you know that collective bargaining has failed or not. In most collective negotiating agreements there is usually provision for failure to agree. If failure to agree is recorded, that would automatically indicate that the negotiations had come to a full stop.
Lord Rooker: I suspect, and I hope, that my noble friend will not claim that the latest dispute has been a brilliant example of professional negotiation by either the employers or the trade unions. Frankly, it was a thundering disgrace that it dragged on so long. It is to everyone's credit that we have reached a settlement that has been agreed with the timetables that I deployed at Second Reading.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am much obliged to the Minister. As I understand it, my noble friend did not ask about the recent dispute; she asked whether it is not common in collective bargaining to have a procedure where the two parties register a failure to agree. Is the Minister aware of that or not?
Lord Rooker: Yes, but I am debating a Bill about the Fire Service. I will not go down any cul-de-sacs at anybody else's invitation. This is a very specific Bill relating to one specific industry, with a specific time limit. It does not matter how many times anybody raises anything else, I will not deviate from the Bill. That is a simple issue.
I shall now discuss the second point in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The next component provides an alternative basis for the exercise of power if,
"the award of a mandatory arbitral tribunal independent of Government has been ignored or rejected".
I accept that many noble Lords raised the issue of arbitration at Second Reading. We have indicated that the Government have some difficulty with that—it is still the case. I am dealing with only the Bill rather than the future of what will happen after two years.
It would go against the purpose of the Bill; that is to say, if the two parties to the negotiation cannot agree, the democratically elected Secretary of State with responsibility for the provision of an effective Fire Service and for the public funding of the service should

GC 241
step in to make a settlement. A difficulty arises here. It is true that it requires a difficult decision both by my right honourable friend and the others involved. We do not think that those decisions should be handed over to a third party.
The issues which caused most difficulty in the fire dispute were those such as, for example, how the Fire Service should move from the prescribed national fire cover standards to a locally risk-based approach to fire cover; and the implications for staff, especially as regards the shift patterns. It is difficult to see how those would have been arbitral issues in the recent dispute because they were much wider than, let us say, 4 per cent, 10 per cent or 11 per cent.
Ultimately, you cannot arbitrate about policy questions such as the right basis for fire cover—
4.30 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Of course you can.
Lord Rooker: My noble friend can disagree and he can make his own speech, but I am making mine. I am making the point that it is more difficult because it is not so precise to make an arbitral award on a policy issue as it is on a pay rise or a timetable for a pay rise.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State—and this tends not to be mentioned—to consult the negotiating body before he makes any order fixing or modifying conditions of service. So this is not something he does on a hunch—waking up one morning and doing it without telling anyone. He will be required to act as a reasonable Minister and to take the views of that body into account before finalising his proposals. As I have made abundantly clear, John Prescott would also consult his statutory advisers, who are the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. So the Secretary of State would be fully informed of the views of the stakeholders, the employers, the union and the central body.
I turn to the third element of the new clause; that relating to affirmative resolution during a state of emergency. The noble Lord suggested that if there is no failure of collective bargaining or a tribunal, but there is a state of emergency, both Houses of Parliament must agree by affirmative resolution that the power should be exercised.
In that event, the Secretary of State would not have to consult the negotiating body on his proposals, as would normally be the case under Clause 1(3). The situation is therefore separate. Amendment No. 1 is capable of more than one interpretation. First, it could mean that the Secretary of State could not use the power at all unless a state of emergency existed, and unless Parliament at first agreed to the use of the power. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as meaning that Parliament would have to agree the precise terms of the Secretary of State's order, fixing or modifying the conditions of service. But neither of those seem appropriate or workable.
We do not of course want to have a state of emergency existing in any event. If there were a state of emergency—and we can only guess the kind of reasons
GC 242
that would bring that about; a chemical or biological attack, say—we know that the fire fighters of this country and all the emergency services would act responsibly. I am absolutely in no doubt about that whatever, irrespective of ongoing disputes or arguments. We know that that would be the case because we have examples from minor disputes when people have left picket lines.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, indicated his belief that such powers should be exercised only during a state of emergency. During the Second Reading debate, he referred to many aspects of the emergency legislation passed during the Second World War. We have a bit of a problem here. We cannot reach the point where we have to go to the House of Commons and to this place and say, "If a dispute flares up again, we cannot sort it out because there is not a war on". We have a problem about that part of the amendment relating to the state of emergency.
That brings me to the other aspect. If the Bill is activated, we are in serious trouble. We do not want to use the Bill, as I have made repeatedly clear. Both Houses, as the amendment requires, would have to approve the Secretary of State's action by affirmative resolution. The powers in the Fire Services Act 1947, which are similar to the powers in Clause 1(1)(a), were, when first enacted subject to the powers of the negative resolution procedure, as are the current powers to set the pay of a number of other public sector groups, including the police and teachers. Nor do they require for there to be a state of emergency in existence before they are exercised.
It would therefore be odd if the power were subject to the affirmative resolution during the state of emergency. We all know how long that would take and it could be done only when Parliament was sitting. From my recollection, Parliament sits on average 34 weeks per year. This House sits rather more weeks than another place, but it is not far away from that. So, there are 20 weeks per year when Parliament is not sitting. Even with the noble Lord's suggestion that the consultation requirement in Clause 1(3) would not be needed in these circumstances, this would still mean a delay in the exercise of the power.
The final part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would make it unlawful to take collective action, whether primary or secondary, at the instigation of a trade union with the intention of disrupting fire brigade services.
So, the position has been made clear. I do not have to answer, and I shall not, any argument about the right to strike. It has been made crystal clear to everyone in this House and another place, outside this House and in the White Paper, that we have no intention in this Bill, or the Bill which will result from the White Paper, of removing the right to strike. So, that should be the end of that, and that has been accepted. As far as I know, that is not in dispute and no one has accused the Government of lying or having a hidden agenda.
Therefore, in those general terms—there are some important points in the noble Lord's amendment—I hope he will see that I cannot accept it. However, the

GC 243
points he raised have given me an opportunity to put some issues on the record, which I shall refer back to later, to avoid repetition.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: When I looked at this amendment I did not intend to speak on it, but in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said about other amendments I have drafted to which I am not now speaking, I think perhaps I should.
I am against this amendment, but the reason I am speaking is to give slightly different reasons from those given by the Minister and, indeed, slightly different from those given by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. I hope that these reasons will be considered when we come back to the matter, if we do, on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, went into his amendment and it was answered by the Minister carefully and in detail. Therefore, I refer to one or two Committee point details as well as more general matters.
The first point of some importance is that both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and some of my noble friends seem sometimes to have read the amendment as though the "or" at the end of paragraph (a) was an "and". On the contrary, it is a disjunctive presentation. Either,
"collective bargaining has failed or the award of a mandatory arbitral tribunal … has been ignored or rejected, or",
Parliament has, I suppose one might say in summary, declared an emergency.
The first of those disjunctive propositions is quite meaningful and has the advantage, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy, said, of introducing the notion at least of mandatory arbitration, which is the subject of some of the later amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friends. I therefore take the opportunity to say that this amendment has nothing in common whatever with them in my view, but we shall deal with that when we come to them rather than now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I agree.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says that he agrees. I misunderstood him; I apologise. We shall come to our amendments when we come to them. I hope that no one will think that anything said in answer to any of this amendment has any relevance whatever to the later amendments.
Secondly, the ban on the right to strike in subsection (2) of Amendment No. 1 is absolute, given the conditions it requires. It has to be at the instigation of a trade union. I do not think that that is legally difficult. That is fairly clear, in my view. On the facts, you are told whether it is instigated by the union or not. It has to be with the intention of disrupting fire brigade services. That is much more questionable. That is not just a question of fact; that is also a mixed question of fact and legal inference.
The noble Lord who moved the amendment—I have known him for a very long time; I calculate that it is something like 40 years—must surely remember that, in a series of cases, the question has arisen under the law as it is. In a number of cases, I may summarise
GC 244
the proposition properly as follows: that the intention of the industrial action was to gain improved conditions for the workers represented by the union that instigated it, and not necessarily to interfere with the services available for customers or third parties. Indeed, as was pointed out in one of them, alternative arrangements could well be made despite any disruption. That is a further question.
I want to say something about the legal issues before we come to them, and here I anticipate them a little to save time. When one makes a proposition of law, one might think that it might be proper to give the sources on which one relies. There is a lot of law in the Bill, and a lot of law is left out of the Bill. I do not think that that is by design. I cannot tell—I was not there when it was drafted—but I think that a lot of law was left out by mistake.
Having said that, by way of interpolation, I shall quote the sources on which I rely, relating to what is regarded as the question of legal inference and rules to apply to the facts in regard to the intention of those who instigate industrial action. I rely on the case of Falconer v ASLEF in 1986, from Industrial Relations Law Reports 331, and on the judgments—both those in the majority, and the minority judgment of Lord Justice Peter Gibson—in the case of Millar v Bassey in 1994. I do not have the precise reference to the law reports and the entertainment media law reports with me.
I am sorry if Ministers find that excessive, but I ask them, when they rely on a legal proposition, equally to do us the courtesy of citing the source on which they rely. That is a normal convention in matters of law. I do so quite deliberately on this occasion, and I shall do so in future. I shall cite the cases and the sections and, where necessary, read them out when we come to Section 19 of the Fire Services Act and the Local Government Bill that is going through the House at the moment. It may be convenient not only to talk about them in some vague way, but to put them on the record. That is only reasonable.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will also surely know of the old convention, as I shall call it, that courts often apply; namely that a man—a person, in these modern times—is taken to intend the natural and probable consequences of his action. Does that maxim apply to the noble Lord's amendment? If so, it would go towards a meaning rather different from that applied in the cases that I have just cited. Subsection (2) of the amendment contains no mention of arbitration. It is that that makes it hopelessly at variance with the conventions of the International Labour Organisation.
I shall follow my rules. I do not just refer to the cases airily. I refer to convention 87 and the report of the freedom of association committee, summarised in the International Labour Organisation report on the committee of experts. The last one that I had was 1993's, but I apprehend that it is still accurate.

GC 245
The committee reported and the governing body accepted that:
"In the opinion of the Committee, the principle whereby the right to strike may be limited or prohibited in the public service or in essential services, whether public, semi-public or private, would become meaningless if the legislation defined the public service or essential services too broadly".
That goes very much to any notion of emergency, but the notion of emergency does not even appear in subsection (2) of the amendment. The committee went on to say that,
"if strikes are restricted or prohibited in the public service or in essential services, appropriate guarantees must be afforded to protect workers who are thus denied one of the essential means of defending their occupational interests. Restrictions should be offset by adequate impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures, in which the parties concerned can take part at every stage and in which the awards should in all cases be binding on both parties".
That is a very important quotation from ILO literature. It is well known as a fundamental proposition, laid down well before 1993, and it has been a staple diet in ILO discussion ever since. It is also very relevant to the Government's response. Unless I misheard—and I apologise if I read Hansard and find that I am wrong—I do not believe that the Minister referred to the ILO. Some of the amendments that have been tabled refer to the ILO, and we intend to rely not only on that quotation but on a large number of other ILO documents, which I hope that the Home Office has the facilities to advise about. The point about failure to agree was raised by my noble friend Lady Turner. That is a point that will be relevant generally.
I conclude with a repetition—and I believe that it is my only repetition. I hope that nothing said about the amendment is regarded as in any way relevant to what is said about future amendments that have absolutely nothing in common with it. I shall be very glad if the Government encourage us to oppose Amendment No. 1.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I wish to make one comment for the sake of clarification and, perhaps, to save a little time. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, or any other noble Lord, may correct me if I am wrong. The Minister and I are concerned with a wholly exceptional situation in wholly exceptional circumstances, to provide a new appropriate regime to resolve disputes one way or another in this particular industry, and to avoid disruption. We differ as to the means, but we do not differ as to the object.
That being so, one must surely watch out for an academic approach of case law related to all sorts of other situations. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, cannot refer to all the cases in Christendom—or in Islam, if there are any. However, with respect o the noble Lord, that seems wide of the target on which we should be focusing our opinion.
In the circumstances, I shall take the opportunity to read the contributions, particularly, of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn and Lord McCarthy, and consider in what form I should
GC 246
return to the matter on Report. I may return with an amendment to Clause 1(1)(a), when I have considered what has been said today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (1) only after any current offer to fire brigade members has been the subject of a secret postal ballot of such members within the previous three months, unless the order is to require fire brigade members to be given the opportunity to take part in a secret postal ballot on terms And conditions organised by an appropriate independent body."
The noble Baroness said: Broadly, my amendment takes the same direction as Amendment No. 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I readily confess that hers has the virtue of far plainer and clearer language than mine, which is a little convoluted, but mine does not suggest that the Secretary of State should be the person who conducts a ballot. I see the logic of her proposal, but I feel that ballots would be better kept within the fire-fighters' own organisations.
The real importance of both the amendments is the secret ballot. One member one vote cast in secret is the cornerstone of good industrial relations, if relations have broken down to such an extent that there is a dispute. We are all aware of concerns about the effects of the FBU not having balloted on particular offers from employers, although the union conducted a secret ballot before starting strike action.
In the Commons, the Minister's objections to similar amendments seemed to be that there was no mechanism for a secret ballot of all fire brigade members, because they were not all members of the FBU. There were four or five unions involved that were not party to the negotiating body. The Minister also said that similar amendments would,
"take time without getting anywhere".—[Official Report. Commons, 3/6/03; col. 76.]
He said that he was not clear what the Secretary of State would do with the results of a ballot. I find that a rather sad comment, as it seems to imply—although I am sure that it was not meant to—that discussion and negotiation were rejected.
The amendment refers to the provisions of Clause 1(3), which require the Secretary of State to submit proposals to a negotiating body, if there is one. It is designed to enable the Secretary of State, if he imposes conditions, to do so knowing the level of support from the fire-fighters.
These are not easy amendments to draft. Perhaps because the Bill is so short, I found it hard to amend, not because there are no issues but because it was difficult to find the right language. If my amendment has technical problems, I hope that the Government can propose some other wording. The role of the secret ballot is hugely important, and we believe that it

