Sitting of 7 July 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Phil Hope be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Lawrie Quinn be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  WORK AND PENSIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WORK AND PENSIONS

    Child Support Agency
    Bob Russell:If he will make a statement on the Child Support Agency reforms. [123519]
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What plans he has to improve Child Support Agency procedures to recover arrears of maintenance owed by self-employed absent parents. [123525]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The new formula is clear, and has been well received by parents and staff. Performance on the new scheme is improving, with progress made in sorting out serious defects in its information technology, for which its suppliers are being penalised under the contract. We remain committed to getting average clearance by next April to six weeks, compared with more than 20 weeks under the old system. I am grateful for the efforts of CSA staff, including on enforcement, with compliance last year reaching 76 per cent. overall and 65 per cent. for the self-employed.
    Bob Russell: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Any improvement is obviously to be welcomed, but does he accept that there is a fundamental flaw in the whole concept of the Child Support Agency? It was set up with the best of intentions, with all-party support, but surely the time has come to accept that the best reform would be the abolition of the CSA and the restoration of a family court system of payment.
    Mr. Smith: I believe that there is a growing consensus on both sides of the House that we need a Child Support Agency—one that is able to do its job properly so that children and parents with care who need the money actually get it. That was not happening under the family court system, which is why the CSA was introduced in the first place. Everyone accepts that the old system was much too complicated, with more than 100 factors having to be taken into account in the assessment. The new system is simpler and will work better. We will raise the rates of compliance on cash and cases.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many absent parents who are self-employed are evading their responsibilities to the parent with care and to the Inland Revenue? I should like to draw attention to the case of Deirdre Hilder, one of my constituents, whose former partner was, according to the Inland Revenue, apparently earning only £2.40 a week. The chief executive of the CSA has told me that he intends to ask the Revenue to investigate the case more thoroughly.
    Mr. Smith: I commend my hon. Friend's industry and energy on behalf of his constituents, but obviously I cannot comment on individual cases here. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Under-Secretary with responsibility for the CSA and I will be pleased to discuss individual cases further, where appropriate. I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says about the importance of improving compliance and enforcement, especially in relation to the self-employed. As I said in my initial answer, we have raised compliance for the self-employed to 65 per cent., and more resources are being put into enforcement. In the past couple of years, collection went up by £19 million and £44 million respectively. Stronger guidance has been given to staff, extensive use is made of Inland Revenue and other records, and arrears cases are being referred to specialist enforcement teams more quickly. I hope that that will help to address the performance issues that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Angela Watkinson:I have corresponded about a constituent, a postman on a modest income. Under the old system, he pays about 50 per cent. of his disposable income in CSA payments for his responsibility in respect of one child. The response from the Department is that he will not be reassessed under the new system for at least two years. This man is in danger of losing his home because of accumulated debts. Could the Secretary of State arrange for people making payments under the existing system to be fast tracked in cases of hardship and debt?
    Mr. Smith: I cannot give that assurance and I do not believe that it would be fair to pick out cases for changing over to the new system on a faster track. We have made it clear that we cannot move over to the new system for existing cases until we are absolutely sure that it is working properly, and that remains the case. I extend to the hon. Lady the same offer that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards)—for the Under-Secretary and I to meet to discuss individual cases. However, it seems that the individual case that she raises has already been thoroughly gone into. The hon. Lady is right that the

    733
    new system, with its simpler formula, will be more readily accepted by parents who have to meet their payment responsibilities as well as by parents with care.
    Miss Anne Begg: I hope my right hon. Friend will not take the advice of the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) to scrap the CSA, because the new system will be much simpler, fairer and quicker. However, I was dismayed to discover, when the CSA gave evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee last week, that the new IT system still faces major delays and problems. That inevitably means that existing cases will take longer to move to the new system, as my right hon. Friend has already said. I am looking for his assurance that he will do everything in his power to improve matters, including ensuring that EDS—Electronic Data Systems—which is responsible for the IT failures, is surcharged or otherwise held to account for its failure to have the system up and running as quickly as it should have been.
    Mr. Smith: I welcome my hon. Friend's positive remarks and share her commitment to ensuring that the new system works as effectively as it should as quickly as possible. I confirm that under the terms of the contract, EDS is penalised for non-delivery and poor service performance. I cannot go into the figures, but I assure my hon. Friend that the penalties involved are significant, both in absolute financial terms and in percentage terms. EDS has changed its senior management with responsibility for the project, and that has resulted in a better working relationship. Our senior officials are doing everything that they can, with EDS, to get the system working properly, and I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the system will be managed closely.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I am sure that we all agree that we would like to see the CSA working effectively. Last week, its chief executive said that the situation with the new computer system was only slightly better than the worst-case position. A range of technical problems in the past few weeks have reduced productivity by up to 30 per cent. and the Public and Commercial Services Union has said that the system is so bad that it prevents CSA staff from performing their jobs properly. What are the implications of all those problems for CSA customers? Will the existing cases be put off even further into the future? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance about when the information technology at the CSA will be working satisfactorily?
    Mr. Smith: Like the whole House, I want to see the system working properly as soon as possible. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), every step—including improving the management and invoking the penalty clauses—is being taken to lever up performance. Notwithstanding the shortfalls in performance, which are acknowledged and for which EDS accepts it has technical responsibility, the system is improving. More than 1,000 cases a week are being cleared and I shall shortly report further performance details to the House, from which the hon. Gentleman will be able to draw further conclusions.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: The question that my right hon. Friend has just answered is very similar to the one that I was about to ask, so I shall just ask him whether he is aware of the extra stress that the system's failure to comply with contract is placing on the work force?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I am. The technical defects, including the system going down or disappearing for periods, introduce into day-to-day working elements of unpredictability that have been difficult for staff to cope with. As I said earlier, I am grateful for the efforts made by the staff, but progress is being made and improvements in operations are being achieved notwithstanding the technical defects in the system. Further training is being provided to assist the staff in coping with the challenges.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. David Amess: How many pensioners will be in receipt of means-tested benefits as a result of the introduction of the pension credit by 2004–05. [123520]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The planning assumption is that around 3 million pensioner households will be receiving pension credit by 2006. Pensioners who qualify will be on average £400 a year better off, without the need for a weekly means test. We also expect an additional 250,000 pensioners to become newly entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit from October as a result of the improved income and savings rules in pension credit.
    Mr. Amess: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that the means-testing strategy on which the Government have embarked, with the best of intentions, is not sustainable?
    Mr. Smith: No, because we are replacing a regime where savings were penalised by pound-for-pound withdrawal with one where savings and modest occupational pensions are rewarded.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the pension credit will in fact help many people with modest savings or a modest second income who were barred from additional help in the past? It will be a welcome boost to that group. Will he also confirm that publicity and preparations for the scheme are well under way and that people who do not receive the credit until October 2004 will have it backdated to the start date? I understand that that is one of the provisions of the scheme.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right on all counts. There is, as he says, a big improvement, in that the £12,000 ceiling on savings is being removed and savings below £6,000 are being disregarded. That gives much greater reward to people with modest levels of saving and occupational pension income, and is an incentive to save in the future.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State has just said that he expects 3 million pensioners to be receiving the pension credit in 2006. Will he confirm that 5.1 million pensioners will be eligible in 2006? If so, he will have just admitted that 2 million pensioners will not be receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Will he admit that take-up of means-tested benefits is low and that one reason for that is the stigma still attached to them?
    Mr. Smith: I think that, in his question, the hon. Gentleman may be confusing pensioners and pensioner households, but I shall examine the figures that he mentioned. If he wants to know the equivalent take-up rate for the 3 million planning assumption, it is 73 per cent. However, I stress that we want pension credit to go to all those who are entitled to it, which is why we are writing to all pensioners and why we shall be mounting an extensive publicity campaign later this year.
    Mr. Willetts: Does the Secretary of State agree with a report that states
    "take up of some means tested fiscal measures remains low …partly due to the stigma still attached"
    to them? That document was produced on the No. 10 website last week, signed by the No. 10 strategy unit, the social exclusion unit and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It has not been sexed up, it is not dodgy; those are the facts. Does the Secretary of State agree with that analysis?
    Mr. Smith: No, I think that if anything promotes and entrenches wholly outdated and wrong concepts of stigma it is the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party, who keep talking about the take-up of these entitlements as though they were a stigma. Those people were awfully stigmatised by the previous Conservative Government. The introduction of the Pension Service and the fact that pensioners will receive their money from the Pension Service and not from social security is a big step forward in tackling stigma. Making it easy for people to receive their entitlement, as we are doing, removes barriers and reminds people that it is their right and not something that they are being given as a favour—the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that it is.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Government have made much of the fact that under the pension credit a pensioner has to contact the Pension Service only once every five years. Can the Secretary of State clarify the position of a typical pensioner with a basic pension and a company pension who receives the pension credit in year one? In year two, what does the scheme assume has happened to the company pension? If it assumes that the pension has risen when it has not, there is risk of an error, and if it is assumes that it has not risen when it has, there is risk of an error—or does the person have to phone and report the change in circumstances?
    Mr. Smith: People can take advice from the Pension Service on those matters at any time, if they want to do so. The way the system operates means that they do not have to be reassessed for five years unless there has been
    736
    a significant and material change. It does not sound as though the hon. Gentleman was putting to me a significant or material change.
    Annabelle Ewing: In the light of recently highlighted problems about the take-up of means-tested benefits by pensioners in Scotland, and as many pensioners unfortunately do not receive their entitlements, can the Secretary of State tell us whether a specific take-up target will be set for Scotland for the new pension credit?
    Mr. Smith: All regions and Scotland and Wales will be trying to get as many people as possible to take up pension credit. Of course, there will be extensive publicity in Scotland and through the Scottish media, as well as the work being undertaken by the Pension Service, including the local pension service. I went out with the local pension service in Scotland, visiting pensioners in a sheltered housing scheme, so I could see just how much help those people gave pensioners and how readily it was received. I am confident that such efforts from our first-rate staff will increase take-up in Scotland, as elsewhere.

    Pension Uprating System
    Paul Flynn: What the current level of the basic state pension would be for a couple if the system used for uprating from 1980 to 1997 had been continued. [123521]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The basic state pension for a couple would have been £440 less this year if we had stuck to the pre-1997 formula—£115.30 a week, rather than £123.80. We have guaranteed that, for the remainder of this Parliament, we will increase the basic state pension by 2.5 per cent. or the September retail prices index, whichever is higher. So pensioners will continue to do better under our Government that they did under the Conservative party.
    Paul Flynn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does it not prove that the various non-means-tested increases that the Government have introduced since 1997 have given pensioners a fair deal—the increases have been at least equivalent to the level that would have existed had the link between pensions and earnings been restored. Is not that a wonderful example? Are not the Government entitled to give themselves a slap on the back for being far fairer with pensioners than what happened during the 17 years of effective cuts, every year, by the mean-spirited, tight-fisted Tories?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, and the lesson that the public must learn is: never let them take it away.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the recent Government response to the Green Paper is the Government's last word on uprating and other matters for the foreseeable future? Does he acknowledge the continuing concern about the relationship between the current architecture of state pensions provision and the

    737
    private sector, particularly in regard to the possible disincentives to save? Will he consider extending Mr. Adair Turner's remit in the pension commission, so that he may continue to study that important problem?
    Mr. Smith: Of course I studied carefully and responded to the very helpful report of the hon. Gentleman's Select Committee on those matters, including the suggestion that there ought to be more research about the interaction between the structure of the state system and levels of private and occupational pension saving, which, as he will know, is by no means a simple and straightforward matter. The terms of reference of Adair Turner's commission are very clear; they have been reported to Parliament, and I do not intend to change them, but they include provision for the commission to examine the effects of the state structure on private and occupational pension saving, so far as they are relevant.

    Benefits Payment
    Ian Lucas: What action he is taking to ensure that jobcentres advise customers that benefits can still be collected in cash at their local post office. [123523]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Department is writing to most Jobcentre Plus customers affected by the changes in the way that state and war pensions and benefits are paid. A personal letter and leaflet will let them know about the change to direct payment and will give them the facts that they need to make an informed choice about which account option is most appropriate for them. New customers will have the options explained at the point of claim and, as jobseekers regularly contact our Jobcentre Plus offices as part of normal business, those occasions will be used as an opportunity to discuss direct payments.
    Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Wrexham jobcentre has issued local information to customers, stating that they can have their benefits paid directly into private bank accounts but not saying that those benefits could be paid into Post Office card accounts? Will the Department please institute an instruction that jobcentres should advise all customers that they can have their benefits paid into Post Office card accounts?
    Mr. Browne: I was aware of the historical position that my hon. Friend reminds the House of—indeed, I am as pleased as he is that the position has now been resolved—as he wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions some months ago, can assure my hon. Friend that all Department for Work and Pensions staff who deal with customers have received appropriate training about direct payments that highlights to staff the options available, including that of making payments into Post Office card accounts, which can be collected from their Post Office branch.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that about one in four of the 2.8 million people who have been contacted so far about transferring to direct payment have failed to respond—
    738
    almost 750,000, according to the Department's figures. Problems with changes in the benefits system are not unusual, but the question arises: what happens in 2005 if there are still hundreds of thousands of customers who have simply not told the Government whether they want their pensions and benefits paid into a bank account or a Post Office card account because they have simply not responded? At questions last month, the Secretary of State pledged that all those who wanted to access their cash at the post office could do so. Will the Minister therefore tell the House exactly what failsafe system will be in place to ensure that this pledge is met in all such cases?
    Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman is turning scaremongering into an art form in relation to the payment of benefits and pensions. He is well aware, as he points out in the preamble to his question, that changes of this nature take some time to follow through. In our view, there is sufficient time to achieve the objectives that have been set. For those who are unable to collect their benefits in the fashion offered by direct payment, an exceptions system will be available, as he is aware.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment and wish him well with his new responsibilities. He will find in the modernisation of the working-age services provided by the Department great opportunities to help those who need our help the most. He will also find that there are great opportunities merely to deliver the services that we provide more efficiently. Can he tell us something about the impact of modernisation on the Department's fraud targets?
    Mr. Browne: I thank my right hon. Friend for his characteristically generous remarks in welcoming me to my new position. He has served this Government and the people of the United Kingdom with great distinction in a number of key posts in Government and has considerably more to offer. I thank him for the inheritance that I received from him—not only the work that he did in relation to the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus but the significant work that he did in the creation and maintaining of the best labour force market statistics that this country has ever had.
    My right hon. Friend asked me a specific question in relation to fraud, which I am pleased to answer. He knows that more than 100 pensioners have their order book stolen every week. Of course, direct payment modernisation will eliminate that risk. He knows the effect that lost or stolen giros can have on the delivery of the principal business of Jobcentre Plus—getting people into work—which I saw for myself last week in Willesden. He also knows that if modernisation has the effect that we hope it will have on fraud, we shall save at least £80 million every year.