GC 247
should be recognised within the legislation. As I said on Second Reading, I find this legislation objectionable—but there we go. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My amendment is coupled with Amendment No. 2, tabled by the noble Baroness. First, however, I must issue an apology to the Committee. It has been mentioned already that I was unable to attend the Second Reading. However, I waited until 10.30 p.m. on the night that the debate was due to take part. Unfortunately, on the day on which the debate was finally held, I could not break my prior engagement. Of course, I have read the Second Reading debate in Hansard.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are more or less ad idem with the amendments. Mine, unlike hers, would introduce an obligation for the Secretary of State to conduct a postal ballot on any matters that he sought to impose on firemen under the Bill, taking in Clause 1(1)(a) and (1)(b). It extends somewhat the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, in that it would require a fire authority to supply any information to the Secretary of State, or by definition to any organisation acting on his behalf, such as an independent organisation employed to carry out the ballot, as long as it was in his name. I refer to information that would enable the ballot to be carried out—for example, the details of employees, which would enable them to be sent ballot papers and information on the proposals.
As the noble Baroness said, it could be possible that a ballot would be organised by the trade union on the Secretary of State's behalf, in which case the union would probably have all the information required. However, there might be a situation where that was not a desirable or practical solution, and the amendment would provide an alternative. We would hope that, since negotiations are now taking place following the fire-fighters' decision to accept the offer on the table, that would not be necessary. Indeed, we will come at a later stage to a discussion on the rationale behind the Bill continuing at all. I have tabled the amendment in the spirit of scrutinising the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have tried to explain to my noble friend Lady Hanham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the difficulty with their amendments. Amendment No. 3 says,
"by virtue of subsection (1)(a)".
Amendment No. 4 refers to,
"an order under subsection (1)",
and in,
"relation to subsection (1A) above".
My problem is that I cannot support the amendments, because they conflict with Amendment No. 1. If I have the opportunity to reconsider the matter and to carry on Report some form of
GC 248
amendment of Amendment No. 1 into an amendment of Clause 1(1)(a), I should be able to support the amendments. In substance, of course, I support them.
Lord McCarthy: I want to ask a few questions. Amendment No. 4 is simpler than Amendment No. 2 because the Secretary of State does it all. On Amendment No. 2, we do not know who does it all, or who refuses to do it. It might be left to the union, who might refuse to do it. Would that mean that the Secretary of State was in a better or worse position to produce his order?
Amendment No. 4 is simpler, but we are still not out of the woods. What do we put on the ballot paper? Do we put, "Would you like to strike?"—and if the firefighters say they would, does that mean that the Secretary of State cannot issue his order? Do we put, "Do you accept the offer now on the table from the Secretary of State?"—and if they say, "No we don't", it means that he cannot introduce his order? They may not like his order or his proposals. On the other hand, if they accepted the proposals made by the Secretary of State, there could not be a strike and he could produce his order. But then if they accepted the proposals, he would not need an order, would he? I am not sure what the relationship is between having the ballot, the words on the ballot paper and the consequences that follow from whatever result we get.
Baroness Hanham: The noble Lord has taken me one step further than the amendment goes. I was not anticipating that I would have to write the ballot question. The whole purpose of the Bill is related to a mandatory requirement by the Secretary of State to put forward a question for an order that he is about to introduce. The Bill says that the Secretary of State will be able to say that this or that is going to happen. My amendment, and the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, say that whatever matter the Secretary of State wanted to introduce should be the subject of a ballot. How the words were put together and what question was asked would relate solely to what the matter was, and the implication behind the Secretary of State's intention.
As far as it goes, the purpose behind my amendment is clear. If it was necessary for there to be a wording of the ballot paper, it would have to be a matter for advice, either from the Law Officers in Parliament or perhaps from the Electoral Commission.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful for the explanation given by the noble Baroness, but will she inform us further on the purpose of a provision to be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) under a,
"power to make provision about conditions of service relating to … membership of trade unions by fire brigade members"?
What is the purpose of that? What kind of order would she envisage in that regard?
Baroness Hanham: Perhaps I can deal with that question when we get to Amendment No. 3.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Oh, I deeply apologise. I am so sorry. It is Amendment No. 4 that we are discussing.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.1 to 5.11 p.m.]
Baroness Turner of Camden: I want to put a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who tabled the amendment about ballots. It is really a bit arbitrary to suggest that legislation should state that there be a secret ballot of such members within a three-month period. There may be all sorts of ways in which negotiations are quite legitimately conducted. What very often happens is that a negotiating team will report back to the executive, and the executive may then consult a delegate conference. There may then be a reference from the leadership to the membership as a whole, who will recommend rejection or whatever. To specify that there has to be a postal ballot within that time limit is a bit arbitrary, and may interfere with quite legitimate national joint council arrangements, which I gather are being considered at the moment anyhow.
Baroness Hamwee: I how to the noble Baroness's practical experience in the matter. Three months may not be the right period but, unless one puts some period in, the whole thing seems so uncertain that one could not apply such a process at all. The amendment is an attempt to make it work.
Lord Rooker: Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are both generally on the same issue. I know that they are on secret ballots, but basically they are designed to put a hurdle in the way of the Secretary of State making any orders. I understand that that is their prime purpose. There is no argument about secret ballots not being central to our approach to industrial relations; they indeed are. The current situation is that only industrial action that has the support of such a ballot is protected under the legislation.
Of course, the Fire Brigades Union held a secret ballot before it embarked on the recent dispute. That is perfectly lawful, but what they balloted about was not whether to accept a particular offer. That was not the issue, which makes things more difficult. The issue is whether to take industrial action—a strike or other action that might be held to be short of a strike—which is perfectly okay.
We have no plans to legislate to require the Fire Brigades Union to hold ballots on offers made to it by the employers. That would be quite wrong. Why single out the FBU for that? That is all that this Bill is about. There is no logic in that at all.
As I say, these amendments are not, however, about secret ballots as a reasonable, or the best, mechanism for establishing opinion on a dispute. Their effect is simply to set up hurdles over which the Secretary of State must jump.
Our judgment is that, while we trust and hope that we shall never have to use the powers in the Bill, they are necessary so that all parties understand without any doubt at all that, in the event of a further dispute, the Government are prepared and, indeed, will take action. That being so, if we get into a situation where
GC 250
we believe there is no alternative but to use the powers, making it more difficult to do so would defeat our object. So I must resist these amendments.
Amendment No. 2 would mean that the Secretary of State could make an order only if a secret ballot of all fire brigade members about an employers' offer had been held within the previous three months. One problem with this is that there does not exist a mechanism for a secret ballot of all fire brigade members. That issue was raised in the other place.
The Fire Brigades Union could ballot its members at any time but not those who are members of other unions or of none. The other unions could ballot their members but they are not currently party to the negotiations or part of the negotiating body, so strictly speaking they could not have an offer made to them by the employers. So, it is difficult to see how this condition could be met.
There is no way of fulfilling this requirement. The amendment provides an alternative: that the Secretary of State may himself make an order under the Bill requiring a secret postal ballot of all fire brigade members about an existing offer organised independently.
Similarly, Amendment No. 4 suggests that the Secretary of State should conduct a postal ballot about his own proposals to make an order, rather than about an offer by the employers. The difficulty with that is that it would take time without getting anywhere. Under the normal process of negotiation, employers and unions discuss. They reach an agreement which the negotiators think acceptable and put to their members for endorsement, perhaps by secret ballot, perhaps not. That could be done at delegate conferences, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said.
The powers in the Bill are designed to deal with the situation where this normal process has broken down. This Bill is not designed for ordinary situations. It is designed for the situation where the whole process has broken down. We have made that abundantly clear; otherwise, we would be legislating for normal activities, and we are not.
Anyway, it is not clear what we would do with the results of a ballot. I am not sure how we would conduct a ballot. When I was at the Home Office I discovered that we did not even have the addresses of police stations. Therefore, we might have difficulty holding a ballot for the Fire Service and getting the addresses of members. We probably do not have the addresses of the fire stations. I know that the example I gave of the police stations sounds barmy but police authorities and other such bodies are sometimes reluctant to divulge that information. We could consult telephone directories but they are not always up-to-date. Let us not assume that the Government have all the information necessary to conduct a ballot. I do not believe that that is the case.
If a ballot were held and an offer rejected, we would be no further along. Not making an order might deprive fire-fighters of a pay rise. The amendments could in many circumstances prevent employees getting a pay rise. There are difficulties in that regard.

GC 251
If a vote went against Ministers' proposals, that would not mean that the proposals were necessarily wrong. It all comes back to Ministers having to make their own judgments about these matters. It would be an issue that you could not really negotiate. We are discussing an extra hurdle designed to avoid the operation of the Bill. If you tidied up the defects in the amendments, you would then be left with a hurdle for the Secretary of State. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, can I try to get some clarity about the point that he made several times; namely, that the amendments would prevent fire persons from getting a wage increase? Presumably they would only come in, and only be required, where there was a failure to agree; in other words, when the workers in the Fire Service said, "We are not satisfied. We want to improve on it". They would not want to take the money because they had not agreed to take the money. There would be a failure to agree.
Lord Rooker: There was a failure to agree before and that is why fire brigade members will get a large lump sum. That money has been on offer since November last year.
Baroness Hanham: We are quickly coming up against some of the problems with the Bill. As I understand the terms of the Bill, it becomes of any relevance at all only if the current negotiations fall flat on their face and the Secretary of State makes a decision that he will either impose a pay settlement and/or impose conditions. If that is the case, we say that if he is going to impose something, it would be helpful for him as well as for everyone else if what he intended to impose was put to a postal ballot. There are some extremely difficult fire-fighters and there are some rather less difficult fire-fighters. It might be that he could end up with an agreement from a secret ballot, which would be helpful. That was the burden of the amendments.
The point about the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or others not knowing the address of the fire stations is covered by the second part of my amendment which states that fire authorities would have to provide the relevant information. Someone must be paying those guys and in that case they have the addresses, or at least details of the relevant bank accounts. Therefore, you can now get the information that you require in order to carry out a secret ballot on what the Secretary of State will impose.
Baroness Hamwee: Stopping the operation of the Bill is not something that we are going to achieve today. I have made no secret of my opposition to it but the amendment, so far as I am concerned, seeks to find a way of enabling fire-fighters to express their own views through a secret mechanism which is less susceptible to the problems that one is aware of when votes are cast in a public fashion. I am aware of the
GC 252
difficulties of information being withheld. It is precisely because of that attitude and those difficulties that I have tried to find the solution I am discussing. I accept that there are technical problems with the measure. I doubt whether I have the technical ability to draft the half dozen pages that might be required to make the measure work. However, I am sad that the Government are not acknowledging the issue at the root of the amendment. The Minister asked why the FBU should be singled out when that is what the Bill is about. That is precisely my point. In a sense that question answers itself.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested that he might wish to review his attitude to the measure on Report. I hope that the Bill never reaches Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) includes the power to make provision about conditions of service relating to—

(a) membership of trade unions by fire brigade members; and

(b) disciplinary offences by fire brigades members."

The noble Baroness said: I recognise immediately that I am tramping slightly over the ground covered by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway but I hope that the Minister is not so wedded to the notes to which he spoke previously that he will not consider what I have to say.
There are significant flaws in this small Bill, but one of the most significant is that it is, in effect, a completely toothless tiger. One hesitates to get too involved in its minutiae on the basis that it is to be profoundly hoped—as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said—that it will never be required. However, if it became necessary to implement it, the Secretary of State could leap up and down and impose whatever he wished, but the fire-fighters could simply reject what he said by going back on strike, thus flying in the face of this Bill and any other imposed settlement. This amendment was put forward in the other place by my honourable friend Philip Hammond, whom I blame for its content. It may be defective, as has been already suggested. I might not even be able to answer in detail the question that I was asked. I accept that its architecture is somewhat tortuous, but its effect would be to impose a strike ban, one effectively imposed by the Secretary of State as a result of his own orders being rejected.
This Bill continues on its way despite the fact that discussions are taking place at present and despite the fact of the union having accepted the final proposals, and returned to negotiations. It can, therefore, only be a belt and braces matter, and if that is what it is, and if it were to be needed, then it would have to be effective. Our amendment would provide the teeth to prevent a further strike taking place. It would give the Secretary of State the support he would need to implement a settlement and it could apply for just the

GC 253
duration of this legislation. It is unfortunate that when asked what he would do if the fire-fighters refused to accept a settlement imposed under this Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister gave a somewhat confused and woolly reply. That may be understandable, as the powers he is taking simply do not allow for defiance. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: Could the noble Baroness tell us, if that is what the provision is about, why it does not say so? It does not say that before making an order the Secretary of State should conduct a postal ballot. We are discussing Amendment No. 3, not the others, we got rid of them. Amendment No. 3 states:
"The provision that may be made … includes the power to make provision about conditions of service relating to—

(a) membership of trade unions—

not ballots, not strikes—
"by fire brigade members; and

(b) disciplinary offences by fire brigade members".