    Pension Service
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the performance of the Pension Service, with special reference to the speed of dealing with cases. [123526]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): The new Pension Service is committed to providing the best possible service to its customers. However, I am of course aware of particular difficulties relating to staffing in the Norwich pension centre, and that pensioners in the east of England are not receiving an acceptable level of service. That is not good enough, and I apologise to those affected. The regional team has developed a recovery plan, which I have discussed with the Pension Service chief executive. This plan will improve processes and increase the number of trained staff to deal with the work load over the coming weeks.
    Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming what the situation is like at the Norwich regional office. Many pensioners are becoming desperate while they wait weeks on end for their claims to be processed. What confidence can we have about the introduction of the pension credit later this year, given the current debacle in local pensions offices, and given what happened with the introduction of the child tax credit earlier this year?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have special centres dealing with pension credit applications. With regard to the Norwich pension centre, which I visited in the early days of my career as a Pensions Minister a week or so ago, more staff are being recruited. A further 11 front-line telephone agents joined the centre this week, and last week a further 80 were recruited and are now undergoing training. I am keeping under close attention the situation in Norwich and have apologised to constituents for the poor service. I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit the centre and see for himself what improvements are taking place.
    Mr. Tom Harris: I, too, have received a number of complaints from pensioners in my constituency about the length of time taken and the process involved when applying for several of the benefits. However, they are vastly outnumbered by the pensioners in my constituency who are materially better off thanks to some of the benefits introduced by the Government, notably the minimum income guarantee. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that criticism of the process will not divert the Government from their main task of materially improving the quality of life of the vast majority of pensioners in the United Kingdom?
    Malcolm Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend, not least for acknowledging the hard work of the very good staff in the Pension Service. When there are problems, we will acknowledge them, but we are moving in the right direction. The service is new and there are many new buildings, as is the case in Norwich, and new staff have been trained. The objective is clear: we want to offer more support for many of the poorest pensioners in our community. That is why pension credit is so important, not least to elderly women, who tend to be poorer than men. Indeed, two thirds of those benefiting from pension credit are women.
    Andrew Selous: The Minister will know that the script used by members of the Pension Service mentions the Post Office card account very much as the last option available. Will he
    740
    reassure the House that when Pension Service members talk to the public, they will mention the Post Office card account on an equal basis with other means available? If he does not do that, suspicions will persist that the Government do not favour that type of account.
    Malcolm Wicks: In all our literature—I am happy to look it at with the hon. Gentleman because I take the matter seriously—and the script used by our colleagues in the centres, the Post Office card account is given prominence alongside other options. Significant numbers of people, not least pensioners, are asking for the Post Office card account—about half those pensioners are asking for that account. That is fine because it meets the pledge that those who want to continue to go to the post office to get their pension will be able to do so, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Minister accept that on Friday, a post office in Nottingham, North received the first ever urban post office grant in order to keep it open? The subsidy is worth about £50,000 and we are very grateful. However, the postmaster told me that he needed the subsidy because when pensioners in the area phone the Minister's Department, the Pension Service or the Inland Revenue, they are often told that they should open a bank account but not told to use their local post office. Will he ensure that there is joined-up thinking so that some Departments do not encourage people to withdraw from post offices while others subsidise post offices so that they may be kept open?
    Malcolm Wicks: We have to lay out the options to people honestly and fairly. If anything ever goes wrong with that, we will investigate it seriously because that is important. Large numbers of people are asking for the Post Office card account, which is important for the Post Office because if we are to save our post office networks—both rural and urban—post offices must become modern banking centres for the Post Office card account and, increasingly, a place where customers of other banks and building societies may get their money out. That will add to the economic value of post offices in the future.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his recent promotion to Minister of State? Given the Secretary of State's description of the Department's computer systems as "very decrepit", what steps is he taking to ensure that the introduction of pension credit does not degenerate into the sort of fiasco that we are witnessing on tax credits and the Child Support Agency?
    Malcolm Wicks: I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his post. I look forward to his recovery—although we might have verbal brawls, we have not been involved in anything more serious.
    The computer system that we are using is tried and tested. We know that it works and it will work in this instance, as the record will show. We are confident that we will deliver pension credit. Let us remember that the poorest pensioners will receive on average £400 a year pension credit and many will get more. Whatever our

    741
    differences on the policy approach, I hope that every Member of Parliament will get behind the measure, because many thousands of people in the average constituency stand to gain from it.

    Disablement Awards
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What plans he has to change the medical criteria used to decide disablement awards for (a) vibration white finger and (b) chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement. [123527]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): I acknowledge my hon. Friend's great expertise in this field and compliment him on his continuing efforts on behalf of his constituents who have acquired industrial disease and injury while in the mining industry.
    As my hon. Friend is aware, we asked the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to carry out a review of prescribed disease A11, commonly known as vibration white finger, and its report is expected at the end of the year. We have no current plans to change the medical examination process for prescribed disease D12, chronic bronchitis and emphysema.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and am encouraged by the referral of vibration white finger to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. However, I encourage her to refer COPD—chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—to the council, too. She will be aware that both diseases are prescribed diseases and that there are two systems of examination—one for compensation and one for state benefit. People become confused when they are awarded compensation but denied state benefit. If she were prepared to make the change, it would set the basis for persuading the Department of Trade and Industry to introduce a no-fault liability scheme at the end of the tort scheme for COPD, which concludes on 31 March next year.
    Maria Eagle: I always take a great deal of notice of what my hon. Friend says on the subject, because his interest in it and expertise are well known. He will know that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council reconsidered the lung function test in 1999. He will also know that the social security lung function test is, in many ways, more generous than the test operated by the DTI. I understand where he is coming from, but he must be aware that the two schemes—the DTI tort scheme and the scheme that we run—are different. One is based on an individual personal injury claim going through the court. The other is a much more general collectivist scheme that is based on simpler and different tests, with different hurdles. Although I will consider what my hon. Friend suggests, I cannot promise to do as he says.
    Hywel Williams: Do the Government have any intention of extending disablement awards to former slate quarry workers? The Minister will know that slate quarrymen are already covered by the 1979 Act as far as dust is concerned, but surely there is a very
    742
    strong case for extending those benefits to the few elderly men and widows who are left after the closure of the north Wales slate industry.
    Maria Eagle: I am happy to consider that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the requirement that one has to work for 20 years underground to obtain the benefit, but I will be happy to consider any evidence that he brings to me to convince me otherwise. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), I will listen, but I do not undertake to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
    Jim Sheridan: While it is right that the medical criteria for compensation and disablement benefits are constantly reviewed, can the Minister assure the House that those who do not meet the medical criteria do not receive a double whammy in the sense that they are then discriminated against when seeking work? What role does she see for the Disability Rights Commission? Is there a need to enhance that role?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend will be well aware that my Department has just undertaken a major push to assist more disabled to get back into work. We hope that that will involve all kinds of people, whether they have had disabilities from an early age or have become disabled because of industrial injuries or disease, for example. We aim to ensure that we reduce the number of people on sickness and incapacity benefit by ending discrimination in the workplace and ensuring that we help those people overcome the barriers that they face in returning to the workplace?

    "Pathways to Work"
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What responses he has received to the pathways to work consultation. [123528]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): The Green Paper "Pathways to Work" set out a strategy for enabling people on incapacity benefits to move into work. Our response to the consultation, published on 10 June, gives details of the responses that we received, together with our plans for implementing the pilots.
    I recognise that my hon. Friend has a particular interest as his constituency will be in the Bridgend and valleys pilot area, providing an exciting opportunity for the community that he represents to lead the way. I can confirm that excellent progress is being made in establishing that pilot and that I will visit it in the first week of the recess.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister for that answer. She is no doubt encouraged, as I am, by the excellent work that Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff have already done in piloting many of the new initiatives designed to assist people back into work. Will she assure me that that will benefit those who have been struggling to get back to work for many years, because that is what

    743
    We should focus on? I am sure that she will have read the report of the recent Adjournment debate on economic inactivity in Westminster Hall.
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend can be assured that I read his remarks in his debate, and naturally I agreed with all of them. I make it clear that anybody in his constituency, whether they have just come on to incapacity benefit or have been claiming it for many years, will be able to take advantage of the pilot scheme. Although it is aimed at those who are just coming on to incapacity benefit, any existing claimant who wants to take part can volunteer and will be welcome.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: As I pass from the not inconsiderable pleasure of shadowing the hon. Lady into the shadows, on this subject at least, may I ask her to fight firmly to root out any dualism in the system? The disability employment service is on target to place people, so it tends to place the easier cases and offload some of the harder ones on to the not-for-profit sector. In particular, will she remember that the situation of anybody who is incapacitated is by definition unique, in terms of both their disability and their economic situation and motivation? Will she ensure that the pilot scheme and, as she introduces it, the national scheme, are genuinely sensitive to the needs of the individual and their wish, and obligation, to get back to work if possible?
    Maria Eagle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has shadowed me. He has graduated to higher education, and its gain will be our loss, although I am sure that his replacement will make every effort to follow in his footsteps.
    As the Minister responsible for disabled people, I recognise that those on incapacity benefit who want to get back to work face a range of barriers, such as a lack of skills or confidence after many years out of work, and only some of those problems can be laid at their door. The pilot schemes will enable us not only to test a range of interventions that assist the individual to feel ready and able to go back to work, both in medical and work-focused ways, but to tackle the attitudes, discrimination and other practical barriers faced by many of our fellow citizens who have spent years on sickness and incapacity benefit. We hope that the pilots will show a way forward that can be spread throughout the rest of the country.

    Pension Credit
    Simon Hughes: What steps he is taking to publicise the pension credit. [123529]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We began writing to pensioner households in April to explain the pension credit and invite advance applications. In addition, the 1.8 million people who receive the minimum income guarantee have been advised that they will be transferred automatically to the pension credit. Regional and national television and press advertising begins in September. We are also
    744
    working at national and local level with organisations such as Age Concern to spread the good news about the pension credit.
    Simon Hughes: Given that the figures apparently show that nearly 3 million people will not have an automatic entitlement but will have to ask for their pension credit from October, why is it that many people will be written to after October and, indeed, up to next summer? Is it not the case that up to 70,000 people may die before they claim their entitlement? Will Ministers review the timetable and make sure that everybody is written to before the date on which they become entitled to the money?
    Malcolm Wicks: I hope that the House will appreciate that it is logistically impossible to write to the whole pensioner population within a few weeks or even months. We are staffing up the centres and the telephone service as best we can, and we must perform the task in the right way. The pension credit comes into force in October, and people can apply then, but we will steadily write to people. The Liberal Democrats' cynicism about what happens when people die is not worthy of the party. I wish that Liberal Democrat Members would start to be positive in debates and not always be thinking of next weekend's press release.
    Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that welfare rights organisations such as citizens advice bureaux and local authority advice services have an important role to play in drawing pensioners' attention to their rights to benefits and in ensuring that they are calculated correctly? Will he ensure that such organisations are adequately funded? If one of his pensioner constituents came to his surgery with details of their income, would he be able to calculate for them exactly what pension credit they are entitled to?
    Malcolm WicksAs a former Minister for Lifelong Learning, I would certainly have a go. Despite being typecast as old-fashioned, stigmatising means-testing, the pension credit can be applied for over the telephone. One of our staff fills in the application, simply asking the pensioner to verify it. Minor changes of circumstances over a five-year period do not have to be reported. This is a new approach to targeting help on some of those who need it most. I hope that all Members of Parliament, who have thousands of people in their constituencies who can apply, will get behind it. We must make sure that we push take-up to as close as possible to 100 per cent. in due course.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: The Minister talks about targeting, but does he accept that the combination of the minimum income guarantee and pension credit will increase the number of people on means-testing and reduce the number who are encouraged to save over the years? Does he accept that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) knows a great deal about the matter and has made that point?
    Malcolm Wicks: As I am trying to argue, pension credit is not the old weekly means test. The problem with the system that we inherited from the Conservative Government was that it penalised savings. People with a small occupational pension and savings in the Post Office had money knocked off, pound for pound, from their minimum income guarantee on income support. That was wrong. We want to encourage savings, and pension credit will do so.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: I congratulate the Minister on his well-deserved promotion to his new role. Does he agree that the mind-boggling complexity of pension credit makes it difficult to publicise and undermines the savings culture? If he disagrees with me, could he explain, in the brief time that Mr. Speaker will allow, how to calculate the entitlement to pension credit for someone on low earnings?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are already receiving a number of good reports from pensioners whom the Pension Service has written to and who have understood the leaflet and are applying for pension credit. The idea of being able to apply for it over the phone, when not the pensioner herself, but one of our staff expert in the matter calculates the entitlement, is a major advance. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and ask him to concede that the new system is an advance on the position under a previous Secretary of State.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received in the past month on the arrangements under which jobseeker's allowance payments can be suspended. [123530]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Department receives regular representations from members of the public and Members of the House on individual cases where jobseeker's allowance has been suspended or, more often, sanctioned. Those cases are dealt with on an individual basis, having regard to the circumstances of each case.
    Mr. Barnes: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. He did a fine job in the Northern Ireland Office and I sure that that work will continue in his present post. Is he aware that the labour market statistics on adjudication officers' decisions on jobseeker's allowance for 2002 show that there were 670,000 cases, in 49 per cent. of which benefits were reduced for different ranges and varying periods? Is that not an excessive number of cases, extremely time-consuming and of concern to everybody involved in the procedures? Would it not be better to tackle unemployment by creating fresh job opportunities, rather than pressurising those in vulnerable circumstances to ensure that they take every last opportunity available?
    Mr. Browne: I am aware of particular statistics, as my hon. Friend knows, having brought them to my attention a short time after I became a Minister in the Department. I thank him for his kind remarks. May I reciprocate by reminding the House of his enviable reputation, particularly on campaigning for the
    746
    unemployed and those who live in poverty? Consequently, I am sure that he is pleased about another statistic—a 46 per cent. reduction in the unemployment claimant count in his constituency since this Government came to power. The fact is that that did not happen on its own. It happened partly because of the target regime of jobcentres and Jobcentre Plus. There are no staff targets about increasing the number of people who are sanctioned or suspended. The only targets that those who work in Jobcentre Plus have in this area are those based on success in finding work. I am sure that he shares that aim.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reaching his new position. He and his Department are aware of the fact that Brandon's turkey factory in Dalton industrial estate in Vale of York has closed, with the loss of some 300 jobs. A large proportion of those jobs were held by agency workers. In what circumstances are those people eligible for jobseeker's allowance? Can he try to ensure that Jobcentre Plus is engaged at an earlier stage, before receivership is announced in a factory?
    Mr. Browne: As I pointed out, Jobcentre Plus and jobcentres deal with individuals as individuals. Of course, there are benefits and support that all workers who are made redundant and lose their jobs, whether they were held with agencies or directly with the employer, can, do and have received from Jobcentre Plus. Indeed, a fine example is what happened at MG Rover, which I recently visited with Jobcentre Plus staff from Birmingham. There are no more experienced people for helping just the sort of constituents to whom the hon. Lady refers. If I can be of any direct assistance to those constituents, I shall be happy to oblige.

    Deferred Pensions (Compensation)
    Kevin Brennan: If he will take steps to compensate deferred pensioners in final salary occupational pension schemes that are in the process of being wound up where the fund will not meet its obligations. [123532]
    The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained to my hon. Friend when they met last week, we are very sympathetic to the plight of his constituents and others in a similar position. Indeed, it is because of such cases that we are strengthening member protection and introducing a pensions protection fund. However, as we have made clear, while we will listen to constructive proposals, we do not want to give false hope.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I welcome him to his post and pay tribute to his predecessor, who also listened carefully to concerns about the issue that I have raised. Does he understand how ex-workers of Allied Steel and Wire feel, especially those who entered the steel industry when it was a nationalised industry and, as part of their conditions of employment, joined an occupational final salary pension scheme, paid into it for 40 years and found,

    747
    months short of retirement, that it would be worth a fraction of what they had reasonably anticipated? Does he understand that those pensioners look to a Labour Government and the Minister for Pensions in that Government to turn the slogan of fairness and security in retirement into a reality?
    Malcolm Wicks: I can understand that situation. These are groups of workers who have done absolutely the right and responsible thing in being part of the schemes, but who have suddenly been affected by a catastrophe. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and others in the House who are campaigning on the issue. I am afraid that I must repeat, however, that it would be wrong for Ministers to raise false hopes about a solution. We are clear that, for the future, we can legislate with the protection fund to insure against the occurrence of such a serious social accident. We are listening to ideas, but that is all I can say. It would be very wrong if Ministers made comments in the House that raised hopes that may not be realised
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will have realised from the question asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that the pensions crisis is biting deep for many hundreds of thousands of people. There is particular disappointment about the ministerial announcement on the crisis last month, about which the victims of funded pensions were very concerned. While I perfectly understand that it is right not to hold out false hope, surely the question of compensation must be seriously addressed in respect of this very serious matter.
    Malcolm Wicks: I share that concern, which I suspect is widespread in this House, but who would pay for that compensation; and if it is retrospective, how far back does one go? Those are difficult issues. The main task of Government is to ensure that such situations do not occur in future. I mentioned the pension protection fund. We are also going to require solvent employers who choose to wind up their pension schemes to meet their pension promise in full through a full buy-out. That is important. I can only repeat that whenever the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raise the issue, we will listen to any constructive proposals.
    Mr. Frank Field: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new brief and look forward to seeing how he develops it. He rightly said that the Government are much concerned about the hundreds of thousands of our constituents who have lost all or part of their pensions. As part of that urgency to find the right solution, will the Government back the Pensions (Winding Up) Bill on Friday, or will they block it again?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is important that we legislate where we can. I have referred to two major items among our own future pension legislation. Most of the key ideas in my right hon. Friend's Bill will be covered in the Government strategy; that is the best way to take the matter forward.
    Mr. John Bercow: I find myself in alarming agreement with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) in underlining the simple fact
    748
    that there is a great difference between an inability to meet a commitment and a patent unwillingness to do so. Can I implore the Minister, in a cross-party spirit, to underline at every turn the Government's intention to compel those who can pay to do so? It is unacceptable that large companies should deprive people of legitimate entitlements that were built up over a long period, and on the strength of which their expectations for their retirement are based.
    Malcolm Wicks: Where there are existing laws and regulations, that is absolutely right, and our officials in the Department give that kind of advice in such circumstances. However, existing law does not cover every circumstance. That is why it is important that we legislate for the future.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I have in my constituency ASW Sheerness, from which people were made redundant a year ago. What investigations is the Department undertaking as to whether orphan funds are an appropriate way to satisfy the current deficits? Has the Minister considered an insurance that is retrospective? What would be the costs of an insurance that was taken forward, while the backward part was in deficit? I hope that I made that clear.
    Malcolm Wicks: I repeat that we will seriously consider any proposals and are talking to hon. Members and other representatives. As regards orphan funds, that suggestion has been made, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—
    Mr. Frank Field: Unclaimed assets.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Malcolm Wicks: Another issue is that of unclaimed assets. However, there is no automatic connection between some of those funds and the pension crisis that we face. Many others who are facing past injustice could make legitimate claims. I have to repeat—we mean it seriously—that we will look at constructive proposals. It would be very wrong, however, if we made commitments in this House that we could not fulfil.