What has that got to do with ballots? If that is what she wanted, she has done it in Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Hanham: I accept that the amendment may not be absolutely the ideal way of tackling the matter. The amendment is designed to give the Deputy Prime Minister the power, but not the obligation, to enforce his orders by introducing through the disciplinary code a strike ballot and, if necessary, to regulate membership of trades unions as regards fire brigade members. Its purpose is to ensure that there would, if necessary, be the power to restrict strike action.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The more I have listened to the debate, the more confused I am becoming. On the face of it, it all looks rather good but what practical purpose does it serve? This is what I am beginning to wonder. One has to look at the situation. Collective bargaining has broken down, a dispute is going on, it has got to be a fairly serious situation and they want to avoid disruption of the services. The Secretary of State is minded to make an order either under the Bill as it stands or even on a Bill as amended by my amendment, or the likes of it, because all negotiations have broken down. Is it not at that stage too late to have a postal ballot? How does it fit into the scenario? Perhaps I have got it wrong but I do not see how it is going to work.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I am trying to tell the Minister how it is going to work, but I thought that we had passed postal ballots. My noble friend is correct. We are at the end of a very, very difficult situation if any part of this Bill has to be introduced. I am bound to say that if that were the case, we would be in territory that is probably unique. But the Bill is designed to serve a purpose. As I said earlier, the postal ballot would seek to ensure that there was at least a view taken by the fire-Fighters on what the Secretary of State was about to impose. That could be accepted if there were a secret ballot, and that would be the end of it before the Deputy Prime Minister imposed what he wanted to impose.
GC 254
Amendment No. 3 seeks to deny the right to strike following that secret ballot or at any time during the process. If strikes were to occur at that stage they would cause further difficulty as regards sorting out the problem. That is the basis of the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can help the noble Baroness. The Secretary of State does not want these powers so I shall not go into any detail. He does not want the powers that would be conferred by Amendment No. 3 as it would not be an appropriate way to deal with the issue. So far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, the Secretary of State already has the powers to make regulations about discipline. The White Paper published last week or the week before explained that we intend to abolish the current military-style regulations and replace them with a new framework based on ACAS best practice, so we do not need another power here. We do not want these powers and I do not see why I should spend a lot of time on them, bearing in mind that this issue was landed on the noble Baroness by her honourable friend in the other place. As I say, we do not want the powers. They will not help. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: Does the Minister accept that we have only recently had the White Paper but we are being invited to consider it with the possibility of legislation resulting from it? What we are talking about is precisely and only this Bill, not the White Paper, not the legislation that will come from that and not the Local Government Bill. We are discussing this legislation. I hear what the Minister says.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness Hanham: I shall if the noble Lord does not ask me technical questions.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am much obliged to the noble Baroness. I am most grateful. Before she finally concludes, I think I am right that she is now on Amendment No. 3. I did not want to make the same mistake twice. I apologise very much to her for anticipating questions that belong to other amendments. But as we have seen, purely in parenthesis, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 hang very much together, from what the noble Baroness said. Since she says that we are to understand Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together as implying a power to ban strikes, would she agree with the proposition put forward that,
"the right to strike is one of the essential means through which workers and their organisations may promote and defend their economic and social interests"?
I quote that because it is the central thesis of the International Labour Organisation based on convention 87. I take the opportunity, therefore, of asking whether it is the official policy of the Opposition not to abide by that proposition.
Baroness Hanham: I find myself in the same difficulty as everyone here. What we are dealing with is a piece of legislation which has a very specific purpose. As far as I am concerned we can go on discussing trades union laws and international laws and accepted laws until we drop off our perches. Our discussion relates only to this Bill. As far as I can see, this Bill is isolated legislation in the midst of all the morass of everything else. The purpose behind my amendment is to try to secure something that would make the Bill implementable. I do not want the Bill. I am not quite sure why I am bothering to do this, but the Deputy Prime Minister thinks he is going to be able to do things by order under this Bill. It does not make a row of beans' difference—he can say what he likes. He can impose what he likes and if the Fire Brigades Union decides not to sign up to that we could very well be back with the same series of strikes as we have seen over the past six months. The purpose behind the amendment is to give some teeth, if that were ever required, to what the Deputy Prime Minister had to do. I am bound to say, as I have said before, that I wish we did not have this legislation in front of us but that is what we are dealing with and that is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. It is partly because I agree with her in one respect that this Bill should not be pursued—as has already been said by those who speak from the Liberal Democrat Benches—that I want further clarification of the position of the Official Opposition. In the context of this Bill—I am sorry I did not put that phrase in but I naturally felt I was implying it—is it the policy of the Conservative Opposition that the proposition which I quoted from the ILO, which is a central thesis, does not apply?
Baroness Hanham: We take it in the context of other emergency service workers who do not have the automatic right to strike—police officers, for one. I refer to the difficulties that have arisen over the past six months when the Official Opposition pushed the Government very hard to at least determine whether we had powers to deal with the strikes. I hope that the noble Lord will listen to my reply and then he will not have to ask the same question again.
The Minister said—I agree with him—that where there had been problems during the strikes, the fire-fighters had turned out and that was practical, sensible and quite proper. However, it cannot be guaranteed that if the Bill is implemented the same spirit of enthusiasm and co-operation would exist. Under those circumstances the Deputy Prime Minister might require the extra strengthening of this potential strike ban. The noble Lord may ask me further questions but I do not think that I can take the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
"(2A) Before the Secretary of State makes directions by virtue of section 1(1)(b) which affect local needs or any other matters within the terms of section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 (c. 41) (fire brigade establishments to be determined in accordance with approved schemes) as amended by section 7 of the Fire Services Act 1959 (c. 44) (establishment schemes), he shall engage in consultation with local authorities and other persons who would legitimately have expected to be consulted—

(a) if he had been exercising powers under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 before the amendment of part of that section in section 120 of the Local Government Act 2003; or

(b) in a manner parallel to the terms of guidance on consultation issued for and advice on "best practice" given to fire authorities in respect of Integrated Risk Management Planning, or in the absence of such final guidance the current draft thereof."

The noble Lord said: I should explain this about Amendment No. 5. It is very much a probing amendment. I found myself in enormous difficulty with my noble friends in trying to draft it. Part of the reason for that is that an aspect of this Bill which has never been discussed, to my knowledge in either House, is the interface between what is proposed in this Bill and proposals in the Local Government Bill that have recently been debated in another Grand Committee. Perhaps it is an exception to the proposition I have just put that the Government have made clear that they intend to repeal at any rate the major part of Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947, to which my amendment refers.
What I am asking for in this amendment, which may well need a different draft—I was not sure how to refer to an Act that will become an Act after discussion on the Bill which is still going on—is, just what is the interrelationship between this Bill and what is proposed to be the Local Government Act 2003? In moving the amendment I in no way depart from my suggestion that this Bill should not be proceeded with, but it is not relevant to this amendment obviously.
The Local Government Bill debate was before your Lordships' Grand Committee on 24th June. It was what was said there that set me off seeking to understand what would be done under that Bill and this. The clause that is relevant, especially under the Local Government Bill as currently proposed, is Clause 120 and it reads:
"The following provisions cease to have effect—

(a) section 19(3) to (8) of the Fire Services Act 1947…

(b) paragraph (a) of section 7(2) of the Fire Services Act 1959",

which I add was the subsection that amended Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947.
Both under the 1947 Act and under current proposals the authorities that were relevant to the various matters under, in the first case, the law as it is before the Local Government Bill takes effect, and the law as it will be—at any rate in regard to guidance, as I understand it—after that Bill and this Bill, if it is passed, come into effect, will require a very large amount of consultation. What first of all strikes one when one examines these various statutory and what

GC 257
are sometimes called "soft law" codes is that the amount of consultation required under them in the past and in the future is strikingly different to the amount of consultation which the Secretary of State needs to engage in under this Bill.
I must say at once that in saying that I am taking full account of what the Secretary of State has to do under Clause 1(3) where, to put it briefly, he must consult the national joint council when he is dealing with conditions of service in his proposals. And I am taking full account of Clause 1(4) where he is to,
"consult such persons who—

(a) are, in his opinion, likely to be affected by the proposed direction, or

(b) represent persons who are, in his opinion, likely to be so affected"

where the order which he proposes is to take effect under Clause 1(1)(b) of the current Bill. Neither of those sections go anywhere near as far as what I understand to have been the past law and future rules on consultation.
I appreciate that there may be circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be in some difficulty in fulfilling consultation of that extent. Of course, if there is an emergency of such proportions that consultation with the persons likely to be affected is impossible, that is a material circumstance. But it is a material circumstance which it is perfectly possible to draft. If that is what is wanted, it should appear in the Bill. Here, perhaps I may make a general point since we are saying what we will not—I will not—repeat in the future. There is much which is omitted from the Bill which is remediable only by way of amendment. It is not remediable in many cases by way of a Pepper v Hart assurance from the Government.
The Government may intend to use certain powers only in certain ways and in certain circumstances. If they do, there is no reason why the Bill should not say so. It is not a subject of a Pepper v Hart assurance. The courts would find great difficulty in Pepper v Hart assurances covering assurances as to when powers were open to use when the Bill says that they are open to use in other circumstances. That is not a question of not trusting the Government; I hope that there is no nonsense about this. It is a question of what an Act of Parliament says and—to go the furthest that I can—what a future Secretary of State might do. I hope to goodness that this does not happen, but if the present Secretary of State fell subject to a misfortune and was no longer available, a future Secretary of State would have to take a view and he might take a different one. After all, Governments change their minds from time to time, just as, it is to be hoped, even oppositions do.
Therefore, the question is what the Bill says and not what the Government intend to do with the powers that they obtain. The fact that they obtain very wide powers but only intend to use them, as far as they can see at present, in narrow circumstances is a matter for amendment, not for assurance. What any future Government might do may not meet those present intentions.
Consequently, I have tabled this amendment to ask why further consultation has not been provided for either in the Bill or, in some way, in the Local Government Bill. The Minister will explain if there is some mistake as regards the Bill in which it should appear. I want to make good my proposition that consultation under the 1947 Act would have been very specific and very wide and that consultation under the future proposed code of guidance would also be very specific and very wide. It would also be very relevant to the circumstances that the Minister has insisted we are dealing with at the moment—namely, the circumstances referred to by the White Paper. One would have hoped that they would be dealt with by better-thought-out legislation following that White Paper and not in this interim Bill which we all understood was to be proceeded with only if there was not a settlement.
Before the repeal of most of Section 19 of the 1947 Act, the authorities which were dealing with proposals to get the Secretary of State to make orders on a wide variety of matters were required to consult over a wide area with those, "who had legitimate expectations" for that consultation to take place. In August 1998, in the case of Regina v The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte The London Borough of Greenwich, which is unreported but for which I have the judgment, there was a long discussion by Mr Justice Tucker on what is meant by "legitimate expectation of consultation", especially legitimate expectation on the part of local citizens and a local authority. The result of the case does not matter because it turned on that interpretation of a legitimate expectation.
In that case, Mr Justice Tucker said that he had been reminded of four basic requirements for consultation, which were:

"(i) It must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage

(ii) sufficient reasons for any proposal are given to permit intelligent consideration and response

(iii) adequate time must be given for such consideration and response [and]

(iv) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals".

A circular distributed at the time stated:
"The Secretary of State regards it as desirable that any proposal for a reduction which requires approval should have been sufficiently widely publicised in sufficient detail and with sufficient time to enable any interested party to make representation so that they can be considered by the fire authority".
I appreciate that that was under the 1947 Act and relates to the first part of my amendment or my question as to why this should not be the basic rule, whatever exceptions are made in terms of emergencies or special events.
The second part of my amendment, which is an alternative and not a conjunction, states that the consultation must normally be equivalent to the terms of the guidance on consultation and the best practice advice given to fire authorities. There was great trouble on this on 24th June when the Local Government Bill was debated in Grand Committee.

GC 259
Members of the Committee will find it in Hansard dated 24th June. I had the column reference, but I fear that I do not have it now.
To put it in one sentence, the trouble was largely that although the Government said that the draft consultation had been put in the Library, noble Baronesses from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches said that they could not find it and that the Library appeared not to have it. Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Bassam said that if that was the case he would make certain that the draft consultation would be in the Library. I have since managed to find it. The Library has it, at any rate, now.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: It has been there all the while.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister says it was there all the while. If he looks at the deposit details on the documents, he may wish to consult his advisers about that. I say that only because I do not want any misunderstanding about what I have done. I have got it.
This is very important. Consultation Guidance Note 2, Annex C, in summary, says that Section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, as amended in 1959, provided that the Secretary of State had to make decisions on this, but that,
"The Local Government Bill currently before Parliament … seeks to repeal section 19(4)".
It continues:
"This Note puts the requirement to consult into the context of the new Fire Authority Integrated Risk Management Planning process".
Since the present past dispute—I say "past dispute"—has been raised a lot, it is fair to say that the union has, in most people's eyes, fulfilled its job of consulting about fire integrated risk management planning in a perfectly responsible way.
The document goes on to a most important set of propositions. Paragraph 3.5.3 sets out the examples of proposals for change. Many of these examples of proposals for change overlap subjects which are, of course, the contents of parts of the White Paper but, more important for our present purposes, could easily be the subject of proposals for orders by the Secretary of State under the Bill which we are now discussing.
With the leave of Members of the Committee, I shall summarise them—I am prepared to read them all—in the following way. There are demands that certain people should be consulted in certain eventualities. Communities, business organisations, local authorities in the area covered and employee representatives should be consulted in the following types of case:
"Alteration in policies/standards set by the fire authority for attendance to specific types of emergency incident.
Alteration in standards and/or targets set for preventative activities to achieve improvement in community safety".
GC 260
The next case is very relevant:
"Removal from service of pumping and/or special appliances [and]
Permanent relocation of pumping appliances".
Similarly, the last case is a change in crewing patterns. No one can say that that is not relevant for the present situation or that it is not one on which the Secretary of State can, under this Bill, make orders.
There is another category which requires consultation only with employee representatives, which are:
"Relocation from one fire station to another of a special appliance providing cover" [and]
Changes in the number of personnel provided to crew appliances".
I have to say at once that it may well be said that Clause 1(3) and (4) cover the area of the second kind of consultation with employee representatives in respect of the matters that I have just stated, although who those employee representatives are is a matter to which we shall come on a future amendment.
Therefore, to conclude, I want to put the question again. Albeit that special provision could be made in the Bill for emergencies, terrorism or perhaps a long list of cases, would it not be better to tie in the law as it is going to be stated under the Local Government Bill and the codes of guidance for consultation under the document now in the Library in the future? I should have said that it is a draft; it is not yet effective. Would it not be better to tie this Bill in with that area of the law and soft law of codes of guidance, rather than just leave the matter to be discussed in two separate Grand Committees, two quite separate Report stages and, if the Government insist on going on with the Bill, apparently two quite separate and scarcely related Acts of Parliament? I do not believe that that is a good way to make law. As I say, the object of this amendment is to get the Government's general view on this and to move them in the direction of explaining to us all on the face of the Bill just what the relationship is between the two measures. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: The short answer to my noble friend's last question is "No" but I shall seek to explain why. Amendment No. 5 is one of a number of amendments concerned with arrangements for consultation on the Secretary of State's proposals to make an order fixing or modifying conditions of service of fire brigade members or an order containing a direction to a fire authority about the use or disposal of property or facilities.
I really do think that my noble friend's amendments are largely unnecessary. Furthermore, they could inadvertently lead to a situation where it is more difficult for those providing emergency fire cover to gain prompt access to fire authority assets so that the public can be properly protected. I shall give some examples.