    Benefits Payment
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: How many benefit recipients have applied for (a) a Post Office card account and (b) a basic bank account. [123539]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): As of 27 June 2003, 450,000 customers have requested a Post Office card account. Almost 2 million customers have provided their bank account details. We do not differentiate between basic and current accounts when collecting

    749
    account details from customers. I am today placing in the Library the latest key figures on progress towards conversion to direct payment.
    Mr. Robathan: I think that it was before the hon. Gentleman took up his post that we had a debate on this issue during which the Minister for Pensions specifically stated that people were not being harassed into taking a basic bank account or having their payments made into their current card account. The very next day, I got a letter from a constituent who said, "I am 83 years old and I am being harassed not to take a Post Office card account." Will the Under-Secretary ensure that people have genuine choice, are allowed to have a Post Office
    750
    card account if they wish, and are not compelled to have some other form of automated credit transfer payment?
    Mr. Pond: As the hon. Gentleman knows, 450,000 people have taken Post Office card accounts up. Half of all pensioners have already applied for one, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions said a few moments ago. We are giving people genuine choices between a Post Office card account and a clearing bank account or a basic bank account. I shall be happy to consider the case that he suggests, but we want to ensure that people receive payment at the post office and on a weekly basis, if they wish. We are giving people genuine choices.

British Nationals (Guantanamo Bay)
3.30 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to ask his urgent question, I wish to make it clear that it is a narrowly focused question about UK nationals in Guantanamo bay. Supplementary questions should be brief and limited to the matter raised in it.
Mr. Douglas Hogg(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the continued detention and trial of the two UK nationals in Guantanamo bay and what he proposes to do to safeguard their interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): On 3 July, the United States designated six detainees, including two British nationals held at Guantanamo bay, as eligible for trial under a military commission. We have strong reservations about the military commission. We have raised, and will continue to raise them energetically with the US. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, about that over the weekend and will speak to him again in the next few days.
So far, neither of the detainees has been charged. However, we have made it clear to the US that we expect the process to fulfil internationally accepted standards of a fair trial. We will follow the process carefully.
The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. If there is any suggestion that the death penalty might be sought in these cases, we would raise the strongest possible objections.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I acknowledge that he has always shown a great interest in cases where there may be a miscarriage of justice.
Does the Minister share my concern for the plight of Mr. Begg and Mr. Abbasi? Under what law and in respect of what offences are they to be charged and tried? Is it correct that they are to stand trial before a military court? Will the trial take place in closed session? Does the tribunal have the power to impose the death penalty? Is it correct that there is no right of appeal outside the military process? Will the military choose the defence team?
What steps have the British Government taken to ensure that the men are tried for offences known to the law and before courts of usual competence in such matters? What steps have been taken to protect their civil rights? Does the Minister agree that the Americans' proposals are wrong, potentially unjust and gravely damaging to their reputation?
Mr. Mullin: As I hope I have made clear, we share the concerns that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and others have raised.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked under what law the men would be charged. We understand that "designation" means that the persons concerned
752
are subject to the order that governs military commissions and can now be charged and prosecuted. However, that is not automatic and we understand that matters will proceed on a case-by-case basis.
We are still seeking information about the conduct of any trial. Indeed, we continue to express strong views about the way in which we hope that a trial will be conducted. The same applies to the right of appeal.
We understand that the Americans will nominate the defence lawyers in some way. We are seeking further information about that, too. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into much detail, but many aspects are a cause of concern to us and we intend to pursue them all.
David Winnick: As someone whose loathing of terrorism is second to none, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is bound to be considerable concern in this country over how those two British citizens are to be tried by a military tribunal, and even more so at his mention of how the defence counsel is almost certainly to be appointed by the authorities? Should not the United States listen very closely and heed the concern of a close ally? I hope that it will do so, because the United States requires all the friends it can get.
Mr. Mullin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We hope that the United States will listen closely to the representations that he and others have made. Perhaps I should say that, in our view, it is strongly in the interests of the United States that these trials be conducted in a credible and transparent fashion, because that obviously will affect the respect in which the United States is held throughout the world.
Mr. Michael Moore: We must never lose sight of the terrible atrocities committed on 11 September 2001. All terrorists associated with those and other acts of international terrorism must be brought to justice, but that justice must be beyond reproach and match the highest possible international standards. The treatment of the detainees in Guantanamo bay falls well short of that. They have no legal status, the conditions in which they are kept are condemned by human rights groups, and British citizens are to be subject to a military tribunal which can impose the death penalty.
The Minister says that he has strong reservations. Surely people have the right to expect more than that. Does he believe that if the tables were reversed, the United States would even begin to tolerate such a situation for its citizens? Will he confirm the date when the Prime Minister last raised these matters with the President of the United States, and whether he has summoned the American ambassador to explain the situation? Will he tell us why the Foreign Secretary's stated preference for a repatriation of the UK citizens to try them here has been rebuffed, and what further steps he intends to take?
Mr. Mullin: As regards the conditions in which all those prisoners are held, the Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, made it clear that he regards the situation in Guantanamo bay as unsatisfactory. He has

753
indeed raised it with the Americans. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise dates off the top of my head, but as I said in my statement, the matter was last raised with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, over the weekend. It will be raised again repeatedly, I anticipate.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing this urgent question. I say to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary has not seen fit to come to answer this question when he was well enough to appear in Downing street this morning to defend the Government on another issue.
No one has been a stronger supporter of the war against terrorism than me, but as I said in last Thursday's debate in the House, there is now considerable public unease at what is happening in Guantanamo bay. We know that two British detainees are to face the tribunals. Last Thursday, I raised a number of serious questions in the debate, but I failed to get an answer. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary again on Friday, asking the same questions. I have not received a reply. Some have been raised again by my right hon. and learned Friend. May I raise one or two more?
What does the Minister understand to be the agreed format for bringing charges and for the subsequent trials of those detained at Guantanamo bay? Has any allowance been made for the fact that these are British citizens and British nationals? Will the tribunals proceed in public at any stage? Is he satisfied that the American military can provide an unbiased defence for those British nationals? What redress will be available to those who, I hope, may be released without charge in due course for spending time in Guantanamo Bay?
I say to the Minister, again with all respect, that his answer to the original question is unsatisfactory and that, after 17 months, there must be more precise details available to the House about how the tribunals will take place. We are told that the Government have been making representations to the American Government, but we need a detailed report on the extent of those representations and what their results have been.
We have accepted that in dealing with serious matters of terrorism force is sometimes necessary, and changes in rules and procedures are required, but we have always insisted that the rule of law must apply. Can the Minister assure us that that remains the case?
Mr. Mullin: First, may I apologise for not being the Foreign Secretary? Secondly, I will chase up the matter of the right hon. Gentleman's letter of last Friday. The precise way in which the trials will be conducted is not yet clear, and we are taking a close interest in that issue. Many of the questions that the right hon. Gentleman asks relate to matters that we are pursuing with the United States, and I can endorse his last point about our concern that the trials be conducted within the rule of law.
I should, however, add one note of caution, although in doing so I am in no way suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman was in any way hyping things up. It is probably not to the advantage of these defendants—or to that of any others—that we engage in megaphone
754
diplomacy with the United States. This is a delicate and sensitive issue that has to be pursued in a delicate and sensitive way, but I repeat: we are pursuing all the issues in which he is interested and we shall respond to his letter as soon as possible.
Geraint Davies: Feroz Abbasi, who is a constituent of mine, faces a stark choice: to plead guilty and serve a 20-year sentence, or to plead not guilty and face an unfair trial characterised by his not being able to pick his own defence lawyer. His mental health has been badly affected by being incarcerated for 18 months in a 2 sq m cage, with 15 minutes' exercise twice a week. He is unable to cross-examine the witnesses, who may present unreliable and critical evidence based on plea bargaining. The case will be decided behind closed doors by a judge and jury from the military, who are predisposed towards finding a guilty verdict and imposing the death penalty.
Will my hon. Friend now make every effort to ensure my constituent's repatriation and a fair trial in Britain, so that this kangaroo court in Guantanamo bay does not proceed? Otherwise, it could well result in the killing of my constituent, thereby playing into the hands of the terrorists and, indeed, of all those who want to undermine human rights, the rule of law and justice across the globe.
Mr. Mullin: I understand my hon. Friend's concern for his constituent, and I should point out that, as he is probably aware, Baroness Symons met Mr. Abbasi's mother and her lawyer this morning and discussed the case with them. One concern that we are pursuing with the Americans is that in our view, all the evidence concerning the case against these people must clearly be made available to them, so that they are in a position to rebut it.
We understand that the detainee does have the right to choose his own defence lawyer—if he meets the security requirements laid down by the Americans. However, it is clear that this matter will have to be checked out. As I have said, many of the details are not yet clearly known and we are seeking to establish them as soon as possible, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we are going to take a close interest in his constituent's welfare.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: What is the Government's position on the United States' view that the Geneva conventions do not apply to these people?
Mr. Mullin: It is something that we have discussed with the United States, and frankly, we disagree with them about it. It is an ongoing discussion.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Can my hon. Friend clarify the precise nature of the jurisdiction claimed by the United States over these alleged offences—given that so far, it has not been specifically alleged that they took place in United States' territory—or is the entire world now regarded by President Bush as being within his jurisdiction? Will my hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the United States

755
that the world will not tolerate what is regarded as a charade of justice, and that the death penalty is utterly unacceptable in this case, as indeed it is in others?
Mr. Mullin: We have already and repeatedly made that clear, and we shall continue to do so. Discussions have continued with the United States about the terms on which the prisoners are held and on which they will be tried. At this stage, it is too early to be specific.
Mr. Edward Garnier: If the Government's apparently strong reservations fail to protect the human rights of the two detainees, be they innocent or guilty under English or international law, what does the Minister propose to do about it?
Mr. Mullin: One thing I do not propose to do is to address the United States through a megaphone, which would have the opposite effect to the one the hon. and learned Gentleman and I seek. We must take events step by step. As I said to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the issue is delicate and sensitive, and it must be dealt with as such. I am sure that any Conservative Government would proceed in exactly the same way.
Ann Clwyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United States is already discriminating between US and non-US citizens? That is not permitted under international human rights law, but what is permitted is a fair trial, and it is clear that if discrimination is taking place, there is no possibility of that. My hon. Friend knows that I have raised the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo bay many times publicly and privately, and in eight questions. I believe that they should all along have been held under the Geneva convention, and we must tell the Americans, quite clearly, that the situation is not acceptable.
Mr. Mullin: We have made it clear to the Americans that many aspects of what has gone on at Guantanamo bay are not acceptable. We shall continue to do so. None the less, we must proceed step by step. It is a delicate situation, and that is all that I can say for the time being.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Minister said that the Government are raising the matter vigorously, but there is no evidence in what he has said that their action is indeed vigorous. The prosecution of British citizens has been on the cards for nearly two years, yet the Foreign Office seems woefully ignorant of the details of what that prosecution amounts to, or of whether those citizens are protected by prosecutors nominated by the court. It does not sound as though the Government are pursuing the matter vigorously, and this is a question of justice by international standards. The Government's vigour ought to indicate a little more fiercely that we hold strongly to the view of justice.
Mr. Mullin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have taken some interest during my brief and undistinguished parliamentary career in matters of justice. We have made our views known forcefully to the Americans. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Colin Powell on this matter as recently as the weekend, and there are plans for
756
further discussions. I do not think, however, that it will help anyone, least of all the two defendants referred to, if we start shouting and yah-booing at the Americans, which is not going to get us anywhere.
Mr. George Foulkes: I congratulate my hon. Friend and Baroness Symons on the vigorous way in which they have raised the matter. Does he share my concern that the more we talk about who represents the British defendants and what kind of trial there will be in the United States, the more we are distracted from what should be the Government's aim, which is to get those people here, to be dealt with under United Kingdom justice? Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government's principal aim? Will he also request the American ambassador to come in, which would be a highly symbolic act, in order that he may make it clear, not through a megaphone, but in the quiet but forceful way that I know he and the Foreign Secretary can deploy, that the matter is very important and that the ambassador should—I mean no disrespect to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—pay particular attention to those who regularly support the United States, most recently in Iraq, and who feel strongly that an injustice is being perpetrated?
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's congratulations. We will certainly make it clear to the Americans that it is in their interests that the matter should be dealt with openly and credibly. Bringing the defendants here to face trial is a more difficult issue. It has certainly been thought about, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Since the Americans have refused to transfer the British detainees to a British court, what steps have the Government taken to ask for them to be transferred to a court under the auspices of the United Nations, such as the International Criminal Court?
Mr. Mullin: It would clearly be desirable for any trial to take place in a form that guarantees maximum international credibility, but the form in which it is likely to take place is that which is decided on by the Americans, and the precise terms of that are what we are currently discussing.
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend seemed to have some difficulty earlier defining the legal status of Guantanamo bay. What is the Government's interpretation of any law under which two British nationals have been held for 18 months without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation, and, as I understand it, in very poor conditions indeed? On exactly how many occasions have the British Government raised with the United States Government concerns about that and demands that the prisoners be repatriated to this country to face trial, if there are charges against them?
Mr. Mullin: I cannot tell my hon. Friend on how many occasions the matter has come up, but it has come up repeatedly, and at all levels of the Government. I myself, in a previous incarnation, took part in a number

757
of conversations on the subject. The Prime Minister made it clear from the outset that the situation of the detainees at Guantanamo bay is unsatisfactory and cannot continue indefinitely.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In the eventuality that the American prosecuting authorities were to tell the British Government that these persons had been engaged in armed combat against British soldiers in Afghanistan, what would be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Would they ask the Americans to bring them back to this country for trial on charges of high treason?
Mr. Mullin: We are not going down that road for the moment. I was asked earlier about the jurisdiction under which the detainees are held and are to be tried. It is a US presidential order. As hon. Members probably know, the United States regards the detainees as enemy combatants and subject to US military regulations. Whether we agree with it or not, that is the position of the United States.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: I, too, have three constituents among the detainees, and I share the concerns that have been raised about the proposed judicial procedures for the two who have been named. Have the US authorities given any indication yet about whether the three detainees from Tipton will be tried, and if so, under what judicial procedures?
Mr. Mullin: No, I am afraid that I do not have any information about plans to try my hon. Friend's three constituents. Only the six who have so far been mentioned, including the two British citizens, have been designated as liable for trial.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: While the interests of the British detainees are extremely important, and it is an outrage and a scandal that the Americans have treated Mr. Walker, an American citizen, differently from the others, the more profound issue here is that the whole way in which the Americans are conducting this business is a considerable defeat for the values that we are all seeking to defend against terrorism. Is it not about time that language such as "delicate and sensitive", "strong reservations", and "cause for concern" was abandoned in favour of the megaphone, to convince the Americans of the folly of their actions?
Mr. Mullin: No, I do not think that megaphone diplomacy ever works, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, we will not go down that road for the time being. It would not do the six individuals, or indeed the other prisoners at Guantanamo bay, the slightest bit of good. It might give the hon. Gentleman some temporary satisfaction, but it would not make the situation any better.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that the Nuremberg and Tokyo military tribunals offer precedents for ways of dealing with people who have been accused both of atrocities and of waging illegal warfare? Would it not be a more
758
constructive approach to the Americans to remind them of those precedents and of the fact that both those tribunals were held in the full glare of international publicity, with the defendants given every opportunity to put their side of the case?
Mr. Mullin: Yes, that point is well taken. There are a number of precedents for dealing with enemy combatants captured in this way, if that is what they are. However, the road chosen by the US is clearly set down, and we have to negotiate around that position.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister remind the Americans that presidential orders are trumped by international law, and that all America's friends, while understanding the difficult and sensitive issues surrounding these issues, nevertheless deeply regret the harm being done to America's cause by their behaviour on this matter?
Mr. Mullin: Yes, I certainly will pass that on. Indeed, I shall pass to the American ambassador the record of our exchanges this afternoon, so that the Americans can see for themselves how strongly Members of the House feel about that.
Simon Hughes: The Minister told us what the Americans say are their jurisdictional rights, but will he tell us clearly whether the British Government believe that every non-American citizen held in Guantanamo bay should be subject to some legal jurisdiction? If so, which jurisdiction—American, British or international law?
Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, people are currently in the custody of the Americans and American law is being applied. As I told the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) a moment ago, it is around that that we have to negotiate, and that is how it is going to be for the foreseeable future. I repeat that we have said repeatedly that the present position in Guantanamo bay—and, indeed, the proposed military tribunal—is not satisfactory, and that we believe that there are better ways of handling those matters.
Sir Patrick Cormack: While it is important for the Minister to pass on to the Americans the spirit of this afternoon's exchanges, will he also tell the Americans that we understand why those people were detained and that it is important—on this occasion, as on others—to take the greater safety of the greater number into account?
Mr. Mullin: Yes, we all understand why those people were detained and that it is entirely right for them to face any legitimate charges against them. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be better if the entire process commanded international confidence, which is what we are pressing for.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Is the Minister aware that The Economist reported in January that
"American intelligence agents have been torturing terrorist suspects. They have been handing over suspects to countries such as Egypt, whose intelligence agencies have a reputation for brutality"?

759
What efforts have the Government made to establish whether those reports are true, and what do such reports and the forthcoming trial say about the extent—or lack of it—of British influence over American policy at this time?
Mr. Mullin: Yes, I have read the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers. British officials have paid five visits to assess the welfare of the half—dozen British citizens who are held at Guantanamo bay. Those detainees are obviously our prime concern and we have the greatest influence—hopefully—over their fate. We have taken a closer interest in the welfare of our citizens than any other country with detainees there, and we have also raised general issues about the way in which the Guantanamo bay detainees are held and treated and in the manner of their trial. I did, indeed, read the reports and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Hugh Robertson: I wholly share the concerns expressed throughout the House about the intolerable circumstances there, but is the Minister in a position to tell us whether any of the intelligence gained from the detainees will be any use in the war against terrorism?
Mr. Mullin: I regret that I am not in that position.
Mr. George Osborne: In replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Minister went further than in other replies to say that he thought that America was in breach of the Geneva convention. Will he elaborate on what he said and also tell us what sanctions are available for countries in breach of that convention?
Mr. Mullin: I think that the hon. Gentleman's question concerns whether the Geneva convention should apply to the detainees, and I have already made it clear that, in our view, it should.

Points of Order
3.59 pm
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday 7 May, I asked the Prime Minister:
"Does he also agree that all future conflicts will equally depend on RAF Lyneham?"
He replied:
"I think that I know the point behind the question, having visited the base … I accept and understand the very important role that it has played in previous conflicts"—
this is the key point—
"and, I have no doubt at all, will play in future conflicts, too."—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.]
However, in a written statement on Friday, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence said that
"if no further Defence use is identified for RAF Lyneham, the Station will be closed and disposed of."
That news, of course, came as a devastating blow to the 10,000 people in my constituency whose livelihoods depend on RAF Lyneham. Does not that statement bring Prime Minister's Question Time into further disrepute, and have you had any indication from the Prime Minister that he intends to come to the House to make a personal apology for what was, by any standards, a substantially misleading remark?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the Prime Minister; the replies Ministers give are not a matter for me.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that that important announcement, which will damage the RAF's air transport capability in the future, was made in the form of a written statement. Can you use your influence with the Government to ensure that announcements of such significance and magnitude are made in the proper way—by oral statement to the House?
Mr. Speaker: My understanding, from the glance at Hansard that has been possible, is that the issue will not arise
"until after the aircraft goes out of service by 2012."—[Official Report, 4 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 38WS.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and others will have some time to pursue the matter.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not providing notice of my point, but are you aware of paragraph 137 of the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, entitled "The Decision to go to War in Iraq", which reads:
"We further conclude that by referring to the document"—
the second dossier—
"on the floor of the House as 'further intelligence' the Prime Minister—who had not been informed of its provenance, doubts about which only came to light several days later—misrepresented its status and thus inadvertently made a bad situation worse."?
Given that the author of the main article on which the dossier was based, Mr. Ibrahim al-Marashi, testified to the Committee that his article and two other articles

761
from Jane's Intelligence Review accounted for 90 per cent. of the second dossier, is it not clear that the Prime Minister did inadvertently mislead the House? Have you heard from him that he intends to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to set the record straight?
Mr. Speaker: Technically, the Prime Minister is coming before the House, because the Liaison Committee meets tomorrow—
Mr. Eric Forth: No.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will be questioned by that Committee. In fact, the Liaison Committee meeting was set for tomorrow in order that the document that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) mentions would be available.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I personally asked the Prime Minister a question on the second dodgy dossier, and I also wrote to him a month ago asking him to come to the House or to provide a written apology to me and others who asked specific questions on that issue. I accept that Committees carry out work on our behalf, but we are not all members of Committees. Is there no way in which a Member who has received such a reply from the Prime Minister can receive an apology on the Floor of the House, as we would expect from any other hon. Member?
Mr. Speaker: Apologies are for the Prime Minister and any other Minister with whom the hon. Lady takes issue. As I stated, the Prime Minister will have to give an account of his stewardship at tomorrow's Liaison Committee, which was set up by the House. The Prime Minister may also be asked questions, similar to those that the hon. Lady has put to me, at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely you are not suggesting, are you, that the Liaison Committee is now a substitute for the House of Commons? However eminent, important and superior it may be, it is not the equivalent of the Floor of the House of Commons and it does not give Members at large the opportunity to question Ministers. I do not want an
762
immediate response from you, but I hope that you will not depart from the time-honoured principle that it is the whole House that is able to hold Ministers—including the Prime Minister—to account in the proper way. The Prime Minister must be prepared to come to the House, make a statement and answer questions from hon. Members as a whole, and not just go before a group of the elite and answer its questions.
Mr. Speaker: I am not changing policy. The Prime Minister will appear before the Committee tomorrow. That does not exclude the House from demanding anything, or from seeking the views of the Prime Minister on any other matter when the time comes. The House decided that the Liaison Committee would meet and that the Committee should ask questions tomorrow.
Pete Wishart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that none of the minority parties has seats on the Liaison Committee. What can you do to ensure that we in the minority parties will also have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on this serious and significant issue?
Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the usual channels. At the moment, I have enough problems with that.
Mr. David Wilshire: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are eating into Opposition time. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that?
Mr. Wilshire: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from a comment that you made a moment ago when you said that the House had decided that the Prime Minister would appear before the Liaison Committee. I am not aware that the House had decided that. My understanding was that the Prime Minister had decided that he would do it that way. Is there something that I have missed, namely a resolution of the House that the Prime Minister should attend?
Mr. Speaker: There is something that the hon. Gentleman has missed. The House set up the Liaison Committee and the House has given the Committee authority to call witnesses before it. Tomorrow, the witness will be the Prime Minister.

Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Government Targets
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the abject failure of the Government to meet its targets for delivery on public services; believes the current public service agreement regime to be deeply flawed; is concerned in particular that the volume of targets and their rigid and centralised structure have stifled local initiative, diminished professional responsibility, distorted priorities and diverted time and attention away from the task of improving public services; regrets that the Government has used targets as a substitute for real reform; and calls on the Government to embrace the principles of professional autonomy, decentralisation, diversity and choice in the public services, in order to end its policy of taxing and spending and failing.
  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  This debate is about the Government's record of tax and spend and fail. A fortnight ago, the Leader of the House called for an honest debate on tax. It is little wonder that he was slapped down. An honest debate on tax is the last thing the Government want. This is a Government who promised that they had no plans to increase tax at all, but have increased taxes 60 times and taken almost £44 a week extra in tax for every man, woman and child in Britain.
  Every year, the Government excuse their broken promises on tax because, they argue, that is the price that people have to pay if they want better public services. Every year, they say, there will be reform to improve public services. As the Chancellor said:
  "There is not to be one penny more until we get the changes."
  At the heart of the Chancellor's reforms was his system of public service agreements. They were, he said,
  "a contract for the renewal of public services".—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 316, c. 188.]
  In those heady days, the Prime Minister backed up his Chancellor. He said:
  "By publishing clear measurable targets, we are making it possible for everyone to judge whether we meet them."
  So it is time to take the Prime Minister and the Chancellor at their word. It is time to judge them by their performance against their targets.
  Of course, that is easier said than done. Many of the Government's targets cannot be measured. The Treasury set itself a target of 2.5 per cent. annual efficiency gains. Four years later, it decided that it was unable to measure that.
  Other targets were targets to set targets. The Crown Prosecution Service and the Lord Chancellor's Department were set a target to set a target for reducing the time from arrest to sentence. Alas, they have not yet been able to assess progress on that target to set a target. Although the Lord Chancellor's report says that the target to set a target should have been met by March
  764
  2001, more than two years later that target, alas, still has not been set. Indeed, it seems that the Lord Chancellor's Department will go to its grave not having met its target to set itself a target.
  We must do the best we can, and the reality is that reports admit that more than a third of the targets set in 1998 have not been met, and a similar pattern is emerging for the 2000 targets. I emphasise that that is based on the Government's own information.
  What is the Government's response to that failure? Do they intend to change their approach to the public services? Not at all First, they try to downplay the figures. Failing some targets, they say, is not too bad—they were challenging targets, ambitious targets—so hitting a fair few and missing the rest is really quite good. Of course, that is not what they said when they launched them. Then, the PSA targets were described as agreements between the Chancellor and the Departments concerned—contracts, in return for the largesse that the Chancellor was providing from the taxpayer. If the contracts were not honoured, there would be consequences. The Chancellor said:
  "Money will be released only if Departments keep to their plans."—[Official Report, 14 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 188.]
  Downplaying the figures is not all that the Government do; it is not their only response. The Government's second response is to invent a whole new lexicon of euphemisms to disguise failure—their failure to meet education literacy targets: "Falling a little short"; failure on crime: "Further progress is needed in some areas"; and failure to tackle the delayed discharge of older people from hospital: "Challenges remain". In respect of the Treasury's own failed target on productivity, where productivity growth has halved and the gap with the US widened: "Outcomes mixed so far". [Interruption.] The Chancellor says from a sedentary position that I have given this speech before. He is right, and I shall give it again because these charges are true, these charges are sound and these charges demonstrate the failure of the Chancellor and the Government to improve this country's public services.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that another euphemism for failed targets is "Conservative Government"? Does not he accept that the failure to set challenging targets was what brought down his Administration?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is living in a dream world, and I shall leave him in that dream world.
  The Government's third response to failure is to try to hide the truth. With 1 million families not receiving the tax credits for which they are eligible, what of the Inland Revenue target to deliver improvements in the number receiving their entitlements? There is no overall assessment. Today, the Commission for Integrated Transport says that Ministers have "overpromised and underdelivered" on the transport plan. The Government are failing to meet the five targets that really matter. Yet, with one in four trains now late, the Department for Transport has made no overall assessment of its target to secure improvements in punctuality and reliability on the railways.

  765
  Even worse, other failures are counted as being passed or on course, such as the Treasury target of achieving an improvement in value for money in public services, year by year. In the real world, a 22 per cent. increase in national health service funding over two years led to a 1.6 per cent. rise in hospital treatments, but in the Chancellor's target world his target to secure better value for money in the public is somehow "on course."
  Let us take the education target to cut the number of pupils in classes of more than 30 to zero by September 2001. In the real world, in September 2001, 8,000 five, six and seven-year-olds remained in classes of more than 30, and the figure has doubled since, but in the Chancellor's target world none of that is true. That target was passed, according to the Government. What a wonderful place the Chancellor's target world must be—a world where a failure is a pass, a failure is a success, Tim Henman wins Wimbledon every year and the Government have kept their promises on the public services.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: In my constituency, two new primary schools have just been built and are about to be opened and a secondary school and another primary school are planned. Why were they not delivered when the Conservative Government were in power for 18 years?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that no new schools were built during the years of the Conservative Government, he is living in a dream world too, and he ought to give credit to the Conservative-controlled county council for the part that it has played in delivering those improvements in his constituency.
  When this Government make ludicrous claims such as 87 per cent. or 93 per cent. of targets being met, as the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have, is it any wonder that they are accused of cheating and of misleading people? A memorandum to the Public Administration Committee exposes the fact that they believe that they have missed or have been unable to evaluate more than a third of the targets; they merely hoped that no one would do the arithmetic. Is it any wonder that the credibility of the Chancellor's target regime is now at rock bottom? Is it any wonder that no one believes a word that the Government say? The fact is that, on any reasonable assessment, they have not even managed to keep their failure rate down to a third. In reality, the number failed is considerably higher. Looking at the 2000 targets for which it is possible to make an assessment, it is clear that more than half are currently not on course to be met.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Government have set a target that 90 per cent. of people going into accident and emergency should be seen within four hours, and that the target is measured in the last week of each quarter? Has he seen the figures from the Surrey and Sussex strategic health authority, which show that for 12 weeks out of 13 it failed dismally to reach that target, and the figure was about 80 per cent? In the last
  766
  week, it cancelled leave, brought in supply staff and, miraculously, the figure went up to 90 per cent. Does not that show how the targets are fiddled?
  Mr. Howard: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing those figures to the attention of the House. That is an important target, to which I shall return in due course. That target and its consequences speak volumes for the failure of the Government on public services.
  Mr. Tom Harris: One of the Government's targets that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet mentioned—perhaps he will later in his speech—is to have 30,000 new nurses and 15,000 new doctors in the NHS by 2008. Does the Conservative party agree with that target?
  Mr. Howard: I will tell the hon. Gentleman this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] I am answering his question. I will tell him this about the number of new doctors in the health service—[Interruption.] The Health Secretary should listen instead of muttering from a sedentary position. The Government are always telling us how many new doctors are in the health service. It takes seven years to train a doctor, so if there are that many new doctors in the health service they must have started their training before this Government took office.
  What is most serious, however, is that the sheer number of targets and their centralised nature have often made things much worse. They have distorted priorities, stifled local initiative, contributed to the feeling of disillusionment among doctors, nurses, teachers and police officers, encouraged cheating and diverted time and attention away from the task of improving front-line services.
  The Chancellor's one big idea on the public services has not only turned into a shambolic farce but has been counter-productive. It has not only been a substitute for real reform but has taken things in the wrong direction. For example, the Government set a target for reducing school exclusions by a third. They have not met it. In the course of trying to meet it, however, they have achieved a massive decline in standards of discipline in our schools.
  The effects on the national health service have, if anything, been even more serious. Last week, Dr. Ian Bogle, the retiring chairman of the British Medical Association, said that the Government were turning the NHS into an organisation governed by "spreadsheets and tick boxes". It had become, he said,
  "the most centralised public service in the free world".
  One trauma surgeon at the Oxford Radcliffe hospital told the BBC's "Panorama" last week that there are people
  "hobbling around now who would have walked"
  had it not been for NHS targets distorting priorities. "Panorama" reported yet more serious results: because of the target to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) referred, whereby waiting times in accident and emergency start when a patient is officially handed over to hospital staff, patients have been left waiting in ambulances outside the hospital for five hours. While ambulances stand idle, it takes longer

  767
  to answer 999 calls. This is the question that I ask the Chancellor: how many people have died because ambulances are not answering 999 calls as quickly as they would have done had it not been for his targets?
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The situation in the national health service is even worse than the picture that my right hon. and learned Friend paints. Is he aware that, to avoid having to report that people are waiting in trolleys in accident and emergency departments, trolleys are simply moved to corridors outside the departments so that there are no longer trolley waits in A and E departments?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is right, and that is only one example of the cheating that occurs in the national health service as a consequence of the targets.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): As the right hon. and learned Gentleman made the poisonous suggestion that people are dying rather than being saved, will he acknowledge that under the Conservative Government there were 400,000 fewer operations every year and 50,000 fewer nurses, and that general practitioner training—in complete contradiction of what he said when he inadvertently misled the House 10 minutes ago—was cut by 25 per cent.? Does he accept that 100,000 people every month now go through accident and emergency departments in fewer than four hours, whereas, under the Conservative Government, people had to sit in pain and discomfort because of cuts in the national health service?
  Mr. Howard: No, I do not. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of one of the statistics that he did not mention. If things are so wonderful in the national health service under this Government, why do three times as many people without any insurance—300,000 people a year—now have to pay for their own operations? It is because they are so distressed by the treatment and waits that they face in the NHS over which he presides.
  In the light of all that, is it any wonder that the Chancellor's colleagues are deserting him and disowning his targets? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said—
  Mr. John Bercow: Where is she?
  Mr. Howard: It is not surprising that the right hon. Lady is not here because she would not want to hear what I am about to remind the House of. She said:
  "I think in the past we have sometimes fallen into the trap of frankly having too many targets".
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that the situation had nothing to do with him. He said:
  "There've been more and more targets imposed on the National Health Service since I ceased to be the Health Secretary and there weren't very many imposed by me".
  Even the Prime Minister says:
  "Maybe we have too many".
  768
  The Chancellor seems to stand alone. Ever the centraliser, he is the only member of the Cabinet who is still prepared to defend his rigid and centralised targets, and it is for him to justify them today. After six years of tax rises, five years of public service agreements and literally hundreds of targets, where are the improvements to the public services that we were promised?
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I raised with the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), correspondence from consultants in Wonford hospital in Exeter showing that the craven focus on targets meant that they could no longer make clinical judgments about people on the list who had deteriorated and whose treatment needed to be brought forward. Is this not an example of the Government thinking that they know better than people who have trained for many years and who put patients' interests first?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right.
  What is the result of all the targets? In the national health service, there are now more administrators than beds. A survey today reported that the national health service ranks between services in Slovenia and Poland for offering choice to patients. As I said, 300,000 patients without insurance were forced to go private last year—not by choice but because the service on the NHS is so poor.
  Figures today from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority show that one in three children left primary school last year unable to read, write or count properly. Last year, more than 30,000 students left school without a single qualification. The gap between children in Britain's inner cities and elsewhere is growing. The British people are right to think that they deserve better. People are right to demand that the Government stop wasting their money. People are right to demand that the Government end their obsession with ludicrous targets, which prevent public service reform, not promote it. People are right to demand a Government who give them a fair deal.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's diatribe against targets generally, if he were in charge of a major programme of public investment, how would he control it to ensure that the money achieves what is intended; or is it that he does not expect himself or his party ever to be involved in a major programme of public investment?
  Mr. Howard: It is certainly not the latter. The hon. Gentleman asks that question at the right time because I am about to deal with precisely that point.
  There is another way—a better way: the way of real reform. Real reform means allowing teachers to restore discipline in their classrooms. It means allowing police officers to get back on the streets to fight crime. It means allowing doctors to treat patients on the basis of clinical need, without constant diktats from Whitehall. It means trusting professionals to get on with their job. It means being willing to learn from the success of other countries. We want the priorities in our public services