GC 261
Clause 1(3) requires that before making the order fixing or modifying conditions of service, the Secretary of State must consult the "negotiating body" about his proposals and give the body 21 days to make a report which he must then consider. The arrangements for consultation on proposed directions to fire authorities are set out in subsection (4). The Secretary of State is required to consult such persons who, in his opinion, are likely to be affected by the proposed direction or representatives of such persons. That clause does not specify a timescale for those consultations.
The arrangements are different from those for orders about conditions of service because they deal with quite different things. I would draw the attention of Members of the Committee to paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Notes which accompany the Bill. It states:
"Property or facilities include land and equipment or other assets or facilities … Examples of purposes for which this power might be useful are to provide joint control rooms, to direct that equipment be placed at the service of third parties or to direct that equipment be distributed on a risk assessment basis".
In particular, I am singling out the second of those examples which, in the event of further strikes, would allow the Secretary of State to make fire authority assets available to those providing emergency fire cover. Those assets could include such things as fire stations, fire appliances and specialist equipment such as aerial platforms. If there were to be further strikes, it would clearly be important to gain prompt access to those assets so that the public can be properly protected. The Bill—this is the reason why the answer is "No" —is not intended to make provision for the long term. That is the whole point of the Bill. It is not intended to make provision for the long term. It is a temporary measure; it is a long stop designed for a quite specific purpose of dealing with the recent dispute and its immediate aftermath if the timetable that has been negotiated is not maintained and there are further difficulties. I accept that it is based on that premise, as I said at Second Reading.
The longer term vision for the fire and rescue service has been set out in the White Paper. Obviously, we propose to introduce legislation to implement its proposals at the earliest opportunity. What I have said is relevant to Amendment No. 5 which refers to Section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Clearly, Members of the Committee, if they were not, are now more familiar with that section. For the record, it requires fire authorities to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before doing some quite detailed things—an example of which is to close a fire station. I accept that that is not a detail but fire stations close for all kinds of reasons. The kind of detail is, if a fire authority wanted to change the number of fire fighters or fire appliances in a local area, it would be required to obtain the Secretary of State's approval. We think that that is a power that is long overdue for taking down to a much more local level. Hence, its inclusion in the Local Government Bill which is still before your Lordships' House.
Amendment No. 5 would require the Secretary of State's consultation to include the persons who might legitimately expect to be consulted in the event of a
GC 262
Section 19 application. The fact is that there is no statutory right to consultation on Section 19 cases. Anyone would think that there was, but there is not. But government guidance on Section 19 matters suggests—by and large Government try to work with consultation on all kinds of issues before changes are made—to fire authorities that their consultations in such cases should include accredited fire service trade unions. So there is government guidance on that but there is no statutory right to consultation on Section 19 cases.
As an alternative, Amendment No. 5 suggests that consultation should be conducted in a manner similar to that set out in the guidance to fire authorities on consultation arrangements for drawing up the integrated risk management plans. That guidance includes—absolutely rightly—a list of interested parties which the fire authority would be expected to consult. These are all perfectly reasonable ideas about how consultation should be conducted. If they were not, we would not have applied them to Section 19, although they are not statutory, or to the integrated risk management plans.
But—here is the big "but"—they are not appropriate for all directions which might be made under this power in this temporary legislation. That is the point. Again, I stress that it could be necessary. I cannot envisage the circumstances, but we must take account of that because that is what this Bill is about. It is to enable the Secretary of State to take prompt action in order to protect the public. Amendment No. 5 would mean that his ability to do so would be constrained. Therefore, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response, which was somewhat complicated. Therefore, I shall try to deal with the points that he raised and suggest that, although in Grand Committee we have no other procedure than to withdraw amendments, he ought to think about it again. I preface my response to him by daring to repeat that if he wants to make provisions for emergencies, special or catastrophic events or whatever he likes to define, they can be made in the Bill.
The Bill is about the powers of the Secretary of State. What is suggested is that the basic powers should be subject to consultation of the kind that was available in the past under the 1947 Act—if the repeal of the 1947 Act goes through, Section 19 will not be available—or under the code of guidance, the draft of which has been put before your Lordships and before the public. I have what many regard as the disadvantage of being a lawyer. The number of jokes about being a lawyer is such that we must bear. Those who are not lawyers have the great advantage of being able to state propositions of law with great abandon. Lawyers, apparently, are not supposed to do so.
My noble friend said that there was no statutory right under the 1947 Act of legitimate expectation to consultation. I have tried to research the matter and it had better go on the record that Mr Justice Tucker, in

GC 263
1992, in the London Borough of Greenwich case which was about the Shooters Hill fire station closure and the re-establishment of a station elsewhere, said:
"Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submits that the Authority had no duty to consult the Applicant before making its decision on 23 October 1997, and that so far as the Authority was concerned there was nothing which could have given rise to any legitimate expectation that the Applicant would be consulted or re-consulted. In any event, it is submitted that sufficient consultation took place in late 1995 and early 1996".
That was the major issue in the case. He continued:
"In my judgment there can be no doubt that, as conceded by the Secretary of State, the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State would consult the Applicant prior to approving the closure of this or any other fire station in the Applicant's area".
That is all I rely upon in that judgment, but it is totally opposite to the statement of the law as propounded by the Minister.
To continue from that, my amendment—although, in many ways, I can see that it might be criticised for its drafting—does not demand even that the 1947 Act type of consultation be retained as the basic rule, subject to emergencies. My amendment does not say "subject to emergencies" and it should have done. The Minister is quite right about that. But it goes on to say that there is an alternative to that. The alternative is the consultation in the current draft code of guidance on consultation. If I consult Hansard I think that I shall find that my noble friend said nothing about the draft code of guidance except that it was always in the Library.
I have read the draft code of guidance only recently and have consulted on it. Many think that it is very, very sensible—one of the best things that the Government have produced. Yet, they cannot tell the Secretary of State that, in the case that is not an emergency or a catastrophe, he should abide by that sort of thing. Of course, it is no accident—I have to put this through as a headline—that both the case in 1992 and the examples that we have been talking about have particularly illustrated that this matter could well involve the closure of fire stations.
In relation to closures and particularly to the transfer of pumps and special appliances, the Government have said—and it is quite straightforward—that the Secretary of State has in mind a power to say, "You move all this special equipment from Greenwich to Shooters Hill or from Greenwich to Hampstead". But in that case, if it is not an emergency or a catastrophe situation, why on earth should not the Secretary of State consult not just those people who, in his opinion on some subjective formula, are within his range of view? The Minister said that he cannot imagine all the situations that could arise, but that he should have an objective series of criteria from which to begin as the basis for consultation. I do not understand the Minister's reply on this. Unless he has anything further to add, it is clearly a matter on which we ought to come back, if this Bill ever reaches Report.
I want to express the hope again that the Government will make clearer in the legislation the relationship between this Bill—if they pursue it—and
GC 264
the Local Government Bill. Otherwise, there will be enormous confusion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from "section" to ", the" in line 18.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19 with which Amendment No. 6 has been grouped. This has some bearing on what has already been discussed because the intention of Amendment No. 6 is to remove from paragraph (3) the words,
"that fixes or modifies conditions of service of fire brigade members".
The reason for that is that by doing so it automatically gives the Secretary of State the obligation to consult in relation to what is provided for in paragraph (1)(b) which states:
"give specific or general directions to fire authorities about the use or disposal of property or facilities".
I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say on that issue on the previous amendment. It seems that decisions which affect the provision of local facilities—either the disposal of property or the way in which that property is used; whether it is intended to lease it out or whatever—clearly have an effect upon the workforces involved in that particular location. There may be less reason to have certain people. There may even be a requirement for a different kind of staff. There may be a need for more administrative staff and fewer staff who have to deal actually with fires. It can have a very major effect in the locality upon the fire services working in that area.
It therefore seems quite reasonable that there should be an obligation upon the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister or whoever to consult in the way suggested about other conditions of service for fire brigade members. As I said, there has been some discussion of this already. The present amendment is a much simpler form of amendment than the one suggested in Amendment No. 5. But it simply sets out what we have in mind, which is to ensure that before there are very substantial changes in the way in which the facilities are provided locally, those members of staff who are likely to be affected have the opportunity to have some input via whatever negotiating procedures eventually evolve.
Of course, we know that in the White Paper it has been suggested that there should be other means of negotiating than the ones that at present exist. But we are not discussing that at the moment. Clearly, discussions involving both sides are already proceeding about how future NJCs should be conducted. Whatever procedures eventually evolve as a result of those discussions, they need to be involved before people at a particular location are substantially involved as to their working conditions, the number of employees and so on. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is something in the amendment in the context of my reference to the interaction between paragraphs (a) and (b). I cannot support it because 1 am on a totally different tack, but there is relevance.
Lord Rooker: Amendments Nos. 6 and 19 would extend the Bill's consultation requirements. The Secretary of State would have to consult the negotiating body about the proposals to give directions to the fire authorities on the use or disposal of property or facilities. As my noble friend admitted, we have discussed related general issues when debating Amendment No. 5, so I shall not repeat them.
I said that there could sometimes be a need for speed so that the public property is protected. Amendments Nos. 6 and 19 would mean that that would not be possible. The Secretary of State would have to allow at least 21 days for the negotiating body to report on its proposals, and then he would have to consider its report. That is unacceptable. If such a situation arises—we hope that it does not—we will not be in the position where valuable assets that can be used to protect the public lie idle during the strike instead of being used to protect the public.
I am sure that those proposing the amendment do not intend that to be an effect—perhaps they do—but it is what would happen in the circumstances of the Bill. I am not saying that there is a legal use of the word "emergencies", but the Bill is a temporary measure. It is time-limited and would be used only in circumstances that would almost amount to an emergency—it would mean that the conditions of the negotiations and the timetable had not been adhered to as a result of the fire dispute. We do not want to use the Bill; we do not want to implement it; we do not want the powers, but we are being quite responsible in saying that we need them as a back-up just in case.
In the circumstances of such an occurrence, it would not be possible to wait for 21 days before using publicly paid-for assets to help people to fight fires and save lives. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps my noble friend might comment on two aspects that I shall raise as questions. Naturally, he says—I think that this is common ground—sometimes some events may occur where "there is a need for speed" and "a need to protect public property". I think that I quote him correctly. He keeps referring to a strike; I do not know what strike he refers to—perhaps it would be a strike, but it may be a terrible change in climate. Will my noble friend consider accepting the spirit of my noble friend's amendment and including something like it in the Bill, subject to any occurrence so awful that there must be immediate speed without consultation with employees in respect of the matter?
GC 266
Secondly, does my noble friend not accept that it is illogical to require consultation with the national joint council, including representatives of employees, on matters relating to conditions of service—I summarise Clause 1(3)—and not to require any specific discussion with them through consultation where the direction to be given under Clause 1(1)(b) regarding disposal or usage of property directly affects their conditions of service and working conditions? If a direction under Clause 1(1)(b) has immediate impact on working conditions, why should there not be parallel consultation with the national joint council on that type of use of power under Clause 1(1)(b)? That is the point, I apprehend, of Amendment No. 19, which is grouped with this amendment.
As a post-script to those questions, when the Minister says that the Bill is time limited, he refers to the existence of the Bill. Unless he anticipates accepting some amendments that my noble friends and I will move later, as I understand it, he is not denying that powers that are utilised under the Bill will give rise to orders that will continue to exist so long as the Secretary of State decides not to revoke them. Those orders may therefore continue to exist while the White Paper, the next Bill and perhaps the Bill after that is discussed. There is no automatic time limit to the orders; there is an automatic time limit to the Bill.
Lord Rooker: That is what I said; there is a time limit to the Bill. If it is not used in two years, it lapses, it cannot be used and it goes in the rubbish bin—to my mind, that is a time limit on the Bill. If the Bill is used and an order is made, a crisis situation will have required the Bill to be used. As I said at Second Reading, having made orders that have affected the situation, you cannot chop things up. There is a procedure in the Bill for dealing with that.
I cannot qualify the speed issue because neither I nor my noble friend—expert though he is—can give examples to be included in statute to say, "Those are the things that we do not think will happen, but, if they do, we will have to use the Bill". The whole point of drafting the Bill in this way is that it would be used in those circumstances where the democratically elected Secretary of State in the other place, unlike us, would have to be accountable for his decision. He would have to judge whether to use the powers and would be accountable to Parliament. There is no question about that being done behind closed doors and his not being accountable. I cannot give chapter and verse of the kind of examples. If I started thinking aloud and giving examples of what might happen, I could be accused of giving horror stories.
The Secretary of State must consult the people likely to be affected by a Clause 1(1)(b) direction, which is set out in Clause 1(4). But, for the avoidance of any doubt, during part of the previous dispute, the general feeling was put about that the Fire Brigades Union owned the fire appliances. There was a feeling that the fire stations were theirs—they are not; they are public property. One thing will be made abundantly clear in future: we are not going down that road. The equipment and fire stations were put there by the

GC 267
taxpayers. The brave service-people of the Fire Brigades Union man the fire stations, but they do not own them.
That is why, if we need to move the assets quickly, for the purposes I have given—whether it is fire appliances or special lifting equipment—there will not be time for consultation. We do not need to go to the owners; the public are the owners. If the decision is taken to move those appliances in the public interest, that is what we would be accountable for. It is why you cannot build in a full-scale consultation to that aspect of the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend finishes with the point, I think that this comment will save time. I know nobody, other than ignorant journalists, who alleged that appliances in fire stations belong to the union. I hope that the Minister's advisers are better than that. The union certainly did not make that allegation. If he can quote a union circular saying that, I invite him to do so immediately.
My noble friend commented that this House should have no truck with placing limitations on the Secretary of State because he is elected and we are not. If the Government do not wish to reform this place, they must use the procedures that are there and not complain about limits put on the Secretary of State because he happens to have been democratically elected. If that really is the Minister's position, we might as well wind up this Grand Committee. If it is not, he must answer a very serious question.
I do not wish to try to draft a provision now, but I offer my co-operation in drafting a clause that would exclude cases needing great speed to deal with, in general terms, something like catastrophes and emergencies, but, apart from those cases, would lay the groundwork of consultation, which will be imposed under the Local Government Bill, and which orders under this Bill could be opposed to.
The Government are going to enact two pieces of legislation that could give rise to totally inconsistent situations. I am happy to take the case of a closure—the Local Government Bill would demand consultation in a particular way, and this Bill would allow the Secretary of State to make an order. That order will exist until he revokes it. There is no point in telling me that the Bill will come to an end in two years. Of course I know that the Bill will end in two years—we can all read—but the orders will not. Therefore, there could be inconsistency. I plead with the Minister to consider that very serious point. A quite inconsistent piece of legislation could be pushed through by the Government if they continue with the two Bills as they are at present. Surely he does not want that.
Lord Rooker: I shall answer simply: the Local Government Bill, assuming Parliament agrees it, will be on the statute book for ever, like all other legislation. It is a normal part of our process. Similarly, the new Bill, when it comes as a result of the White
GC 268
Paper, will be the future of the Fire Service and will last forever in the parliamentary sense. This Bill will not; that is the difference.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will my noble friend define at what point in time, in relation to the big Bill that is coming, the Government will remove the repeal of this legislation if it is passed?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Having listened to the debate, I hope that the Secretary of State does not set aside the Committee. This debate has produced what could be an acceptable and simple answer. If one accepts in good faith, as I do, everything that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said about the intentions of the Bill and the circumstances in which it would be used—emergency or near-emergency ones and no other—and then think how Secretaries of State operate in similar situations, it is always with the authority of affirmative resolutions of both Houses. That does not have to be defined because we know that the Secretary of State makes an application on certain circumstances that he has stated and Parliament says whether those are emergency or near-emergency circumstances. Parliament can limit the time for which the provision operates. Under my amendment, it can alter the provisions of the Bill.
Leaving aside my amendment, one could approach the matter much more simply. The Bill will be operated only in the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gives. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, might accept that affirmative resolution—an application that is quickly made—by both Houses of Parliament is a way of dealing with the issue.
Lord Rooker: The only answer is that if Parliament is not sitting, we are up a creek, so that is not the solution.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the noble Lords who participated in this important discussion. I note what the Minister says about the need for emergency cover, as I understand it. I wish to consider very carefully what the Minister has said and perhaps return on Report with an amendment that might cover the problems that we envisage arising if people are not properly consulted, but that also takes account of views expressed about the possibility of cover in an emergency. I think that it would be possible to draft something along those lines and hope to do so for Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 18, after "members," insert "or that is likely to affect directly or indirectly the employment or job of any member of the fire brigade, or the recruitment of persons as such members by any fire authority,"

GC 269
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 18 are very similar to those that we have already discussed. They are grouped with Amendment No. 18, which is a slight variation in that, while the others refer to,
"indirectly the employment or job of any member",
in other words, the workforce, it refers, for the first time, to the community. That is quite important. Amendment No. 18 would insert the words:
"and the proposal for any such order shall state the estimated effect upon the employment, terms of employment of jobs of persons likely to be affected … and on the community affected by the order".
Whether or not there is an emergency, if a fire station is to be closed, there is a community interest. That may be covered by the Local Government Bill; I do not know. In responding to this amendment, will the Minister deal with the community point? I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: This is part of a group of amendments on consultation, therefore I do not intend to repeat the general points that I made with reference to Amendment No. 5, though they apply equally to this group. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 further extend the requirement in Clause 1(3) so that consultation must take place if the Secretary of State's proposals to make an order or give a direction would affect the employment, hours or conditions of work of fire brigade members, or the recruitment of members. Amendment No. 18 has a similar effect.
Clearly, everyone must be concerned about the potential effect of the proposed directions and orders about conditions of service on the employment terms of fire brigade members or contractors and recruitment of staff. The amendments would mean that the negotiating body would have to be consulted about those matters in so far as the amendments did not stop the Secretary of State making an order about them anyway.
I do not think that the amendments are needed. First, the negotiating body will be consulted about any proposed orders on conditions of service. It will be up to the negotiating body to decide whether, in its opinion, the orders affect employment or recruitment, and to include its conclusions on those points in the report that it makes to the Secretary of State. There is no real need to spell that out in legislation.
Another point that we have not touched on so far, but which is worth putting on the record, is whether or not a Secretary of State is required to consult he is under a general requirement to act reasonably. I know that people say that Ministers always claim that they are acting reasonably, but those actions are always subject to being tested in certain circumstances before my learned friends. The Secretary of State must take advice, but there is a general requirement to act reasonably and not irrationally or on the basis of a hunch. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State would not consult fire brigade staff or their representatives if he thought that they were likely to be affected by the proposed direction.
GC 270
However, the directions to fire authorities under Clause 1(1)(b) are not intended to be a direct or indirect way of affecting the employment contracts of fire brigade staff—I wish to make that clear. A direction about the use of assets could have an impact on staff. I accept that point from previous debate. But that is not the route by which we would seek to change the terms and conditions of staff, given that we would have the powers in Clause 1(1)(a).
So far as concerns the detail in respect of Amendment No. 18, which refers to,
"the community affected by the order"
I have not taken advice. However, I have not got a clue about the matter, as it is as long as a piece of string. I can see the provision being used as a tool for prevarication and lots or debate. In my former life, when a fire station closed for a new one to be built there was a moot point about which community was affected: the one that lost the fire station or that which gained a new one nearly three miles away. As it was the first community fire station in the country, I supported it fully. I am not clear about the matter, so I cannot give my noble friend a positive answer. The term,
"community affected by the order"
is probably as long as a piece of string.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response. Again, I wish to consider what he has said. I do not know about the Local Government Bill, as I have not been following its progress. Is there anything in that Bill that would cover the community at all?
Lord Rooker: Speaking from memory, no. The Bill contains 120-odd clauses of which only one—or two at a maximum—relates to the fire Act and deals with only Section 19. The rest of the Bill deals with Section 28 and a whole new range of capital expenditure and a new financial structure for local government. But it includes nothing that would help in this respect.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Before my noble friend finishes with the point, does he not agree that the draft consultation guidance, which, I apprehend, is a consequence of Clause 120 of the Local Government Bill, clearly sets out that many of these matters are to be the subject of consultation with communities, business organisations, local authorities in the area covered by the matters concerned and employee representatives? I shall not read them all out again, as I did so in moving Amendment No. 5. There did not seem to be great difficulty in defining it there. Is the Minister aware that that code of guidance will exist parallel to this Bill?
Lord Rooker: Of course I am, but this Bill has a totally different purpose. As I said, the codes of guidance apply to the Local Government Bill and not to this one.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 22, after "proposals:" insert—
"( ) publish that report within seven days after it is made:"
The noble Lord said I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: This requires the Secretary of State to publish the negotiating body's report on his proposals within seven days. If someone can tell me why it is needed in the Bill, I can probably give an answer. However, there is nothing in the Bill to stop the negotiating body publishing its report. I am sure that it would wish to do so. I have nothing more to say.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
"(d) where a report under paragraph (c) shows that there is no dispute or disagreement between the members of that body concerning the matters dealt with in his proposals, whether or not they agree with his proposals or prefer provisions different from his proposals, withdraw his proposals and engage in new consultation with them."
The noble Lord said: I must be careful because I am concerned about how I can get a response from the Minister without falling into one of his reservations. If I understand him correctly, he is telling us that he speaks on a subject only once, whether or not we understand what he has said. I think that he also said that he could not consider anything if he knew that the Secretary of State did not want the power being offered to him. If we are told that he cannot consider anything that he knows the Secretary of State does not want, we will not be here for very long.
The Minister then said that it was a short-term Bill and that he could not consider long-term matters. I wish to say something on an issue that is quite long-term and about which I do not think we have spoken. Perhaps the Minister will tell me that he has done.
The amendment refers to the situation,
"where a report … shows that there is no dispute or disagreement between the members of [the negotiating committee] concerning the matters dealt with in his [the Secretary of State's] proposals"
We suggest that, where there has been a failure to agree and it has reached the point where the Secretary of State has made his proposals, they will consider those proposals. The amendment further states that,
"whether or not they agree with his proposals or prefer provisions different from his proposals".
If the negotiating parties should agree, the Secretary of State should,
"withdraw his proposals and engage in new consultation".
In other words, the process begins again. But the Secretary of State must seriously consider the proposals that the negotiating body has made because there is an agreement between the parties.
This is not about conciliation, mediation and arbitration. It is the amendment where we want to raise the issue of why, if there is an agreement between the parties, it is necessary to have resort to the compulsion in the Bill. The parties agree. Perhaps they agree because there has been a threat compelling them to agree to something that they do not like. Perhaps what they agree is significantly different from the terms of the proposal advanced by the Secretary of State, but they agree. Why should we then have that agreement set aside—perhaps the Government do not think that that would happen—and the Government going their own way?
One could take the view that the amendment is unnecessary because the Government have the opportunity to sit in, to ring up or to control. At Second Reading, I referred to that act as being a ghost at the bargaining table, whereby the Government are there on the employers' side. If I believe what I was told in newspapers when this dispute was not settled—perhaps it is wrong—there were two separate occasions when the Secretary of State in effect blocked an agreement that could have been undertaken between the parties. We never found out quite why—whether he said that it was not detailed enough or that it would cost a lot of money. At any rate, he stopped an agreement; he was an effective ghost outside the room.
It might be argued that that is what will happen now. If the parties disagreed and the Secretary of State had gone far enough to issue one of his orders, he would certainly ensure that the employers' side did not agree something different from what he put in his order. You might say that this is just a decoration effect. I am not certain of that; nor am I certain that the Secretary of State will always have complete control. Some disputes may not involve large sums of money but rather different ways of doing things.
In any case, in a sense, this is a probing amendment, but it is also a decoration. As I believe in collective bargaining, I think that, where the parties agree—if the union can get its representatives outside the room to agree and the employers' representatives can get their side to agree—there is something there that ought to be honoured. I would like the Minister to tell me that, if there were an agreement between the parties, it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not accept the results. I shall wait and see. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: The answer to my noble friend's final question would be edged around in some ways. To any reasonable person, I suppose that the answer would be yes, but it would depend on whether we were talking about the private sector or public sector. If the unions and employers have done a deal that the employers are prepared to pay for, fine. If it happens to be in the public sector and it comes down to Ministers to be accountable, that is asking for a blank cheque, which is not a runner, as we have made abundantly clear.
I shall stick to Amendment No. 9A. My noble friend said that it was probing, but it completely wrecks the Bill. It goes against the whole thrust of the Bill. That is