  769
  to be driven by the needs and wishes of patients, parents and local communities, not by distant civil servants sitting behind a desk in Whitehall.
  Last week, the Prime Minister told us what he had to offer: his 10th relaunch—more of the same. He said:
  "Six years is not such a long time in government"
  All he needs is a bit more time. He says that better public services are just around the corner, but that is where they always are. In 1997, he told us that there were 24 hours in which to save the national health service. In 1998, he said that the Government were delivering on their promises. In his new year's message, he said that 1999 would be the year of delivery on promises that the Government made, and that 2000 would be
  "when things would really start to happen".
  In 2001, Alastair Campbell said that
  "transformed public services is the key delivery aim of the second"
  term. But now they say that they need a third term in which to do that. They said they would do it in their first term. Then they said they would do it in their second. Now they say they will do it next term—in other words, some time never. All they have to show for their six years in office are higher taxes, failing services and more empty promises.
  The Government no longer even try to claim that services have improved; instead, they admit defeat. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said so memorably on the "Today" programme on Friday:
  "When we talked about delivery, that may have been something of a mistake … We are not in government in order to show that we can be more competent than the Conservative Party was".
  After fiddling the figures and inventing a new vocabulary to disguise their failure, they are finally giving up. They still are not tackling the root cause of their failure: the total absence of real reform of the public services. Instead, they are preparing to ditch the one way in which they said their success on the public services should be measured—the yardstick against which they asked people to judge them. They know that they are being measured and judged. They know that everyone knows they are failing. So what do they do? They ditch the targets.
  "I think values are more important than targets",
  said the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Friday.
  "It can come across as a bit technocratic, a bit managerial",
  said the Prime Minister.
  "The Government had never said that setting targets was the totality of its approach to public service reform",
  said the Prime Minister's spokesman. No longer do they stand for delivery, they say. No longer do they stand for any pretensions to competence and no longer do they want their performance to be measured. They have broken their promises on tax, and because they have broken their promises on real reform they have broken their promises on the public services, too.
  Can there ever have been a Government who raised people's hopes so high, only to see them so cruelly dashed? Can there ever have been a Government who
  770
  have promised so much, but delivered so little? All they offer for the future are more empty promises. This is a Government who have lost their purpose. This is a Government who have lost their direction. This is a Government who have now lost every vestige of their legitimacy to govern. The sooner they go the better it will be for patients, parents and all the people of this country.
  4.29 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's record extra investment in health, education and Britain's other vital public services; supports the Government's agenda of linking this investment to public service reform through Public Service Agreements to build high quality public services for all; welcomes the attainment of economic stability, with low inflation, low interest rates, and low unemployment; believes that the achievement of this platform of stability has made record extra investment in public services possible; supports the Government's determination to do nothing to put this stability at risk; believes that after years of neglect between 1979 and 1997 it is even more important to invest in our public services and that to fail to invest in health, education, and other vital public services would be deeply damaging; and supports this Government's resistance to any attempt at this time of global economic uncertainty to cut public spending."
  The Shadow Chancellor failed to tell the House that we have met our school class size target, our school exams pass target and our nursery places target. [Interruption.] The Opposition say that we have not met our class size target. We said that children should not be in classes of more than 30 pupils. When we came into power there were 450,000 children in classes of more than 30, and we have eliminated that problem, so we have met our class size target.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a moment.
  We have also met the main juvenile offenders target, concerning the time between arrest and sentence; our homelessness target; and our debt relief target. It is interesting that the shadow Chancellor should spend half an hour talking about targets and fail to mention all the economic targets. We have met our inflation target, our debt target, our public borrowing target and our employment target. We said that 250,000 young people would move from welfare to work, and we not only met but far exceeded that target.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a minute.
  We will take no lectures from the Conservative party about meeting targets. The shadow Chancellor was a member of the Cabinet when inflation, which they said would be low went up to 10 per cent; when interest rates, which they promised would come down went up to 15 per cent; when public borrowing increased to 8 per cent; when 1 million people in manufacturing lost their jobs; and when unemployment went up to 3 million. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has no basis on which to

  771
  lecture us—he is the last surviving member of the 1992 Cabinet on the Conservative Front Bench, and he should be ashamed of what he did.
  Mr. Howard: Can I now invite the Chancellor back into the real world? Can he confirm that on the last two occasions on which he set growth targets for the economy, he woefully failed to deliver? As for class sizes, can he confirm that his target was to eliminate the number of pupils in classes of over 30 by September 2001, but in September 2001 there were 8,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of over 30, and the figure has doubled since 2001? It is going up, so how can he conceivably say that he met that target?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman exaggerates the position, as he did throughout his speech. On growth, we said that we would raise the trend rate of growth of the British economy, and that is what we have done. We have raised the trend rate of growth from 2.5 per cent. to 2.75 per cent.
  How would it be possible for us to do any more on class sizes or any other aspect of education if we accepted the shadow Chancellor's recommendation to cut education expenditure? Under the Conservatives, there were 50,000 fewer teachers; under Labour, there are 25,000 more.
  Mr. David Laws rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a minute.
  The great thing about this debate is that we now have the Conservative party's policy documents before us, allowing us to compare what would happen to cost-effectiveness, choice, delivery and the elimination of waste under a Conservative Government with what is happening under a Labour Government. In the last few days, the Conservative party has helpfully published a document entitled "Setting Patients Free". Its theme is moving patients into the private sector by subsidising payment for private operations. It would be helpful for us to compare the effect of that with what the health service is achieving.
  We know that the number of out-patient attendances in the NHS has risen under a Labour Government from 11.5 million to 12.9 million. We know that the number of elective admissions has risen from 4.5 million to 5.5 million. But what would happen under the Conservative party's proposals? What would be the cost of operations, as against the cost in the NHS? Can we judge how many people would get operations under the Conservatives' proposals? What would the cost of those operations be? What is the effect of the Conservatives' proposals on administrative waste, and on choice and delivery?
  I have a document helpfully published this morning on the internet—not a PhD thesis, just a document from BUPA. [Interruption.] Nobody can claim that the BUPA document has been "sexed up". The cost of a heart bypass, as BUPA helpfully told us today—this is a 10 per cent. rise on the cost that we were told a few weeks ago—is£11,500to£14,500. The cost of hernia treatment under BUPA is £1,400 to £1,950. The cost of a knee replacement is £8,500 to £10,800. The cost of a hip replacement is £7,000 to £9,000.
  772
  The interesting thing, and the reason why I cite those figures, is that they allow us a comparison with the costs in the national health service, so we can now see whether the Conservative policy—[Interruption.] Is the shadow Chancellor denying that the Conservative policy is to subsidise people having private operations? Is he denying that the Conservative policy is to put public money into subsidising private health insurance? If that is the case, are we not entitled to ask, on the basis of the Conservative motion today, what is more cost-effective, what helps reduce administrative costs, and what will deliver the most operations?
  Let me give the House the figures. Conservative Members will be interested, because they will have to explain this to their constituents during the forthcoming elections. Let us see which is more cost-effective. A hip replacement under BUPA costs £7,000 to £9,000, according to the table issued today. What is the NHS tariff? It is £4,500. A knee replacement costs £8,500 to £10,800 under BUPA. What is the NHS cost? It is £4,800—half as much. What is the cost of varicose veins treatment under BUPA? From £1,400 to £1,900. What is the cost in the NHS? It is £1,000. A hysterectomy—
  Mr. Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am happy to do so, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can confirm those costs.
  Mr. Howard: If the cost of operations in the private sector is so much more than in the national health service, perhaps the Chancellor can explain to the House why the number of people who have elected to go to the private sector for those operations has tripled since the Government came to office—300,000 a year, compared with 100,000 a year when Labour came to office. Is not that whole tirade from the Chancellor doublespeak for saying that the NHS is more cost-effective because people cannot have their operations on the NHS? They have to wait so long for their operations on the NHS that they pay to go private instead.
  Mr. Brown: No. The reason why I mention the figures is to show that if you want to give patients a better deal, you invest more in the NHS, which is half as expensive as investing in the private sector. The shadow Chancellor and the shadow health spokesman know very well that what they are proposing is that people be invited to pay twice as much in the private sector as in the NHS, but what would be more cost-effective for the country would be to build up the capacity of the NHS by spending more, rather than investing in private care.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am happy to give way to the man who told the Conservative Medical Society that his aim was to run down the national health service and to prove that it could never work.
  Dr. Fox: If the Chancellor is giving such great hope to patients in the NHS, perhaps he could explain one figure—the Government's own figure, which said that last year, despite the increase in expenditure, the number

  773
  of admissions to NHS hospitals fell by 0.5 per cent. What does that say about value for money under the Government?
  Mr. Brown: The number of elective admissions to the NHS has risen from 4.5 million to 5.5 million. The number of out-patient admissions has risen from 11.5 million to 12.9 million. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny that more people are receiving operations, being admitted and getting treatment, and that more operations are occurring.
  The policy question that the shadow Chancellor has not faced up to, as he has given way to the shadow Health Secretary on the question of funding, is that the first public expenditure commitment that he made was to put money into private medicine. The second commitment that he made was a tax commitment to give tax relief to private medicine. He has got to explain to this House why it is more cost-effective to put money into private medical care when the cost per operation is twice as much.
  Mr. Michael Jack rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the former Minister.
  Mr. Jack: Will the Chancellor tell the House what the current level of national health service expenditure is in buying operations from the very suppliers that he has mentioned? Will he also tell us how much the national health service is spending to send patients abroad? I have asked two questions, so can he give two answers?
  Mr. Brown: The national health service—the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on this—is absolutely right to buy operations in the private sector where there is spare capacity and everybody receives their operations free of charge in a national health service that is free at the point of need. The policy question that the Opposition have not worked through is why it is in the interests of the country to invest substantial additional amounts on building up capacity in the private sector when the cost per operation in the private sector, on the basis of the figures that he has not denied, is twice as great as in the public sector.
  Gregory Barker: Is the Chancellor aware that his lectures on cost-effectiveness will ring very hollow indeed with my constituents? Women in my constituency who are waiting for radiotherapy treatment following breast cancer surgery are having to wait up to 24 weeks under this Government, when their surgeon says that they should be waiting three or four weeks. That figure has spiralled under his Government. It does not matter what the price is in the national health service if the treatment is simply not available.
  Mr. Brown: Given that under the Conservative Government, only 63 per cent. of people suspected of having cancer saw a consultant within two weeks—the figure is now 98 per cent.—that is a ridiculous allegation coming from the hon. Gentleman. I have his election manifesto. Perhaps he will explain to me why he is now
  774
  saying to his electorate something quite different from what he said in the general election. He said that Conservatives would spend more on the NHS. He also said, by the way, that they would spend more on the police, education and transport. How does he justify the 20 per cent. cuts in public expenditure that the Opposition propose, and the shadow Chancellor's refusal to commit the Conservative party to spending as much on the health service as the Labour party?
  Mrs. Browning: Can the Chancellor not understand that, laudable as it may be that somebody whom a GP suspects of having cancer sees a consultant within two weeks, which is fine, the Government have, by meeting that target, pushed into the distance the vital treatment that cancer patients need? That is what causes the failure in the way in which they are treated. That is what is happening under his Government, and it is wicked.
  Mr. Brown: More people are receiving cancer treatment in the national health service. The number has risen from 1.2 million to 1.34 million. If the hon. Lady will not admit the facts of the matter, she is seeking, like the shadow Chancellor, to continue to mislead people.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he agrees with his Front-Bench policy of not matching our spending on the health service.
  Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, as this is truly a hysterical speech from a rattled Chancellor in a clapped-out Government under a dodgy Prime Minister. Will he now tell the House why the target to cut by 40 per cent. the number of deaths resulting from strokes has been dropped?
  Mr. Brown: It has not. We are committed by 2010 to cut by 40 per cent. the number of people who die from heart disease. [HON. MEMBERS: "Strokes!"] I am trying to tell the hon. Gentleman what the commitment is.
  Mr. Howard: Does the Chancellor know the difference between heart disease and a stroke?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked about strokes. We have made a commitment: there is a 40 per cent. cut to be achieved. We have already achieved 18 per cent. of that. In 1997, there were 39,000 heart operations; now, there are 54,000 heart operations. We have made tremendous advances through our heart strategy, and we shall continue to do so.
  Conservative Members have to explain why their main policy plank for the next election, which was announced only a few days ago, is to put extra money into a private sector that is costing twice as much, and therefore to deny the national health service the resources that it needs.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I am making progress. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, you are not."]

  775
  The second question that the Conservatives must ask themselves when comparing the cost efficiency and administrative savings that are likely under our policy, as against theirs, is whether their policy is fair, as well as being more cost-effective. Under the Conservative policy, as the Opposition health spokesman confirmed in his press statements only a few days ago, anybody who has a hip joint operation, a knee joint operation or a heart operation will have to pay a substantial amount of money—
  Dr. Fox: It is very clear that the Labour party, whenever it gets into a corner, resorts to the oldest trick of all, which is to lie, lie and lie again on a particular subject. It has been made perfectly clear that under the Conservative plans for a patient passport, patients will be able to take the NHS tariff to any NHS hospital that they want to go to; only if the patient chooses to go outside the NHS will they be able to take some of that money with them. There is a crucial difference between the Chancellor's view of tax and ours. He believes that when taxpayers pay money to a Labour Government, it is the Government's money; we still believe that it is the taxpayers' money.
  Mr. Brown: The Opposition health spokesman can help us, then. Will the persons who are getting the benefit of that patient passport get free operations in the private sector or not? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] Conservative policy has now been exposed for everyone to see. Not only is the private sector charging twice as much for such operations, but the Conservatives' patient passport would mean that they are not free operations in the private sector—that is, the health service paying for operations that it cannot do. Their policy is to encourage people to move into the private sector, give them a subsidy to do it, then land them with a bill for that treatment. This has been an illuminating discussion.
  Is it not the case that the minimum cost of a hip joint operation for a pensioner or someone else, even with the reduction that is proposed by the Conservative party, with the NHS tariff, or part of it, moving into the private sector, would still be £5,000?
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: No.
  Mr. Brown: No? Well, the hon. Lady should please correct us.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chiselhurst): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case in this House of Commons that when a speaker sits down he has finished his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): There is a grave danger when an hon. Member sits down for too long that it may be believed that his speech has ended. However, I do not believe that the Chancellor has finished his speech. [Interruption.] Order. Perhaps hon. Members could now settle down; we are debating serious matters and we should listen carefully to the Chancellor. I say respectfully to the Chancellor that the motion relates to Government policies, and he should address them.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  776
  Government policies are yielding more operations in the health service, more out-patient and in-patient attendances, more cancer treatment and more heart treatment. The question is whether the scarce resources go into the private sector, under Conservative proposals, or whether they stay in the national health service. The shadow Health Secretary made the illuminating admission that people who move into the private sector, and are encouraged to do so through what is called the patient passport, will have to pay for hip joint, knee joint and heart valve operations. If the proposal involved the 60 per cent. tariff, which operates in Finland and which Conservative Members claim they want to examine, the cost to an ordinary pensioner, who may not have a great deal of savings, would be £5,000 for a hip joint operation, £6,000 for a knee joint operation and £7,000 for a heart valve operation.
  Is it fair to tell pensioners who have saved all their lives that their salvation lies in the private sector, when we know that the costs are £5,000, £6,000 and £7,000? The reason is that the administrative costs in the private sector are so much greater. The administrative costs of PPP Healthcare and BUPA are 14 per cent., 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. It is hardly surprising that the private health system in America takes 14 per cent. rather than 7 per cent. of national income. The private sector has also historically charged more for operations.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall try to let the shadow Health Secretary rescue himself from the mess into which he has got his party.
  Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A moment ago, you gave the House guidance that the debate was about Government targets. Will you confirm that I did not mishear? The Chancellor appears to have slid away to another debate on the costs of private health care, which is not related to the points that we are supposed to be discussing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, I said that the debate was about Government targets. The Chancellor should address his remarks directly to those matters.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
  Dr. Fox: I want to point out to the Chancellor yet again that under Conservative party proposals, all patients could get their treatment free in any part of the NHS that they chose rather than being held in their locality as second-rate supplicants, as happens under the Government. I should like the Chancellor to answer one specific question. He is right that many of those who go into the private sector are elderly and do not have savings. What does it say about the Government's health policy that that number has trebled from 100,000 to 300,000 during the Chancellor's time in office? Why does he believe that they have gone to the private sector? Many of those people, who have few savings and have paid taxes all their lives—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was far too long. Let us revert to the motion.
  Mr. Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  777
  I am drawing a comparison between the Labour Government's policy, which means investing more in the NHS, leading to increases in out-patient attendances, operations, elective admissions, cancer treatments and heart treatments, and the Conservative party's policy, which would mean paying twice as much for an operation. The shadow Health Secretary has not answered my question. It will cost £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 for people to get hip joint, knee joint or heart valve operations in the private sector under Conservative proposals. We are increasing the number of operations but we can do even more if there is money devoted to the public sector, not diverted to the private sector.
  Our choice is available to all. We want to provide 100 per cent. access to NHS Direct; 100 per cent. access to a general practitioner in 48 hours, and 100 per cent. access for cancer patients within two weeks. We have set those objectives, which are fair to everyone, not only to the few who have £5,000, £6,000 or £7.000 to afford to pay for Conservative party policies. The Conservative policy is a fair deal for BUPA and for private medicine, but not for poor pensioners.
  It becomes clear that the dividing line between the two parties in this debate and throughout the country until the general election is that we are making major improvements in the NHS, we are prepared to invest more and we are putting more spending in.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor will tell us how he proposes to finance the 80,000 new nurses that we are putting into the NHS without spending more money, I am happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the Chancellor for giving way. He has turned to the Government's stock defence whenever anybody points out the failure of their public services, which is the money that they are pouring in. They are pouring a lot of money in, but has he read today's independent report from Bridgewell Securities Ltd? It contains the following two sentences:
  "It is hard for the Government to escape the conclusion that most of the benefit of near-double digit growth in its spending is being lost. This is partly due to rising public sector pay and partly to increasing employment in areas that lead to little or no improvement in public services."
  Do not those two sentences sum up the failure of Government policy on the public services?
  Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor is trying to rescue the shadow health spokesman, but he cannot answer the question. We are investing in 50,000 more nurses, which will rise to 80,000. We have 10,000 more doctors, which will rise to 25,000. In all the Conservative years, only 11 hospitals worth over £50 million were built. We are now building 110 hospital developments, many of them worth over £50 million. The Conservatives would not be able to afford any of those things. At the last election, they said that they would match us on health service spending. All Conservative Members stood giving that promise. Now they have to go back to their constituents
  778
  to say that they cannot make the promise that they would have the extra nurses, the extra doctors, the extra equipment and the extra hospitals.
  In that debate, which will run until the general election, the Conservative party has admitted that it wants people to move into private care, that £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 is what they have to put up to pay for it and that NHS operations costs are half those of the private sector. That is why our reforms of the public sector, matched by the investment that we are putting in, are the right policy for this country.
  In advance of the spending review—I think that there will be all-party support for this—I can tell the House today, as part of the review process that we are undertaking for the next spending review, the terms of reference and the changes that we are making with our cross-cutting reviews.
  Mr. Forth: More spin.
  Mr. Brown: I believe that there will be all-party support for this. All parties are interested in how the voluntary and community sectors operate in this country—it is common ground.
  I want to tell the House that we have set up as part of the spending review a review of how voluntary and community sector organisations can play a fuller role in public service delivery. I am placing in the Vote Office this afternoon the terms of reference for a review of five specific areas, including social care, crime and community cohesion, education and learning, housing and homelessness, and children and families. The review will involve a nationwide consultation, which I thought that all sections of the House would support, with the voluntary sector.
  We are also conducting in advance of our spending review, to secure the very value for money that people have been talking about in this debate, a review of child poverty and the public services of this country that will consider how we can improve the attack on child poverty by improving public services, as well as financial benefits. That will be part of a review that will go hand in hand with a child care review.
  As part of the public spending reviews, there will also be a review of financial support for 16 to 19-year-olds led by the Paymaster General. The House will know that we commissioned some months ago a review of public sector and civil service relocation as well as a review of efficiency. That efficiency review is examining new ways to provide Departments with incentives to provide opportunities for efficiency savings. [Interruption.] I am also publishing today the terms of reference for a review to examine how best to achieve decentralised delivery.
  Several hon. Members: rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should have a major reduction in the amount of sedentary interventions. The House must listen to the Chancellor.
  Mr. Brown: Normally, when an announcement is made about a series of reviews taking place in the run-up to a spending review—some of which the Opposition would wish to support, in my view, given what they have said today—an Opposition party would want to

  779
  welcome what we are doing, instead of shouting from a sedentary position. The fact is that the programme of investment and reform is continuing, and these reviews, as part of the next spending review, show that that will be stepped up over the next year. The shadow Chancellor should support these reviews, because they are about value for money and efficiency going to the heart of public services, including local delivery. The Conservatives have revealed today, through their conduct in this debate, that they have only one target—to cut public spending on the health service and on education—and only one purpose: to move operations, treatment and staff into the private sector. They used to be able to say that the national health service was safe in their hands; it is no longer safe in their hands, and I commend our amendment to the House.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. David Laws: I wonder what it tells us about the Chancellor's confidence in the Government's record on public services that he should take the time to come to this House today to respond to an Opposition day debate on public services and Government targets, and in doing so say absolutely nothing about those two issues. All that we have heard from him is a speech three quarters of which was devoted to Conservative health policy, with the remaining couple of minutes given over to a series of reviews that are apparently supposed to address the issues before us some time in the very distant future.
  I can only assume that the Chancellor's speech was so extraordinarily vacuous because he is ashamed of Labour's record on public services and on delivering the public service agreement targets. Perhaps he was so unwilling to give way at the beginning of his speech because he anticipated that we might return to the evidence that he gave to the Treasury Committee last July, when he told us that 87 per cent. of the targets from the 1998 spending review, which were to be delivered in the period to 2002, had been delivered. Yet we now discover that, according to this weekend's edition of The Sunday Times, the Government have misled Parliament about their improvements to public services by overstating the number of targets that they have achieved, according to a memorandum from a Cabinet Minister.
  That Minister proved to be none other than the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for monitoring public service agreements in the first place. [Interruption.] As this vital issue goes to the heart not only of the Government's credibility but the Chancellor's, perhaps he will take this opportunity to intervene on me—instead of gossiping with other Ministers from a sedentary position—and correct this information, which has been put in the public domain, if it is wrong.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on in the House. I do think that the House should listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Laws: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker—I quite agree. You were generous to the Chancellor in allowing
  780
  him to stray on to Tory health policy for three quarters of his speech, and you are right to point out that he needs to respond to the allegation that is being made. The allegation is that this year, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury misled the House by saying that only 13 per cent. of the PSA targets had not been met, and that the Chancellor repeated exactly that claim to the Select Committee last year, when he said that 87 per cent. of the targets had been met. Now we discover that, according to a memorandum to the Public Administration Committee, more than 90 of the 239 key targets set by the Government in 1998 were missed. Perhaps the Chancellor will clarify whether he now wishes to change the estimate that he gave to the Select Committee last year. I am happy to give way to him on that point.
  Mr. Gordon Brown indicated dissent.
  Mr. Laws: The Chancellor is very good at giving way to other people when he wants them to speak, but he seems a little more reticent in coming forward when we are told that a memorandum to the Public Administration Committee states that the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor have misled the House on the question of the percentage of public service targets that have been met. That is an extraordinary claim, and I hope that any member of the Treasury Committee who is present will take the opportunity at hearings later this year to return to an issue on which the Chancellor is so reticent.
  The Government have been in power for more than six years. On 2 August, they will become the longest-serving Labour Administration of all time. For the first couple of years, it was a passable excuse to say that many problems in the public services resulted from at least two decades of under-investment by preceding Conservative Governments. That excuse is wearing incredibly thin. In less than six years, a previous Prime Minister—Winston Churchill—managed to win a world war, but the present Prime Minister has been unable even to make the trains run on time. Perhaps that was why the Chancellor was so determined to talk about everything other than the Government's record of delivery on public service agreements and public services.
  The Chancellor may hope that he can get away with ignoring those things. He may hope that people have not detected the Government's failure. If recent opinion polls are anything to go by, however, he would be mistaken in hoping that people do not see the failure of the Government's public sector policies. In the most recent published poll, the net improvement balance—that is, those who think that public services have improved versus those who think that they have deteriorated—is minus 16 percentage points in transport and minus 10 percentage points on the national health service. I should be happy to give way to the Chancellor if he thought that I had got that wrong. Even on education, where there was previously a positive balance of 12 points, the poll taken after the chaos in school budgets earlier this year shows minus one percentage point: even on education, people believe that performance has deteriorated. The outcome was exactly the same on policing.

  781
  The debate gives us an opportunity to touch briefly on alternative proposals put to the Government on public services, including some of those put forward by the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in a variety of areas. The Chancellor spent much too much time covering Conservative policies on health, but I agreed with his basic analysis, which was summed up in an article in The Times on 6 June by a Mr. Green, who said that the Conservatives had had six years to rethink their health policy but the previous day's patient passports announcement had shown that all that they had come up with was another escape route from collectivism for the relatively well-off.
  Problems in the Conservative party's new policies on public services extend not just to health but to education. Only weeks after the Tories announced their intention to abolish tuition fees, there are already divisions in their ranks. According to The Times, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—a former Education Minister—last week met the Tory leader and the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), who is shadow Education Secretary, to ask that the pledge on tuition fees be reconsidered. Apparently, the hon. Gentleman led a delegation of MPs including a former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). Critics within the Conservative party are apparently saying that its policy is opportunistic and impossible to implement.
  Since we are dealing today with public service agreements, we also want to know whether—
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The debate is about targets.
  Mr. Laws: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned targets; we want to know, for example, whether the commitment given on targets in the 2001 Conservative manifesto on the patient's guarantee on maximum waiting times in particular clinical areas is still in place. We should shed some light on that important issue.
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: The hon. Gentleman has said a lot about Conservative targets. May I interest him in a target in his own county of Somerset? The local education authority—Liberal Democrat-controlled—has kept back nearly £10.5 million from the county's schools, and Somerset is missing targets. Should he not put his own house in order before he throws stones at other political parties?
  Mr. Laws: My Somerset colleague is wrong. Perhaps he is unaware that I had a letter from a Minister at the Department for Education and Skills recently saying that previous claims that the Government had made that Somerset local education authority and others were to blame for the funding problems were inaccurate, and that the problems were caused by the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that recognition of a funding problem caused by the Government's policies.
  When we consider performance in the public services, we must keep in mind the two issues of funding and of delivering through the public service agreements and the
  782
  other reforms that the Government are pioneering. It is perhaps not surprising that delivery has been poor so far, because on the first issue, funding, we can see that in the Government's first period in office the record was exactly the same as it was under Mrs. Thatcher. In the period from 1979 to 1990, the increase in total managed expenditure was identical to that in the first period of office of the current Prime Minister. It is therefore not surprising that the legacy of underfunding has continued and been so damaging in areas such as education and health.
  The shadow Chancellor did not set this out today, but it would be interesting to see at some stage whether he would be willing to match the more significant increase in health and education spending that we have had in recent years, and whether he will offer something more than the paltry funding that we had under the Conservatives, including the slowest period of rise in education funding in the whole post-war period.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has spent his entire speech criticising either the Government's missing of targets or Conservative party policies. It seems to me that the Liberals have few policies. Before he finishes, can he tell us one or two basic things? What would the total managed expenditure be if the Liberals ever got anywhere near power over the next three years? What would they do about health spending? Would they match the Government's health spending or exceed it, and if so, by how much?
  Mr. Laws: I shall be delighted to answer all those questions, and I apologise for spending so long criticising Conservative and Government policies, but there is so much to criticise, and it is only right to subject their policies to proper scrutiny.
  Year in, year out, since 1998, the Government have been saying that they are about to enter a year of delivery. That year of delivery has never been reached. It is a matter of concern, as the shadow Chancellor said, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry now seems to be wondering whether the Government ought to be delivering at all, with her suggestion that it is not as easy in public services as it is in areas such as pizza delivery. It is astonishing that, six years into this Government, when we are about to match the longest term in office of any Labour Administration, the Government are backing away from public service delivery, to the extent that we have had a speech from the Chancellor that was entirely content-free in relation to the issue on the Order Paper. [Interruption.] The Chancellor mutters away, but he is not willing to clarify whether he and the Chief Secretary have misled the House on the targets on PSAs from the 1998 spending review. [Interruption.] I will give way to the Health Secretary if he thinks that he can do better than then Chancellor on that subject.
  Dr. John Reid: I will do it later.
  Mr. Laws: We will listen with interest.
  The figures calculated last year by both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative research department are now seemingly being confirmed by the Government,

  783
  in the memorandum that has gone to the Public Administration Committee, about which the Chancellor is so reticent. Those figures show that at least a third, and probably 40 per cent. of the targets set in the first spending review were not met. Many of the targets have now been changed, and some have been deleted, and of course there is that third classification, alluded to by the Chief Secretary on many occasions, of partially met—which to most of us means not met at all.
  Today figures from the Department for Transport—not Liberal Democrat or Conservative figures—revealed by a commission specifically set up to assist the Government to deliver on public services, show that Ministers have been blown off course and are failing on six of the 17 targets set by the Deputy Prime Minister, including the ill-fated target to triple the amount of cycling that was supposed to take place by 2010. We are now told that cycling fell by 17 per cent. in 2001. An excuse from the Department tells us that it is in the nature of transport that it takes a long time for investment to make an impact. Apparently, there will be dips and troughs on the way to meeting the targets. That is yet another partially met target, and we await with interest to discover whether it will ever be met or will be revised away in the meantime.
  Then we had the shambolic evidence given by the Chancellor to the Treasury Select Committee in July last year, which appalled even the Labour members of that Committee. I hope that that will be good reason in time for those Labour members to take up the issue of public service agreements in a separate report. The Chancellor confirmed in his evidence the 87 per cent. figure, which we now know is rubbish. Perhaps the Chancellor anticipated it at the time in using the words
  "What is said is that 87 per cent. of these have been met",
  suggesting that he may have known that the Government's figure was entirely bogus.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the whole targets approach adopted by the Government is practical, given that the private sector gave up on it about 15 years ago because it did not work? It produced distortions, cheating with numbers and all the problems to which my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor referred. It would be helpful to know whether Liberal policy is in agreement with that.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comments in which I shall pick up on the distortions that the existing targeting regime has caused and argue that we would prefer a much lighter-touch approach in respect of overall targets because micro-management by targets has clearly failed.
  When the targets were first set up, the Chancellor gave the impression, as he began to emerge from the Conservative straitjacket on spending, that in exchange for additional public expenditure there would be incredibly rigorous monitoring of public service agreements and that anyone who failed to perform in
  784
  relation to public service targets would be penalised in consequence. In fact, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in a press release in November 2000 that there would be
  "a rigorous monitoring process and action will be taken where there is a risk that a Department's performance is off track."
  In other words, a clear impression was given that if Departments failed, there would be a penalty to pay.
  By the time that the Chancellor gave evidence to the Select Committee, that rather formidable and frightening prospect seemed to have receded entirely. It appeared that there was not only no prospect of Departments being penalised, but that Departments would monitor their own performance on public service agreements and report on themselves. In other words, the Treasury's oversight—and the initial impression that it would be involved considerably—seemed to have disappeared altogether. When the Chancellor was asked by hon. Members from different parties whether there would be any penalties if Ministers failed to deliver on public service agreements—in the Home Office, for example, where 11 out of 16 targets had failed at that time—all the Chancellor could say to me was:
  "Are you saying that the conclusion you reach is that no more police are needed?"
  In other words, the sanctions that were going to apply at the beginning of the process seemed to have disappeared entirely out of the window.
  When we pressed the Chancellor further on that matter and asked what would happen if the Home Secretary did not deliver, we were told that no penalties would be applied and that it would be a matter for the Prime Minister and the electorate. In other words, the great system of Treasury control over public service agreements, the monitoring, penalties, rewards for performance and so forth, had all gone completely out of the window, so it was left to the Prime Minister to consider the problem and to the electorate to hold the Government to account. I am sure that the electorate will hold the Government to account when that opportunity arises.
  Mr. Bercow: Leaving aside the important debate about whether the Treasury or individual Departments should be the arbiters, does the hon. Gentleman agree that for the Government to fail to meet targets set by independent experts would be disappointing, but that for the Government to fail to meet more than a third of the targets that they have set for themselves requires incompetence on a truly spectacular scale?
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is why we hope that the Chancellor will take the opportunity to intervene to tell us whether the memorandum from the Chief Secretary, which has apparently gone to the Public Administration Committee, is accurate. If it is accurate, and the Government have missed a third of their targets, that is a serious matter, because both the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary may have misled the House.
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger: As a member of the Public Administration Committee—I think that I am the only one present, because the Committee is sitting at the moment—I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are still