GC 273
why it is not acceptable. Let us take a negotiating body. I do not know about this case, not being the policy Minister, but I understand that there are perhaps two or three dozen members; I know that there are negotiating committees. If a negotiating body of employers and the union held a common view on the Secretary of State's proposed order on conditions of service, the proposals would have to be withdrawn and a new consultation would have to be undertaken.
Effectively, that means that together the negotiating body has a veto over what the Secretary of State proposes to do. The whole point is that the Bill would come into being as an Act to be operated only if the Secretary of State had got to a position in which he wanted to draw a line under any future dispute by making certain impositions. That is what it is about. That is why we will be very reluctant to use the powers. We do not want the powers to be used, and we certainly hope that we do not have to use them. However, if we need to draw a line under another dispute, it means imposing a solution.
The proposal that the Secretary of State has the power to draw a line by making impositions has been approved in principle by both Houses of Parliament. Not to put too fine a point on it, this place unusually voted on Second Reading to approve it in principle. Amendment No. 9A would stand that completely on its head. It would turn it completely upside down. The very parties whose failure has led us down this route in the first place—to get the Bill activated, to make the Secretary of State want to make proposals to issue an order—have then been given a veto to say, "Oh no, we don't like what you're doing". That is why the amendment is completely unacceptable.
The Secretary of State is trying to improve matters, or at least to protect the public in those circumstances. The provisions are not for generality, but for the purposes of the Bill, which deals with a very unusual situation. I hope that my noble friend has probed far enough, and I hope that I have answered him.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My name is also attached to the amendment, and I want to ask the Minister a question on it. He says that the amendment wrecks the Bill, because the Government do not want to use its powers. With great respect, we have already met the point—I hope that we will not come back to it—that what the Government intend is nothing whatever, so far as law-making is concerned, to do with what the powers are. If the amendment wrecks the Bill, it means that the Government would have taken the powers if there had never been a strike, and if the parties had always been in agreement.
These are powers that the Government want to have. On the argument of my noble friend, I would be very reluctant to give them up. As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, their heritage is not to be found in collective bargaining as applied by the ILO to the public sector. I stress the public sector. We shall come to ILO convention 151 and have specific amendments about it. Therefore I shall make that argument later.
GC 274
Supposedly, the amendment wrecks the Bill because of the powers given. I do not know whether the Minister meant to make a Pepper v Hart assurance that the Government will not use the powers except where there is a catastrophe, emergency, dispute, strike or problem, and I am afraid that I cannot remember his exact words. If that was a Pepper v Hart assurance that will be repeated on Report, it would be very important to the fire authorities and to the Fire Brigades Union. I apprehend that he will want to consider whether he is giving that assurance.
I notice that the Minister placed great strength on the public sector. I know that we are discussing only the Fire Services Bill but—let us not beat about the bush—of course some people outside this place fear that what is applied to the fire services may be applied to other parts of the public sector. The general secretary of UNISON was not joking when he said that it would not be treated as the Fire Brigades Union has been treated. If the public sector is cited in a general way, presumably the desire is to apply the provisions to the public sector as a whole. The Minister introduced the term, not me.
The Bill is something that the Government want to have. Will they give up the power in their big Bill? Perhaps it is too early to say, but they are suggesting in the White Paper an intention to impose so many conditions on collective bargaining that many people are very afraid, and afraid of the legality under the international legal instruments that apply to the public sector.
I do not understand what the Minister is saying, unless he is saying that the Government would want to have the power whether or not there was any disagreement between the parties, and whether there had never been a strike. He must be saying that they would want the power over the whole of the public sector, as a kind of inferential parenthesis to discussion of the Bill. He would be saying that the amendment would wreck the Bill, despite the fact that they do not want to use the powers, because they want to have the ability, either for this or some other Secretary of State, to use them.
Lord Rooker: I have a short answer to that. It is no good playing with words about the public sector. I was asked a question, and I shall refuse to answer any more if my words get twisted like they have just been. I was asked whether, if employers and trade unions agree, they should not therefore be allowed to carry on. I made the point that to differentiate between the public and the private sector, the question is who pays. If the employer is prepared to pay for a negotiated deal, fine. In the public sector, the employer at the end of the day will be local government or Parliament, in the sense of disbursing taxpayers' money. That was the only distinction I made for the public sector.
I can honestly reassure my noble friend—I shall stand corrected on it if need be, but I am on fairly certain ground—that if there had not been a fire dispute, we should not be here today discussing the Bill.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I hope that my noble friend will consult Hansard and consider making a statement about twisting his words.
Lord Rooker: I—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am not giving way. As my noble friend said on Second Reading, I shall give way when it suits. I hope that he will look at Hansard carefully and see whether it was possible to infer the fact that the Government would want such a power to deal with society and, more particularly, public sector institutions, and in this case the fire services, irrespective of other circumstances and in particular the agreement of the parties. That is all that I ask.
Lord McCarthy: I have two things to say. I do not believe that the Government wanted to get into a position where they could not really say that they would not use such a power if there was an agreement. The Minister is quite right. In a sense, the Government have got themselves into a situation where they have taken the power, and they cannot bring themselves to guarantee that they would not use it.
In fact, it would be absolutely daft to use it in the case of a dispute in which the two sides had agreed. I am not referring to the subsequent application of that dispute. When the dispute that was settled recently comes to be applied in precise terms, there may very well be failures to agree. The Secretary of State may very well use his draconian powers, but not on the settlement that they signed a few weeks ago. That would be ridiculous, but the Government cannot say that, so they have taken this great instrument and are stuck with it.
The only piece of credible evidence that the Secretary of State gives me is to say, "Money. This is a fully funded service, and you can't sell the product at a price because it is a free service". On a side whim, only a fool thinks that one can have a self-financed productivity deal, but we shall not go into that for the moment. He says, "You can't produce a product. Therefore, of course, the Government have to control the purse strings". Of course they do. That is why it is extremely unlikely that, if there were any significant difference in the cost of a deal, the employers would go in one direction and the Secretary of State would go in another.
There might be a difference of practicality, however. The employers might feel that the Government were doing everything wrong, and that that would perpetuate the strike. The difference might not be of money, but style. It might be—if I were on the employers' side in the latest dispute, I would have said this—that many things put into the case on the government side would cost more money rather than save it, and would never come about anyway because they were totally impractical. The employers might pluck up their courage and say, "It is not a question of money, but of style. We after all are managers, and we would like to settle". If they had had the guts to do it, the Government would swallow it.
GC 276
The amendment does not say necessarily that there might not be further consultation between the Government and the parties. Under it, the Secretary of State could withdraw his proposals and engage in new consultation. He abandons his previously legally backed solution to the problem. It would be a very strange world if, in those circumstances, a Labour government did something so ridiculous. However, I cannot be sure, so I want the Government to consider their position further, and we shall ask them in a more precise way what they would do in those circumstances on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
"(3A) Where the members of the negotiating body—

(a) are in disagreement or dispute in relation to any issue concerning the application or interpretation of an agreement between them or are unable to reach agreement in negotiations touching such an agreement: and

(b) subsequently either—

(i) settle the issue by agreement, or

(ii) agree jointly to refer the issue to conciliation, mediation or arbitration the result of which is agreed by them to be binding upon them, the Secretary of State shall make no order relating to that issue."

The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 10 in association with Amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are in association with Amendments Nos. 11 and 13, and we may or may not get to them tonight.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): Is the noble Lord saying that Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 are grouped together?
Lord McCarthy: No. I am sorry; Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are grouped together, and Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 are grouped together, but they are not complete strangers. In fact—if I say this now it may be clearer—the main difference between them is that Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 are ways of introducing third-party dispute resolution into the application and interpretation of existing agreements. The Americans call those disputes of right, but we do not recognise that. However, Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 are about new agreements. They are rather different. Different methods might be advantageous in different circumstances, and I want to put a few examples before the Committee. That is why I have tabled the amendments in this way.
I am talking about third-party dispute resolution. I want to spend a moment or two on the difference, because I have found that people do not recognise it. I would argue, although I do not want to stress it, that in the process of negotiation in the most recent fire dispute people got the order wrong, as happens quite often. By conciliation, we mean that some non-allied party seeks to bridge the difference between the parties. The essence of it is that they do not make suggestions. They exhaust the suggestions of the

GC 277
parties. However, if that does not work, they may start making suggestions. Usually, the parties ask them to make suggestions. If they make suggestions, that is mediation.
We have moved from a somewhat negative tactic, which is designed to narrow the area of difference and which usually does so, to a situation where people have a real idea what the breaking points and stress points are and they are prepared to consider an approach that they have not thought of themselves. I believe that in the last fire dispute we got to mediation at the wrong time—but I shall not go into that. If one gets to a point where things have been narrowed down and the parties trust each other a bit, one can introduce the notion of arbitration, which is the end point of the system.
In Amendment No. 10, the parties take the initiative. They have got into a mess and failed to agree, so they decide to experiment and introduce third-party dispute resolution. As a result, they settle. It is rather like the amendment that we discussed before. At that point, this amendment says that,
"the Secretary of State shall make no order".
That is firmer than the previous amendment, in which there was no third-party dispute resolution.
The arguments are probably clear, and I shall not repeat them. Let us say that the parties have signed the agreement, but that they do not know exactly what it means because some of the phrases are very vague, as they were put there in order to get an agreement. As a result, the parties have to go back to it when it comes to be applied and introduced. On that comparatively minor issue, which is important but not as important as the signing of a new agreement, we should leave the parties alone. That is one form of third-party dispute resolution, and I want to know what is wrong with it.
Amendment No. 12 is more complex. Here, the Secretary of State takes the initiative. Presumably the situation is more difficult, and the parties are not looking for third-party dispute resolution. I would like things to be committed across the board, as they used to be but now are not. I should like the Government to take the initiative if they get into a dispute in which the parties involved do not want to take the initiative, or cannot. I am not asking them to make speeches on the wireless or to tell the press. I am simply saying that the Government should get involved and try to encourage the parties to introduce some form of conciliation. If the Government take that initiative and as a result there is a prospect of a settlement, the Secretary of State should withdraw his proposals. He delays his order and, once again, if they obtain a settlement, he withdraws. However, if they do not make the settlement, he has to start the process all over again.
Those are only two alternatives. I could have given 22 alternatives. I merely wish the Government to say why they cannot let the parties decide, on the narrow basis of an application issue. Why must we go to law? Why must we do things in that way? There is no doubt whatever that there will be such disputes. The Minister is quite right about that; he said at Second Reading that there would be arguments over future pay advances if there were not sufficient savings to pay for
GC 278
those advances. He said that he was worried that if that happened it would put the whole scheme at risk. He referred to a whole series of new duty systems, work arrangements, rosters and overtime. Indeed, the White Paper is even more ambitious.
Signing agreements, however elaborate they may be, will give rise to application disputes and differences. There will be a lot of them, and the Government will frequently go to conciliation, mediation and arbitration. However, we should not torpedo the process at the start by saying that the Government will set aside a settlement if they do not agree with it, even if it is a binding arbitration agreement. That is an unwise and foolish way in which to proceed and I call on the Government to consider the alternatives in the two amendments. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I shall be speaking on the amendment and on Amendment No. 33, tabled in my name. Members of the Committee will note that the functioning of conciliation, mediation and arbitration on the application or interpretation of an agreement, which is covered in the last subsection of Amendment No. 10, is also the issue in Amendment No. 33, albeit from not precisely the same angle.
A major concern of both amendments arises from the big question mark that the Government have placed over the whole issue of arbitration. There has been a good deal of confusion about that.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I had prepared to speak on the noble Lord's amendment, Amendment No. 33, but it is not grouped with these amendments. Is he going to move it now? I did not think that we can do that.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is in order for the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to move his amendment, and he has given notice to the Minister of his intention.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It is in order for him to speak to it, but it is not in order for him to move it at the moment.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am speaking to Amendment No. 33.
I submit that there are two precepts of great importance in analysing the issues. One is to distinguish clearly two classes of arbitration. They are actually in many respects totally different tasks. The first is where the agreement has actually been made and there is a disagreement about an aspect of its application. The second is where a new agreement is still being negotiated.
Those are two fundamentally different situations, as any practitioner of industrial relations and collective bargaining would confirm. It is self-evidently relevant to where we are with the 2003 agreement and its phased application. It is important to see how that fairly basic analysis fits into the time scales of this year, next year and the year after. Obviously, in the context of a staged approach of implementation of the 2003 agreement,

GC 279
sorting out any issues of application in practice, we have a linkage that we must be clear about. With the time scales, we have a two-year or three-year phased agreement. We have a Bill with a two-year sunset clause. A White Paper has been mentioned, but that will clearly kick in after this. In practice, we are addressing the period of the 2003 agreement.
The question arises about the relationship between the Bill and its necessity and the June 2003 agreement. If the agreement is in substance not meant to be touched by the Bill, which would be quite extraordinary, it is to do with implementation. The issue is not a question of negotiating a new agreement starting from scratch on wages and conditions of service but a question of application and interpretation. That application of the 2003 agreement, even if there is some negotiation within it—as clearly there is—is clearly defined by the architecture of the framework agreement. I was going to say "circumscribed", but I shall use the word "defined".
It would in any event be rather implausible that the Government would intervene with the interpretation type of arbitration, given all the circumstances that I have described. With my amendment, it would be even less conceivable, because we would then be quite clear that there are these available avenues. Furthermore, apart from anything else, there is the basic reason in industrial relations logic that, when an agreement is signed, it is clearly then the sole property of the parties—in this case, the Fire Brigades Union and the local authority fire service employers.
We surely all accept that the 2003 agreement—I repeat that that is the only agreement with which we can now be concerned, in the time scale that we are talking about with the two-year sunset clause; that is where we are now—will not be unscrambled by the Government. That is patently obvious. We want to help as appropriate to facilitate, for example, an acceptable umpire or whatever. Side by side with that, for the avoidance of doubt, we need to state that the Government will not try to put up any red light against any mediation, arbitration or conciliation. I use all those words because all, on occasion, have been the subject of interventions over the years.
On that point, I need to go back briefly to the essential antithesis between different situations of arbitration. I doubt that anyone in this Room would assert that, when one is the middle of a wages negotiation or any new dispute of interest in the public sector, the Government cannot give some sort of signal, whether we call it a public sector incomes policy or not. That has been the reality, year after year, for the whole of my professional lifetime as a TUC official.
I acknowledge that if the Government, and the Treasury specifically, are actually paying 80 per cent or so, with the local authority paying 20 per cent or whatever—I think that is the current ratio—they have a direct interest in the outcome. That is a totally different kettle of fish from where we are today, in the time scale that we have today. That seems incontrovertible.
GC 280
The Government gave very mixed signals about arbitration in the past 12 months. In that period, the Government wished to intervene in mediation and the outcome of mediation, such as by the TUC, and arbitration. We all recall that. There were the attempts to intervene in the major money issue. It was about cost increases—and savings, I suppose—which underlines what is so different about that sort of position and where we are today.
The past 12 months may now be water under the bridge. However, the absolutely key requirement is to ensure that everyone will now understand and accept that they, the parties, can operate with confidence on the basis that a dispute of interpretation on the 2003 agreement can only be assisted by the inclusion of the guarantee in this amendment that all such facilities are available. As I have said, as the agreement is the property of the parties, that is as far as I go in my drafting, because the Government per se have no standing in that regard.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate many of the points made by my noble friend Lord Lea, but it is necessary to say a word or two about what he has just said before returning to the amendments before your Lordships' Committee. I declare an interest: I am a member of the staff panel side of the Civil Service Arbitration Committee. If I were really to declare all my interests I would have to declare also that I have been in among this subject not just academically but in other ways for some 40 years. I did not quite see that there was an answer to my noble friend Lord McCarthy's case.
Before coming to Amendment No. 10, with which we are confronted, together with Amendment No. 12, apparently it is in order to discuss my noble friend Lord Lea's Amendment No. 33. As lie has not moved it, the text may not appear in Hansard. I therefore want to make sure that it is in Hansard because he spent most of his time discussing, not Amendment No. 10, but Amendment No. 33. Amendment 33 states:
"For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act affects the possibility of the parties agreeing on a reference to mediation, conciliation or arbitration on the interpretation of the June 2003 agreement between the Fire Brigades Union and the local authority fire service employers".
With the greatest respect, I do not think that that adds very much to the Bill. The Bill is about powers of the Secretary of State. Nothing in the Bill affects the possibility that they might say, "We want to refer something", or one of them might say, "Let's agree on referring something to arbitration"; of course not, but the amendment does not say anything about whether the Secretary of State has power to make an order in that circumstance.
In a sense, this is ground that we have partially covered previously in the debate on my noble friend Lord McCarthy's speech on Amendment No. 9A. But nothing in Amendment No. 33 does anything about the sanctity of the parties owning the agreement. I have to say that I have one slight disagreement with my noble friend Lord Lea. He referred to the very well