  785
  considering that issue. The shadow Chancellor has done much work on how many targets have been missed, but we cannot get the answers.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that insight. I hope that he will continue that probing, because it is very necessary.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman see a paradox in the Government's approach to local authorities and Departments? The Government make local authorities meet their comprehensive performance assessments and penalise them if they do not, but the Government do not penalise Departments if they do not meet their public service agreement targets. Is not that a case of do as I say, not as I do?
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. If he read the statement made in the spending review 2002 by the Chancellor about which individual public service delivery units would get penalised if anything went wrong, he would notice that Ministers and Departments were noticeably absent. By that time, the idea that Departments could be held accountable had gone out of the window. It was schools, hospitals and local authorities that would be held accountable, not Ministers and Departments.
  The Government's targeting regime has other problems and I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will detach himself from his conversation now, because he may be interested in my points about the health service. Targets in the health service potentially distort performance and priorities in many ways, but one of the issues that must be of concern is the way in which the Government are targeting only the in-patient and out-patient waiting lists. They are not targeting the waiting time from consultant to consultant or the waiting time for diagnostic tests, both of which hon. Members will find raised most often in their post bags and constituency surgeries. In many areas, those waiting times are still more than a year and sometimes more than two years. I welcome the fact that the Government are trying to bring waiting times down, but if we are to make the public service agreement targets meaningful to people, they must apply to all aspects of waiting times, especially to the diagnostic waiting lists, which can be so important for treatment.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will scrutinise the way in which the targets are recorded, and whether they are credible. I have an example from my local area of the ways in which the Government record some of those vital statistics. It was raised with me by a constituent who saw in the local newspaper that the local trust had met the six-month in-patient waiting list target. The trust has done a fantastic amount of work to bring its waiting list down, and that is welcome. However, the individual in question contacted me about cataract surgery, because his experience was at odds with that reported in the local newspaper. He had waited for between six and 12 months to have one of his cataracts treated but, in order to speed through the waiting list for cataract treatment, the other cataract was not done at the same time. After he had had the first cataract treated, he was put on what is called a planned
  786
  waiting list, which is taken in date order and on which the wait is approximately 12 months. In the health sector, we give indicators that pretend that we are treating people within six months, while, across the country, the actual experience of many people is that they have to wait longer. In commenting on the issue, the hospital said that the regulations about what it counted and did not count were set not by it but by the Department of Health.
  Dr. John Reid: I do not know about the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I caution him, as I did Dr. Bogle last week: I have no doubt that, as in any organisation, when there are targets or objectives, people will occasionally try to meet them by means with which we would not agree. The hon. Gentleman should be careful not to add his voice to those who for their own reasons have no sympathy or support for the national health service and want to portray the commonality—
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman wants to gag them.
  Dr. Reid: I have no wish to gag any criticism, but I do not want anyone to support the impugning of the integrity, hard work, dedication and professionalism of the vast majority of those who work in the national health service.
  Mr. Laws: I was not aware that I was impugning the integrity either of the health service or of people who work in it, and neither was my constituent who raised the issue with me.
  Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it is neither common nor typical? The vast majority of the 1.3 million people active in the health service are dedicated and committed professionals who would not stoop to means of deceit. That is all he has to say. The constant chorus from the Opposition and one or two of their allies in the media to denigrate and run down the NHS will get no support from the Government Benches.
  Mr. Laws: The Secretary of State has been sitting next to the Chancellor for too long. He is using the same tactics of distract and evade as the Chancellor used during his speech. He is trying to take us away from the issue, but I hope that he will take those points seriously.
  I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was concerned about those issues, especially in relation to diagnostic tests. If we put such an emphasis on waiting times in the health service, they must be credible and understood by our constituents.
  Dr. Reid: I know that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman, but will he take this third opportunity to say that he does not believe that the practice is common among NHS staff and that the vast majority of them are decent professionals who are wholly committed to what

  787
  they are doing? It is simple to say; or is he joining the malign attacks by the Opposition on those who work in the NHS?
  Mr. Laws: Those are still diversionary tactics. Of course, I am not attacking nurses and doctors—
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is attacking Ministers.
  Mr. Laws: Indeed I am. I am attacking the Secretary of State, but perhaps I am not doing it clearly enough. A letter from the Somerset trust stated that it abided by the regulations because they were set by the Department of Health. I am not accusing my local NHS trust of fixing or fiddling the figures. The trust is reporting the figures exactly as the Secretary of State suggests it should. The reporting is entirely consistent with what the right hon. Gentleman wants. Nevertheless, the figures are misleading, because a huge number of people are waiting for diagnostic tests and consultant-to-consultant referrals. Perhaps they are on the planned waiting lists, which, of course, were not set up by people at my hospital but by Ministers. I hope that the Secretary of State will look into that, even though he has only recently taken up his position.
  Dr. Fox: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the remarks of the outgoing chairman of the British Medical Association? He said:
  "You would think…that the government would be distancing itself from…corrupt and immoral practices…Instead, it has turned a blind eye, been triumphalist about its 'achievements' and colluded in deception and doublespeak."
  It is not NHS staff who are to blame; it is not their integrity that is being impugned but that of Ministers. NHS staff are as much victims of this culture as are the patients.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am certainly not suggesting that people who work in the health service are corrupt. They have to respond to the targeting regime and report information precisely in the manner set down, and daily micro-managed, by the Department of Health. If the Secretary of State wants people to believe in the improvement in public services and in the health service, if he wants people to celebrate the reduction in waiting times, which is occurring in some parts of the country, including my area of Somerset and Dorset, and which I very much welcome, we must ensure that the figures reported by the Government are in line with people's actual experience. At the moment, they are not because we are not picking up the diagnostic waiting lists, the consultant waiting times or the planning waiting times.
  Of course there is a whole series of ways in which the present public service targets distort activity and often create priorities that would not be those of the people on the front line. That is the concern, and we see it not only with PSAs, but in many other parts of the public services. We see it in the ear-marked moneys that are handed down by the Chancellor and in his packages that are allocated to capital spending even for schools that have just been rebuilt and have no capital priorities but would like to spend the money on school staff. We see it the class-size limits, which are often welcomed in respect
  788
  of extra resources, but which may lead to pressures on the ground, so that head teachers are forced into arranging schools in a way that they do not believe is best, as I found in a primary school in my constituency this morning. It is there in the micro-management of chief police constables. When I visited the chief constable of the Avon and Somerset constabulary this year, his own local priorities were being dictated by the Home Secretary, not by the police authority itself.
  In all those ways, the Government are distorting the delivery of public services, and they think that they know better than people on the front line when they do not. Even in those areas where the Government claim to have a new localism, giving greater autonomy to the public services, that autonomy has to be earned. In other words, the Government presume that they should hold on to power and others have to earn it if they are to exercise discretion. Clearly, that is entirely the wrong way around.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Laws: I will not give way because I have used up far too much time already, although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an issue earlier.
  Earned autonomy is not good enough. The presumption must be that, in a regime where reasonable inspection takes place, the front-line deliverers of public services are trusted to deliver, rather than the Government shackling front-line public services with their own constraints and so-called earned autonomy.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard you twice upbraid the Chancellor for criticising Conservative policies. At least we have some policies. I asked the Liberals a few questions about their own policies. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for more than half an hour. Is it too much to expect that, by the end of his speech, we might hear—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.
  Mr. Laws: I should be delighted to speak for another half an hour or so to outline Liberal Democrat public services policies. In fact, I suspect that half an hour would not be nearly enough. However, I hope that I have made it clear that we believe, uniquely as a party, not only in the funding that has been absent from this Government's first term and that was so lacking in the Tory party's 20 years in power, but in decentralisation, not the Government's phoney decentralisation—their earned autonomy—not the decentralisation that the Conservative party talked about when in power but did not deliver, but real decentralisation to the front-line delivers of public services. If we can have the additional cash, the reform and the decentralisation, we at least have a chance to deliver the improvements in public services that all of us—at least Liberal Democrat Members—wish to see.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: It is important to recognise that the motion is not about what proportion of targets has been achieved. It is not about the generality of targets or the number of targets. The motion absolutely condemns targets as a concept. It talks about a regret
  "that the Government have used targets".
  It talks about them diverting
  "time and attention away from the task of improving public services".
  It is a blanket condemnation of targets as a means of centrally controlling or directing public investment.
  As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said in response to a question from me earlier in the debate, the motion refers to targets being replaced by
  "professional autonomy, decentralisation, diversity and choice in the public services".
  In other words, it is saying that the money provided by the Government should be handed over—blocks of it—and the public services should be left to get on with it. That may be reasonable, but we need to judge that assertion against the record of the people who are putting it forward, because the Conservative party has a record. We also need to judge the motion in the context of the Government's economic policy as a whole, because the investment programme in public services is a major part of that overall economic policy. That programme and its achievement depend crucially on some kind of direction of the investment to ensure that what is intended is achieved.
  Let me start, therefore, by examining the motion in the context of the record of those proposing it. In 1997, when this Government came to office, there had been 18 years of neglect of public investment, despite the bonanza of North sea oil, which one would have thought could have been the spur to renewing public investment in Britain. Instead, the advantage that that brought was frittered away on tax relief for the better off. While that was being done, health, education and transport were neglected. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) spoke about the fact that the rail transport targets have not been met. It was not appreciated until the Hatfield rail disaster, however, how disastrous the neglect of investment in railways had been for the railway service, and how disastrous it was to compound that neglect with the folly of rail privatisation. It is therefore not at all surprising that we have a more difficult position now than we anticipated—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who has just walked into the Chamber, that he must not walk directly across the line of sight of the hon. Member speaking and the Chair. I appreciate that he did not realise that, but it is an important point.
  Mr. Beard: These things feed off each other. Some of the targets, particularly in transport, have not been met because the consequences of 18 years of neglect had not been fully appreciated.
  At the same time as that neglect of investment, the public finances were left in a dreadful mess, with a £29 billion deficit. By what means was that to be paid off? By
  790
  a fuel tax that burdened pensioners in particular. The double whammy of 1997 was therefore a neglect of investment and at the same time a Government deeply in the red. It was fecklessness compounded by incompetence. The economic policy that lay behind that was going nowhere. The recession of the 1980s was followed by the recession of the early 1990s, with an interlude of rampant inflation in between. The strategy for the economy was that a country with some of the most capable and ingenious people would compete with the rest of the world on costs. Our future was to out-sweat the sweat shops of Asia. In a perverse way, I suppose that that explains the Conservatives' neglect of state education and the way in which the universities were allowed to decline so disastrously. Against that background of instability and, at the same time, a lack of confidence in Government competence, lay a lack of confidence in business, not surprisingly, and businesses did not invest.
  Let us contrast that position and put it as the background to this motion. It is not a record that instils great confidence in the sense of the motion, but let us give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt for the moment. Let us also examine it, however, in the context of Government policy, and contrast that with the scene of neglect and economic failure that I have been outlining.
  First, priority was given to education and to redeeming a lost generation who had been on the dole for far too long through exercises such as the new deal. That was a declaration that this country's economic future depended on mobilising our skills and abilities, on the higher value that they could create and on competing with the rest of the world through our ingenuity and abilities.
  The second main point of the strategy was a recognition that social justice and economic growth were not opposed and that it was not a case of choosing one or the other—they go hand in hand. It was not accepted that we could wait for a magic day when the economy would be right and then start to invest in the health service, education and transport, and put things right in sequence. Public finance and economic management had to be put on an entirely different foundation, and public service agreements form part of that general structure. A restraint on spending for two years to help to put the public finances right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he has made some general financial remarks and I trust that he will now relate them to Government targets.
  Mr. Beard: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am attempting to outline the broad structure of Government policy in which public service agreements and, therefore, targets fit. PSAs form a major part of the Government's programme of investment by ensuring that the investment achieves what people voted for and wanted.
  The other big rules in the strategy were the independence of the Bank of England and a target of 2.5 per cent. inflation—I wonder whether that will be condemned with all the others—with the rate kept within 1 per cent. above or below. Do Conservative

  791
  Members want that to go out with all the other targets so that there would there be total devolution to the Bank of England with no further intervention from the Chancellor?
  The fiscal rules are part of the general complex. There is a golden rule of ensuring that borrowing occurs only for investment so that we do not return to the previous Government's policies of live now, pay later. The sustainability rule ensures that we do not run up debts and leave them to be paid in the future.
  David Taylor: I endorse my hon. Friend's point about the sustainability of the repayment of public debt and agree that we should not pass on debt to future generations. However, given the broadening and expanding use of the private finance initiative, is there not a risk that we are doing exactly that? We are requiring later generations to pay for the investment from which others will benefit.
  Mr. Beard: The reverse is true, and I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the nature of payments under the private finance initiative. Under the PFI, the public sector pays year by year as services are used. Consequently, the services gained in one year are paid for in that year. Whatever sins one might adduce to the PFI, burdening people in the future cannot be one.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is a loyal Government workhorse. Surely one of the central political questions behind the debate is whether the measurement of public service agreement targets is so flawed as to undermine the integrity of the targets themselves. In that context, does he think it right that if a PSA target has five components and the Government miss four, Ministers are justified in recording the target as being "partially met"?
  Mr. Beard: I shall talk about what is amiss about the targets in a moment. I tell the hon. Gentleman that the questions of whether we have quantified the targets that have been adopted sufficiently well and whether that quantification has been adequately measured are the subject of a different debate. If we accept targets, we may consider the way in which they are properly implemented. If he is saying that several of them are difficult to measure or are bound to be subject to judgment, I go along with him entirely. However, that is not the motion before the House. It says that we should not have targets at all. It seems that the targets, which are somehow flawed, should be swept away and everything should be devolved. If he wants to stick to the line that he took, I suggest he thinks about voting against the motion.
  Mr. Laws: Where in the motion does it say that there should be no targets at all?
  Mr. Beard: The last few lines state that the House
  "regrets that the Government has used targets as a substitute for real reform; and calls on the Government to embrace the principles of professional autonomy, decentralisation, diversity and choice".
  I am not against any of those things, but if we use them to replace targets, there is no means by which we can influence how money is invested.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman's comments clarify that the motion does not specify that there should be no public service targets at all. It could mean—this is for the Conservative spokesman to clarify—a much smaller number of key targets without the same amount of micro-management. Does he agree?
  Mr. Beard: I do not. The words speak for themselves. The motion says:
  "regrets that the Government has used targets".
  It is quite simple.
  Mr. Bercow: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's belated concession of defeat to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). For the purpose of clarification and the avoidance of doubt, I put it to him that the central problem in the Government's position is that when important targets have been set that should have been met, they have not been, and that when they have met a target, it is of the vacuous character, "We will publish a White Paper", which does not represent the apogee of political achievement.
  Mr. Beard: The hon. Gentleman is adept at making generalised condemnations. I shall give way again if he gives me two examples to support his argument.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very happy to do that. It is overly generous of the hon. Gentleman to give me such an opportunity and a bit uncharitable of me to exploit it, but I appreciate it none the less. A good example is the failure to meet the truancy target, followed speedily by the decision to abolish it. I should like to adumbrate the argument, but I fear that I would fall foul of you if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Beard: I shall not respond directly to the hon. Gentleman because I am about to address the application of targets and their value if they are not met. Plainly, they are not always met, but they are, nevertheless, of value to the administration of large investment projects.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that one great benefit of our targets is that they are, at least, made public? Does he remember when the Conservative Administration in the 1980s set targets in secret for the pound against the Deutschmark? We all know where that led.
  Mr. Beard: In terms of the motion, the Conservative party's record on economic management would have meant us debating the abolition of long division because its Government were incapable of basic arithmetic, let alone anything complicated. However, I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the context of my other remarks.
  Having succeeded so well in our economic performance and in providing the money that is vital to regenerate our public services, it is essential that we ensure that the money is spent to best effect. In a nutshell, that is what public service agreements are about. They do not mean putting money into an organisation and hoping for the best, which would be the effect of the motion. Those long-neglected services