GC 281
known distinction, which is sometimes couched in the formula that where you make an agreement, particularly a collective agreement, disputes may arise with regard to application and interpretation. Some people call those "disputes of rights". I have never thought that that was a very good title, but it is the usual title in the literature.
In industrial terms, as my noble friend quite rightly says, there is an enormous difference between those disputes and those that may be exemplified most easily in a dispute about a wage claim—a dispute about an agreement that has not already been made. However, most disputes procedures under collective agreements in Britain do not distinguish between those two types of dispute. Most disputes procedures—I apprehend that the same is true under the present situation in what is called the Grey Book Agreement of the National Joint Council and the agreement of 13th June 2003, which enshrines the Grey Book disputes procedures—do not distinguish as is the British habit in collective bargaining finally between disputes of rights and disputes of interest.
I wish I had the relevant book with me, but, since the Minister mentioned Allan Flanders at Second Reading, his golden words in one of his books come back to my mind. I cannot quote them because they are not before me, but I apprehend that they state roughly that, in British agreements, disputes of rights and disputes of interest are not kept separate in procedures, but on the continent of Europe it is quite different. There it is common to distinguish in agreements between procedures applicable to disputes of interest and disputes of rights. If noble Lords think that that is right I shall bring the book for the next session of Grand Committee.
My noble friend Lord Lea is perhaps confusing, with his great experience of European procedures, what happens under those agreements, what happens here and in particular what happens under the agreement, which he specifies between the FBU and the fire authorities of June 2003, which we have somewhere on the table, and he has on the table, so we can all refer to it if need be.
With that excursion behind me, I shall return to the matter before your Lordships; namely, Amendment No. 10. There were certain points, which my noble friend Lord McCarthy in his admirable quest for brevity did not perhaps highlight. He did infer this, but I want very briefly to say what is important and new about Amendment No. 10 that he described.
It is the first time where third party intervention and arbitration which is agreed by the parties to be binding upon them has come before your Lordships. The previous amendment, Amendment No. 9A, was about a case where they had settled. In a sense the new amendment now before us deals with that again in a case where they settle the issue by agreement, but goes on to state that or, where they subsequently,
"agree jointly to refer the issue to conciliation, mediation or arbitration the result of which is agreed by them to be binding upon them".
GC 282
It is in that case that I adopt the words of my noble friend Lord Lea: "where the procedures are their property and they have agreed", except perhaps for tremendously difficult emergency situations which the Government could perfectly well draft. If they cannot, they must go outside and find some advisers who can. If they want to make exceptions to that, let them draft them. But otherwise, please, do not destroy the integrity of third party intervention voluntarily accepted by the parties with all the problems that may have for fire authorities.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy—I shall not repeat what he said—intimates that it may be a rare case where the fire authorities can agree if the Secretary of State objects. He gave very practical examples of cases where the employers may want to say, "No, the Secretary of State has got it wrong a bit. It's not quite the way to do it, and we agree with the union that you should do it some other way, or if we can't agree, we'll put that to arbitration". That is what Amendment No. 12 goes on to deal with. He really should consult further. First, in Amendment No. 10 we say that he should consult with the parties, and in Amendment No. 12 especially he has to consult with ACAS and then consult further before making any further proposals.
I cannot for the life of me see what the Government find to be wrong with that unless they wish to give themselves a power—it is nothing to do with when they want to use it—which is an authoritarian power, contrary to all the international conventions, which we have ratified. In another state, if you want to refer to European experience, the ratification would give rise to actions in the courts in those countries, but they cannot here, or at least I retract the word "cannot". They can do so here only with great difficulty. I do not want to put counsel in a future case at any disadvantage by my statements because it is quite possible that they can be challenged here.
But surely it cannot be the case that the Government want to have a power to intervene where fourth party assistance could resolve the matter except on some curious kick of authoritarian power, which they wish to acquire. I do not believe that the Government wish to acquire authoritarian power. What I am pleading for is some acceptance of at least the spirit of my noble friend's speech in moving Amendments Nos. 10 and 12, to come back and say, "No, we don't want to do that and we'll draft something that shows that we don't".
Lord Rooker: I have a couple of introductory remarks because this is a new part of the debate. I have to repeat the fact that it would be quite exceptional circumstances in which we had to operate the Bill. We make no bones about it. I have used the words that the Secretary of State would have to impose a solution to a dispute because he would consider that to be in the public interest. At that point there is no earthly reason why a third party should be involved. But, having said that, any idea that to reach that point arbitration, as an instrument of policy, is not available is absolute nonsense.

GC 283
I also mentioned earlier, in response to the introductory point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about the difficulty of arbitrating on policy issues as opposed to the mechanics of a percentage pay increase or a date in which it shall be paid or phased in, and those kind of circumstances, that we took that to be extremely difficult for a third party to be involved in. Those are reasons why we do not think the Bill requires Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. But, of course, there is another one.
The arrangements in place between the Fire Brigades Union and the employers already cover the circumstances of arbitration—as a last resort, I accept. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the constitution of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades provide that if the council fails to reach agreement on any matter contained in paragraph 8 of the constitution—that is, matters relating to conditions of service—the matter will be automatically referred to ACAS for conciliation. If the conciliation fails to resolve the dispute, either side of the NJC can refer the matter to ACAS for arbitration and the other side of the NJC is required to participate. So the mechanism already exists.
Given—this has to be clearly stated; I think it is accepted; no one disagrees with it, I hope—that the agreement reached on 13th June was signed by both sides of the national joint council, it follows, therefore, that the arbitration procedures of the national joint council constitution can be applied to it if the circumstances require as it progresses through the process.
As to the substance of Amendment No. 10, I hope that in some ways what I have said—there is nothing new about that—gives a degree of reassurance. But, in the event of the parties agreeing to seek arbitration, it would be extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State would want to intervene at that point to exercise his powers to fix or modify conditions of service if there was a realistic prospect that the parties could, by seeking arbitration, resolve their differences. Obviously, in theory it would be open to him to use his powers at any time.
There is a caveat, which is not unimportant but I have to say that no one has referred to it; that is, that in the event of two parties seeking independent arbitration over the terms of the agreement, the results of the arbitration should be applied only to the signatories to that agreement. It should not be open to the arbitrator to involve a third party coming to an arrangement between the two parties to the arrangement. For example, it could not be the case that the Government could be required by the arbitrator to fund the deal of 13th June. So, it could go to arbitration over the deal of the two parties to the agreement—they have signed the agreement—if they get as far as arbitration; I accept that there are other stages first. We accept that, and it is open to them to do that. I have said that if there was a likelihood of an agreement, it would be extremely unlikely for the Secretary of State to intervene. But it has to be said that it would be quite barmy to then ask a third party
GC 284
to pay for the arbitration of the two parties which were signatories to the agreement, the party being a person or body that is not signed up to the agreement in the first place.
That is a fairly normal process, I think. Otherwise, we are almost giving the arbitrator a blank cheque to sign for another party, whether that is local government, central government, or whatever. I do not think that that would be the norm for arbitration in any event. Therefore, arbitration is available if it is required in the circumstances of the agreement that was reached in June.
Amendment No. 12 raises different issues. Like Amendments Nos. 11 and 13, this involves the Secretary of State being asked to establish the arbitration machinery in different circumstances. Amendment No. 12 would require him to do so if the negotiating body or a member of the body notified the Secretary of State of a disagreement over the interpretation of an agreement between the two sides. As I have said, the constitution of the National Joint Council already provides for that. So, we think that Amendment No. 12 is unnecessary. In other words, the thrust behind Amendment No. 10 is already available during the process of bringing the agreement which led to the end of the dispute to a finality, with the dates that are set down there. So, in many ways we can accommodate that.
I also have to repeat, simply as background because now the White Paper has been published—clearly, it was not available at Second Reading—that this Bill does not attempt to cater for the long term, by definition. If it is not used in two years, it is not available. So, there is no sense in putting anything in this Bill that is designed to cater for the long term; it is to deal with specific and extreme situations. We are not setting up an arrangement that will last for ever.
That will come about in legislation—I cannot forecast when it will be—following the White Paper. I have no more idea of what will be in the Queen's Speech in the autumn than I suspect the Prime Minister has at the moment. We have seen a long list of bids for it, and there are always more bids than there are slots available. We always get overloaded, as we know, because of the inadequacy of the other place in scrutinising everything properly. However, the general points are covered in that, I hope in a positive way.
As to Amendment No. 33, which has been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lea, there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the two sides from agreeing to make use of the facility or any other form of arbitration, mediation or conciliation; nothing at all. My noble friend Lord Lea in his remarks clarified what the amendment provides and in a spirit of—can I say conciliation? It is probably too strong a word because I am not trying to be conciliatory; I am trying to be honest and positive so that no one is ever going to say that I sugar coated what we are trying to do in this Bill. However, at the appropriate time, when we reach Amendment No. 33 on the Marshalled List, I shall recommend noble Lords to accept it and I will put it on the face of the Bill.

GC 285
If at any time parliamentary counsel has another look at the amendment—at the moment he has not looked at it because, along with Nick Raynsford, we have decided to accept it and put it in the Bill when we reach that point. Clearly that will not be today, but if there is any tweaking of the odd comma or the odd word, parliamentary counsel might want to look at it—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Ah, ah!
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Now, you see, immediately I am undermined. Immediately, what I have just said in good faith is not accepted. Immediately, I am thought to be lying, conniving and not telling the truth. That, I am not having. I am not having it. What I have just said—I will give way to my noble friend in a minute—is what I said. I am accepting the amendment word for word and I will recommend that it is put into the Bill word for word as we leave Committee.
Parliamentary counsel has not looked at it. Governments do not draft Bills; parliamentary counsel draft Bills and it is a different operation. If they look at it and there is a sentence or a word or a comma in question, I will come back on Report and explain. That is the only caveat I am putting on it. I am not seeking to undermine or qualify what I have said. So, the nods and winks from the other end that what I have just said is not true I do not accept.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look at Hansard to see what he said. There was no suggestion that he was lying, conniving or in any way other than telling us what was going to happen. He said that the Government were going to accept the amendment, but perhaps I may say in parenthesis that this shows a very bad precedent of discussing an amendment before we come to it. I close the parenthesis there.
What I did when he said that the Government will accept this amendment was to try to turn in my notes to see what I was going to say about it when it came up. When he said, "Ah, but we'll change the wording", I realised that my notes might not be any use to me. That is all. So, I quite understand that when a government accept an amendment normally they have it looked at by the draftsmen, but since I said in my speech that I did not think that as it stands Amendment No. 33 adds anything to the Bill at all, obviously changes in wording will be absolutely fundamental.
When I say that it does not add anything to the Bill at all, I mean that it does not add anything which will affect the use of powers by the Secretary of State. Perhaps we can discuss Amendment No. 33 when we come to it and if there is going to be different wording, we shall of course have to wait for the Government either on Report or Third Reading and see what it is that they accept. I quite understand that. So I hope that my noble friend will observe the usual courtesies and not accuse people of saying that he lied on
GC 286
something—that is a word that does not usually appear in our proceedings—when nothing of the kind was further from one's mind.
Lord Rooker: What I said was not taken in good faith, from the noises I heard to my right. The minute I said, "I will ask parliamentary counsel to look at it just in case, because he hasn't done it at the moment", all of a sudden suspicion that I am not speaking the truth or that I am not operating in good faith came from the noises from my noble friend. So, I am not qualifying that.
When I arrived for work this morning, Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, 33 and 45 were in one group. At quarter past twelve today, they were all separated. So, do not start telling me about changes in the rules of this place. I am new here. My noble friend has been here for donkey's years. If he wants to work in a situation of anarchy, that is up to him. My noble friend was quite in order to speak to Amendment No. 33. When Amendment No. 33 is reached I do not intend to say anything else about it. I have indicated that I will recommend that it be accepted into the Bill. I have said everything I am going to say about it because anything else needs to wait until Report.
So, I am not going to repeat what I have said when we come to Amendment No. 33. My noble friend can simply beg to move formally and I shall recommend that it is accepted.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend suggests that the groupings of amendments, which as I understand it were made by his own department, were there when he first saw the proposed groupings. What was changed, according to the rules and conventions of groupings, which are well set out in the Companion, was that the amendments in the name of myself and my noble friends were rearranged into the new list of groupings. There is not only nothing improper in that and something about which he can complain; it was done according to the normal rules—with the complete co-operation of my noble friend the Chief Whip and more particularly his staff who were most helpful—between 11 a.m. and 12.5 p.m. today.
So, I hope that he will take away his complaint about the way that groupings are done and reconsider them in the light of the enormous effort which the staff put in on these very complex matters which yet have to be debated on the Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall: In the light of what has been said, I want to make a point of clarification. Noble Lords may wish to know that it is true that Amendments Nos. 10 and 33 were in the same group. Obviously, I had nothing to do with that; no one had anything to do with that apart from the normal processes. Then, at a very late stage there was this big change. All other people could have objected, made a counter-objection or another objection until the cows came home; there was no room for that sort of debate.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry, but my noble friend really must understand that he could have gone to the officials in charge of groupings by

GC 287
12 o'clock, which we did. He could have gone to say what he wanted done with his amendment. What we did was to say that we did not want our amendments debated in the same group as his amendments; that is all.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I was not going to intervene in this part of the proceedings but I want to make two comments. I do not think that wrangling between my noble friends—they are my noble friends—is helpful either during the debate or particularly at this time of night. I want to make one further comment. When my noble friend Lord Lea moved his amendment, I happened to listen carefully and I think that it will add something to the Bill.
Knowing my noble friend Lord Lea as I do, I cannot believe that he would move an amendment that would not be agreed by the union involved, or about which the union involved would not be happy.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Oh!
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: Therefore, I merely say that at this stage I cannot see that this debate should go on in the wrangling way that it is.
Lord McCarthy: I want to pour a little oil, if I can, but I have to say before I start that I have been in this House since 1968—1978 rather; it seems like 1968. When I was the spokesman for the party in opposition, the government arranged the amendments in the order that they suggested, but anybody who wanted to—even then it all stopped at twelve o'clock—could go along and see the appropriate officials and put down their amendments in the groupings that they wanted. As regards the sovereignty of the individuals who write amendments to say how they want to debate them, I do not know when it started in this House but it has been there a very, very, very long time. And, of course, it is all right because the Chairman does not choose which amendments to take. Any tom fool can write an amendment in this House and it goes on the Marshalled List. That is the way it has always been done. Of course, not everybody knows about it because not everybody moves amendments. Some people move only one amendment and it does not matter much to them where it goes in, but it matters to us. It has always mattered to us. We have always taken—I did when I was the spokesman for the party when in opposition—advantage of the principle of the sovereignty of the order and grouping of amendments. That is a fact.
I want to be placatory. I want to be helpful. I am very, very pleased that the Minister has made this concession. It is the first one we have had. I hope that it encourages him to make a lot more. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lea, tabled the measure because if it had not been tabled we would not have got it.
But, on the other hand, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said and I hope this heralds a change. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, said about the attitude of this Government towards third-party
GC 288
dispute resolution. Indeed, the Prime Minister with his commendable candour has said on several occasions that he does not believe in arbitration. I do not think that he has quite explained why. Perhaps he is changing; I do not know. But the Government, although they have used ACAS—you cannot live in this world without using ACAS—do not encourage that and they did not encourage it in the dispute we are discussing. As the Minister says, there is a provision in the existing procedures in the Fire Service which allows for conciliation, mediation and arbitration binding provisions. It comes from the report of the inquiry into the machinery for determining fire-fighters' conditions of service. They are subject to review. They are being renegotiated now.
I have not asked the parties why they did not invoke that procedure. I think that the union probably did not invoke it because it preferred a strike as it thought that it could get further with the industrial dispute, which it is perfectly entitled to do. It has a perfect right to take industrial action and not to use arbitration. But it is ex parte. The employers could have done that if they had wanted to. But that is not what employers tend to do these days. Third party dispute resolution is at a discount. It is going to be more at a discount if, frankly, it is given a certain name, and its name is applied to what we have in this Bill, because, as I said at Second Reading, this Bill uses the sacred name of arbitration to do something which is an imposed settlement. It would have been better if the Government had thought of another name, but they did not.
I hope that we shall be glad that we have this advance. I thank the Minister for the advance. I hope that it will be one of many more to come. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We finish at eight o'clock and we are now looking at Amendments Nos. 11 and 13. We will start these and if we finish before eight o'clock, fine. If not, we must break off at eight.
Lord McCarthy: Is the noble Lord asking me a question or is he telling me what he is going to do? I would like to stop now because, frankly, we shall not finish the group. But if the noble Lord wants to insist that we go on, of course we shall go on.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thought we used to finish at half past seven.
Lord McCarthy: Yes, I thought we finished at half past seven—or I thought that we finished our business at half past seven. I am sure I am right in saying that if were following previous precedent, we would finish now.
Lord Rooker: With respect, we have the agreement of the Hansard writers. We have the workers to consider. We are going to eight o'clock. At eight o'clock we will finish wherever we are.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We have the approval of the usual channels to go to eight o'clock. In the rules and regulations of the Grand Committee, there is provision to go beyond 7.30.
Baroness Hanham: I have been reluctant all afternoon to cause any further grief to the proceedings—not a vicarious pleasure in watching them. My only observation is that it seems to be late to start another grouping. It is almost ten minutes to eight. With your Lordships' agreement, I suggest that we ought to stop now and start again another day.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: With all due respect, we have an agreement with the usual channels to finish at eight. If we are part way through an amendment, so be it. If we start Amendment No. 11, we will finish exactly at eight o'clock.
Baroness Hanham: The usual channels on my side—partly me and partly the Chief Whip—agreed to go to eight o'clock if that was appropriate in terms of the groupings. It seems to me that it is not as we have finished the grouping. I agreed to that. I was happy if we had started a group we would finish, but if not we would not start another big group of amendments at this late hour, up to eight o'clock.
Lord Rooker: I say to my noble friends and colleagues that we are in the same boat on Monday. This Bill is going through this House. I do not care how long it takes. The policy is that the Bill is going through, amended or otherwise, whatever. And the fact of the matter is that what will happen on Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday—however long we take in Grand Committee—we will go through the list. It does not make sense to waste the time that the Hansard writers have made available to us.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 24, at end insert—
"(3B) No order shall be made under this section pursuant to any proposals made by him if the Secretary of State has been notified that one of the members of the negotiating body requests him to refer a disagreement with his proposals to an independent person or body for mediation, conciliation or arbitration with a view to resolving the disagreement and that person or body has issued advice or a report proposing terms different from the proposals, which terms have been accepted by the members.
(3C) Where the Secretary of State is notified under subsection (3B), he shall consult the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) and with the agreement of the members of the negotiating body appoint an appropriate person or body for the purpose of mediation, conciliation or arbitration as appropriate.
(3D) Where the appropriate person or body gives advice or makes a report which is accepted by the members of the body, the Secretary of State shall take it into account before he publishes any further proposals for an order."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 11 is grouped with Amendment No. 13, so I shall speak to both of them—at least for part of the time. They are different from the previous amendments because they deal with
GC 290
new agreements. Nevertheless, they deal with them in a related way. And because they are new agreements, it does not seem to me—though I am getting a little more ambitious, so perhaps I have made a mistake—that I would be far forward if I made them as firm and restrictive on the Ministers as the two agreements relating to disputes of application. So they are not quite the same.
Amendment No. 11 in effect provides that the Minister cannot use his order-making power if he is asked to respond to a request for third-party dispute resolution. In fact, he must facilitate a method of third-party dispute resolution and wait for the report from the parties on that dispute and on his position, and publish that.
It may produce a solution or it may not, but as the amendment states, the body shall make a report and the Secretary of State shall consider it before he publishes any further proposals for an order.
Amendment No. 13 is a little more complicated. The Secretary of State submits his proposals. This time the initiative comes from the parties, who are opposed and ask for third-party dispute resolution. Again, there is a time ban, but if the parties co-operate, the Secretary of State proposals are withdrawn until they know the results of the intervention—conciliation, mediation or arbitration. The outcome and the contact report is considered by the parties and by the Secretary of State.
But of course, this time the Secretary of State can disagree, even if the parties come to an agreement or say that they will accept whatever has happened in arbitration or mediation. The Secretary of State can disagree and go on and impose his order. The provisions are therefore a little more permissive.
The argument I want to make is that I believe that the Government misunderstand the limitations of such suggestions. In the debate, the Minister has frequently said that this, that or the other is not appropriate by deciding or mediating by a third party. It is said that it is too complicated. That is to misunderstand what the process is about.
The third party listens. They do not necessarily consider that they know as much as the parties. They do not consider that they have a solution. They listen; they cross-question; they examine. The object of the exercise is to find whether a form of words can be found which the parties will agree.
As I have said previously, it was so evident—and it would certainly be evident in a period of third-part dispute resolution—that the Government would be there. Perhaps they would be a ghost at the bargaining table, but I would have thought that if there was anything of significance or importance the Government would want to be inside the negotiations. Indeed, I believe that on major disputes, it is probably better that the Government should be inside as it is their money. There is no reason why they should not be if there is an independent person who is going to assess the validity of their arguments. That is the difference.
So any complexities or difficulties, and anything that cannot be put into an agreement because they are subject to further discussion and debate, will be accommodated in the division. That is simple and happens every time. There is an important historical parallel which the Government should consider if they continue to take the view which I believe they take and practice shows they take towards third-party dispute resolution.
It is driven into a system of imposing settlements on trade unions and working people because they have turned away from the only way of providing an independent assessment of validity of their arguments, which is third-party dispute resolution. That is what they did in this dispute. There was no independent assessment of the dispute. No one was chosen by both sides to assess the dispute and was given agreed terms of reference. I make no criticism of the Bain report—it was not its problem; it was given an impossible task.
When there was continued disagreement, no attempt was made to bring in any independent assessment. The Government finally achieved an agreement, I think, by threatening to enforce it through the Bill. That is not fair or equitable and it is not what has been done by this Government—I am sorry I will correct that; by this party—in the past.
The last time this party got into this situation, it established the Clegg comparability commission. It established it at a bad time—immediately after the disastrous winter of discontent. It was my opinion at the time, and it remains my opinion, that if the Clegg commission had been in situ six months earlier, there would not have been anything like the winter of discontent. It would have been even better if we had had a realistic incomes policy, but we will not go into that.
The fact is that the Clegg commission, in a matter of six or nine months, dealt with some 2.5 million public servants, mostly non-trading. Professor Clegg, in his final report, said that the great majority of workers who came before the commission accepted what the commission said, although they had not been bound in advance. That is what usually happens, otherwise they would not go. They asked to go to the commission, and when they reached the settlement, they accepted it.
They often required a strike threat to get there, but they got there—and when they got there, they settled. The results which were achieved by the Clegg commission were modest. And in any public interest evaluation, they were justified. When Professor Clegg's commission was dismantled and disbanded by Margaret Thatcher, he said—and he was wrong—"You will have to come back to it". But she never came back to it.
What we had instead was a series of major public-sector disputes between the Government of the day and the trade union movement. Unless there is some effective alternative, some independent assessment, I warn this Government that something like that will happen ultimately. It should happen and it need not
GC 292
happen, but they have to embrace the principle of third-party dispute resolution if they are to find their way out. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I want briefly to support my noble friend in relation to these two amendments. For a number of years, I was a member of the Central Arbitration Committee, and we dealt with a large number of disputes during my time in office. I am a supporter of these methods of dealing with dispute resolution. If you are interested in dispute resolution rather than in any kind of conflict, third-party arbitration is the way forward. I am glad to learn from the Minister that he accepts that in principle because he has accepted the principle of the amendment that has been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lea.
These amendments will spell it out in more detail and will involve the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which has lengthy experience in dealing with these matters. I feel sure that if something of that kind could be written into the Bill, it would enormously help to make it more acceptable.
During the course of responding to a previous amendment, the Minister said that the Bill is intended to deal with specific and extreme situations and that it is an emergency measure. The point about that is that the Bill does not refer to specific or extreme situations. Therefore, we need to ensure that something to that effect is written into the Bill so that everyone understands that that is its purpose.
Lord Rooker: Can I just say—
Lord McCarthy: On a point of order, we are on eight o'clock.
Lord Rooker: No, it is 59 minutes past. We are going to eight o'clock. We are time serving here. My noble friend has brought it upon himself.
In responding to my noble friend. I agree with what he said about the success of the Clegg report and the sadness that in the event the commission was disbanded before it could show the fruition of its efforts. I shall deal with these two amendments in due course and with one particular aspect of them. In some ways, only the one aspect of the central negotiating body needs to be dealt with. That goes to the heart of the Bill's purpose—that is, that the Secretary of State should have the power to draw a line under any disputes. We are missing that in our debate. Ultimately, if a dispute gets to that stage, the Secretary of State must be in a position to draw a line in order that it is not dragged out or does not go into further procedures. Arbitration is already provided for.
As it is now eight o'clock, I suggest that this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until 3.30 p.m. next Monday.
The Committee adjourned at eight o'clock.

  Department for Constitutional Affairs
  Department for Constitutional Affairs
  The Lord Chancellor: Sitting Time on the Woolsack, Session 2001–02
  The Lord Chancellor: Sitting Time on the Woolsack, Session 2001–02
  Iraq: Military List Equipment Exports
  Iraq: Military List Equipment Exports
  Sexual Offences Legislation: Sado-masochistic Activity
  Sexual Offences Legislation: Sado-masochistic Activity
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Counter-terrorism, Security and Resilience
  Counter-terrorism, Security and Resilience
  Disposal Services Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Disposal Services Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Deaths by Suicide: Students
  Deaths by Suicide: Students
  EC Communications Directives: Implementation
  EC Communications Directives: Implementation
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Zoos: North-West England
  Zoos: North-West England
  Sea Defences
  Sea Defences
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Prescriptions: Electronic Transmission Pilots
  Prescriptions: Electronic Transmission Pilots
  Carers
  Carers
  Care Direct
  Care Direct