  793
  need not only investment, but modernisation and reform. Although investment is a major issue, the thinking behind the services, the style of service provided and their procedures have not been modernised in the past 18 years. If we are to meet the demands of people in the 21st century for personal and much more immediate service, investment in, and reform of, public services must go hand in hand. Public service agreements are the means of ensuring that.
  The targets that we set enable us to monitor carefully whether investment and reform are being achieved. There will be cases in which those aims are not being achieved, and year-by-year monitoring is the means by which attention is called to those cases so that remedial action can be taken. That ensures that we do not wait five or 10 years before we see that the ultimate target has not been met and then wring our hands.
  Targets provide a means of making corrections as we go along, year by year. [Laughter.] I am surprised that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) finds that so amusing. Is he suggesting that, once launched, any of those programmes should be left on autopilot with no one looking at them again? If they were left on autopilot, against what would we judge them if we did not have some idea of where we were going? If, by monitoring performance against a target, we find that the target is exaggerated or too optimistic, we adjust it. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman a secret: every private company in this country that is engaged in major investment runs its programme in that way.
  David Taylor: Is it not in the interests of the Conservative party, which, in its heart, does not believe in the concept of high-quality, wide-ranging public services, to remove performance indicators from those services, so that the party's success or failure can be judged by journalists who write the editorial column in that esteemed organ, the Daily Mail, and who successfully employ the broad-brush, condemnatory style that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has made almost his own in the House?
  Mr. Beard: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way in his increasingly long speech on an Opposition motion. Having already been trounced in his attempt to suggest that the motion proposes the complete scrapping of targets—those—words do not appear on the Order Paper—does he now recognise that the Opposition's objection to his statement that all targets need to be corrected is that, because of the Government's abject failure in the delivery of public service targets, corrections occur only when they scrap them or revise, them downwards, against the interests of our constituents?
  Mr. Beard: I shall come in a moment to the question of there being too many targets in the beginning. I want first to say a little more on the justification for the general idea of public service agreements.
  794
  After 18 years in which the civil service and public agencies had become used to a culture of contraction, in which their projects were constantly thwarted because those started during the boom were cancelled or reduced during the bust, there was no reception of the idea that public services should be expanding. Those who were responsible for carrying out programmes needed an indication of what they were expected to achieve. They could not reasonably be expected to float in a vacuum, with the Government saying, "Here's the money to improve hospitals," and leaving them to work out how to do that. Targets gave those people some direction, and that was the second purpose of targets.
  Public service agreements do not arise from the Chancellor or the Treasury dictating what is to be achieved by schools or hospitals but from a discussion between the Treasury and the Department concerned. The latter has connections with the professions and organisations that will be the implementing authorities. The idea, which is constantly put about, that a public service agreement is an imposition by the centre, made for financial reasons, is false. Targets that are not met were previously agreed, not set by some grey eminence in the Treasury.
  Targets are not simply a matter of being able to tell when we have got where we want to be; they allow us to see whether we are moving off the track that we ought to be on, and of taking remedial action if necessary. They are the only means of controlling major strategic programmes. It is unbelievable that we could be arguing about that point. Targets are the only insurance that what the Government are spending on health and education will result in the performance that the public need and expect.
  I accept that in the beginning there were far too many targets—some 160—and that they were somewhat general and difficult to judge. However, that was the first step towards bringing in a system in which public investment could be controlled in the way that I am talking about. The previous Conservative Government had no such system. Conservative Members are hardly warranted in talking about the discrediting of the system. The system that was discredited is the one in which there was no attempt to control public investment at all.
  The motion talks about the PSAs being deeply flawed, but they go hand in hand with targets. The motion says that they stifle local initiative, diminish professional responsibility and divert time from the task of improving public services. I do not believe that for a moment. If one looks at the targets, as opposed to generalising about them, one finds that they are very broad. They leave ample scope for individual teachers and doctors, and indeed hospital administrators, to make judgments. They give a broad guideline and say what the priorities should be. Why should they not do that? The general purpose of the Department of Health is to provide the overall picture. If there are no targets, the overall picture is not represented in the decisions made on the ground.
  What targets do not do is leave scope for obstructing reform. The programme of modernisation and renewal cannot possibly allow for obstruction, but there would be obstruction at every turn if nobody were watching and monitoring progress. The Opposition have lined up

  795
  behind the idea that the old ways are the best. That is what the debate is all about. They want no change. They think that things were perfectly all right as they were.
  The Opposition say that PSAs are deeply flawed, but, as I have said, no major company would dream of advancing on an investment programme 1 per cent. of the size of the Government's investment without putting in place a scheme such as this. It is time that the Opposition came not only into the 21st century, but into the 20th century. They are not acquainted with modern management techniques. It seems to me, from the speeches and interventions that we have heard, that they are a party of voyeurs. They have never disciplined themselves by determining what needs to be done to get things done, and that is essentially what PSAs and targets are all about.
  David Taylor: They have never had a proper job.
  Mr. Beard: They toil not and neither do they spin, and they do not understand the disciplines of doing either. It is unbelievable that in the 21st century we have a motion against the very concept of a target as a means of managing major projects. I am sure that before long we will be having a debate on the need to abolish long division and double entry book-keeping, because PSAs and targets are as fundamental to managing major projects as long division and book-keeping are to arithmetic and accountancy.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that a party that does not believe in public services does not need any targets, because it wants to privatise the lot? We saw what happened with Railtrack, which lost control of all its operations. We are trying to claw back investment, which needs to be carefully measured for improvement in future.
  Mr. Beard: I agree. The reason that the Opposition can be so cavalier with the basic concepts of managing major projects is that they have no intention of managing a major investment project in the public sector again. That is what their policy implies, so they can indulge in these games.
  The motion demonstrates that the Tories cannot be trusted with public finance, the economy or public spending—in short, they are not much good with money. The PSA targets are an essential measure to ensure that public investment achieves what is intended and what people outside want.
  6 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I do not intend to comment on any of the spurious remarks made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) in a half-hour speech that said very little and therefore requires no response.
  There is nothing wrong with targets per se. They are a useful measure of the success or failure of management or of a policy. Problems arise, though, when the targets are the policy itself—when the targets are the levers of management, instead of just a measure of the success or
  796
  effectiveness of a policy. Targets have become, in many instances, a substitute for policy. Foist on an NHS manager a target to reduce waiting lists on pain of the sack and, hey-presto, he will reduce waiting lists, but will do so by distorting other health priorities. It is rather like changing the dial on a thermometer. Moving the pointer up will not change the temperature of the room. To warm a room, one must turn on the central heating.
  People argue that targets are a symptom of an over-centralised governmental system interfering in local management and delivery. I believe the opposite is true. It is a symptom of accountability and decision-making power being too decentralised and diffuse, with little management power vested with the Secretary of State, to such an extent that, almost in desperation, his or her only recourse is to targets, inspectorates and increasing volumes of guidelines.
  No properly run large organisation in the private sector or successfully run state operations are managed in such a way. What the three key failing public services have in common—health, education and the fight against crime—is that the organisations have diffuse accountability. The NHS is made up of more than 600 separate organisations, each with its own board, chief executive and chairman. More than 130 local education authorities manage education, and the police are accountable to county or unitary authority police committees. It is clear that, despite Herculean determination on the Government's part, these public services are still failing.
  Let us take one example, education. Twenty-three per cent. of adults in Britain cannot read properly. That is one of the worst adult literacy rates in the developed world. It compares with just 7 per cent. in Sweden. Children from poorer backgrounds too often go to secondary school with a reading age two years below their chronological age. Twenty-three per cent. of adults in Britain cannot add 50 and two to make 52. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford mentioned long division, but a quarter of adults in Britain cannot even add two basic whole numbers.
  Those figures come from a recent National Audit Office report comparing international education statistics. They are 1997 figures, but those are the latest available.
  David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is obviously very numerate. Will he assess the proportion of the 23 per cent. of fundamentally innumerate or illiterate adults who received their entire education under the 1997 to 2003 Labour Government?
  Mr. Gibb: I am not making party political points in this debate. It is a sad indictment of the last Conservative Government that when we left office 49 per cent. of 11-year-olds did not reach an acceptable level in reading, but there has been no real improvement since the 1997 election. Standard Assessment Tests tests show that 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds now reach an acceptable level in reading, but that is still way below the target level of 83 per cent. and still means that one in four 11-year-olds go to secondary school unable to read properly. There is also real doubt about the validity of that figure of 75 per cent.

  797
  Professor Tymms of Durham university has conducted his own tests, taken by 5,000 year 6 children in the same 122 primary schools every year since 1997. They show no improvement in reading ability. To quote Professor Tymms:
  "The children are getting no better. It's just that our staff are better at teaching to the test."
  The social exclusion unit has warned that the Government have achieved little in bridging the huge gap in educational achievement, especially among males from unskilled backgrounds.
  The question is why are we doing so badly in this country in teaching our children to read. In Switzerland, it takes six months to teach a child to read, compared with between two and three years in Britain, according to a study by Professor Prais of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The question that we should be asking in the House is why. The answer seems to be that in Switzerland children are taught to read using a system called synthetic phonics, learning the sounds of letters and putting together those sounds to make a word—for example, C-A-T. In Britian we use a combination of "look and say" and analytical phonics. Children are taught to look at the shape of a word—"elephant", for instance—and to memorise that shape.
  In a study by St. Andrews university in co-operation with Clackmannanshire education authority, about a dozen first-year primary classes in which a synthetic phonics approach to reading was used were compared with classes using various conventional British methods. Taken as a whole, the comparison showed that pupils taught using synthetic phonics learned about twice as rapidly as those on conventional analytic "look and say" approaches. The proportion of underachieving pupils was approximately halved.
  Conor Ryan, a Labour former special education adviser, agrees and takes the view that now is "an excellent opportunity"
  for the Government
  "to move from neutral toleration"
  of synthetic phonics
  "to more active encouragement of more intensive synthetic phonics at the initial stages of children's, reading lessons."
  Of course, that has not happened, so improvements in reading, to the extent that there have been any, have, as Conor Ryan says, stalled.
  Mr. Bercow: For the benefit of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), would my hon. Friend confirm that he is not blaming a particular Government, but rather the system advocated by Kimberley, Meek and Miller, who are, to their eternal discredit as teachers of reading, on the record as saying that within the psychosemiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out and children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts? What nonsense.
  Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend is right. It is such nonsense and the prevailing—almost exclusive—view of education academics that is the problem that Members on both sides of the House, and Ministers in particular, should be addressing.
  798
  On secondary education, the Government like to cite the PISA—programme for international student assessment—international study, which shows Britain's literacy and maths levels among 15-year-olds as seventh and eighth among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, but that starkly contradicts other, more authoritative and established international comparisons, such as the third international maths and science survey, which shows Britain at a poor 20th out of 41 countries.
  Mr. Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gibb: I will not. The hon. Gentleman spoke for long enough.
  The PISA study was based on tests that—I quote from PISA—
  "assessed young people's capacity to use their knowledge and skills in order to meet real life challenges".
  In other words, they were common-sense tests—IQ tests—so it is not surprising that British children do well in them. They were not tests based on knowledge of the school curriculum, which was the basis of questions in other surveys, such as the one that I cited, the third international maths and science survey.
  Again, the question is why are we failing so badly in this country at secondary level. The Labour party understood only too well in the run-up to the 1997 election that education was failing and that it was Labour's No. 1, 2 and 3 priority. Labour also understood very well one of the key causes of the failure at secondary level. The 1997 Labour manifesto stated:
  "We must modernise comprehensive schools. Children are not all of the same ability, nor do they learn at the same speed. That means 'setting' children in classes to maximise progress, for the benefit of high-fliers and slow learners alike."
  That commitment was repeated in the 1997 White Paper, "Excellence in Schools". It is odd, then, that six years later, only 26 per cent. of lessons in year 7 are setted, 39 per cent. in year 8, 45 per cent. in year 9, 39 per cent. in year 10 and 44 per cent. in year 11. Overall, only 38 per cent. of lessons in comprehensive schools are subject to setting. In other words, 62 per cent. of lessons in comprehensive schools take place in mixed-ability classes.
  Despite a clear commitment to reduce the amount of mixed-ability teaching, no such reduction has taken place in the past six years. There is a keen debate among education academics in the US, and to some extent in the UK, about the efficacy of setting. It is an ideologically driven debate in which the key protagonists are J. E. Slavin, who vehemently opposes setting on the grounds that it is inegalitarian and undemocratic, and J. A. Kulik, who argues that setting children in accordance with their ability in a particular subject and tailoring the course content to each ability level will produce significant gains at the upper level and modest gains at the middle level, while those at the bottom level will see no improvement, but no decline either.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gibb: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I wish to continue my argument, as other hon. Members wish to speak.

  799
  Moving slow-learning children out of mixed-ability classes does not reduce achievement at the lower levels, but leads to significantly rising standards at other levels. There is also clear evidence that the self-esteem of low-achieving children rises with setting. My view is that setting means that extra resources, including smaller classes or better teachers, for example, can be targeted at the low-ability sets, with a view to raising achievement at all ability levels. That may sound technical and managerial, to use the Prime Minister's words, but it is not. It goes to the very root of the causes of failure in our state education system. The reason we have so much mixed-ability teaching is in many ways ideological rather than merely technical.
  I urge Labour Members who are genuinely interested in improving our education system to read the study by Tom Loveless entitled "The Tracking and Ability Grouping Debate". The evidence is overwhelming that setting works, delivers higher standards and is beneficial to children from lower socio-economic groups and ethnic minorities, but it involves eradicating mixed-ability classes in our comprehensive schools. That presents a dilemma for people on the left, including many Labour Members. If we accept the research evidence showing that setting raises standards significantly, especially among able children from poorer backgrounds, we must ask which is more important: the social egalitarianism of including children of all abilities in one classroom or the genuine social equality that is a consequence of the high educational standards—
  David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is making a very learned and interesting speech, but I find difficult to see how it relates to the motion on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The motion and amendment on the Order Paper cover fairly wide ground and I have not so far heard anything that is out of order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to remember that time is short enough without points of order of that nature being raised.
  Mr. Gibb: The choice is between the social egalitarianism of mixed-ability classes or the genuine social equality that is a consequence of the high educational standards in state education that result from splitting up children into classes according to their ability in each subject. Education is one of the key Government targets—this may assuage the criticism of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor)—and the key to social mobility and opportunity, and it is paramount in eradicating poverty.
  If Labour Members are serious about equality, they will join me in urging the Secretary of State to do more to insist on the synthetic phonics method of teaching children to read in primary schools and on eradicating mixed-ability classes in our comprehensive schools.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. George Mudie: I am sorry that the previous speech was interrupted by a point of order, as I thought that it was a very good and interesting speech, although I also thought that it demonstrated why there is an argument for targets.
  800
  Targets can go wrong and they are a new thing that may need refinement, finessing and so on, but I speak as someone who served in a local authority for a number of years and each year handed a budget to education, which was the biggest spender locally. The education authority took the money and that was the last time that it discussed its budget with us. The comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) highlighted one of the reasons why I think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right not to hand over money to spending Departments and then retreat from the field. He is right to stand in the field and say, "This is taxpayers' money, it has been raised for a purpose and we are going to agree between us what you will spend it on and try to ensure that you spend it efficiently, effectively and in the areas that we as a Government and House of Commons agree to be important."
  Mr. John Horam: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a difference between proper accountability for taxpayers' money and good management? It is the second point that we are concerned about.
  Mr. Mudie: I am not sure whether the Opposition favour that argument. When one looks at their alternative to targets. one sees that it is not to have no targets or to finesse the existing ones. In the light of the first part of the motion, which speaks of doing away with targets and, instead, having professional autonomy, does the hon. Gentleman genuinely feel that it is right to hand over large amounts of public money?
  I return to my point about the speech of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. As laymen, we work for money and hand it over to the Government. Clearly, he agrees that we hand it over to, professionals who take no notice of us or of what we would like to achieve and spend it in a way that they feel professionally, brooks no interference. It is welcome that we have a Chancellor and a Government who tell what the hon. Gentleman described as the three failing services—health, police and education—that they must achieve certain things.
  Of course, there may be difficulties. I confess that, as the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) will know, I was the culprit in the Select Committee on the Treasury who ambushed the Chancellor with targets when he appeared before us in relation to the spending review. The most memorable target was that of the Foreign Office to maintain world peace, although it contains some of the difficulties that arise without targets. It is very sensible for the Treasury to reach agreements with spending Departments on what we as a Parliament and a Government expect Departments to get out of the vast sums that they are given.
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting speech. He is right to say that I noticed his ambush of the Chancellor last year in respect of the spending review. In that exchange with the Chancellor, he mentioned that there were a number of flaws in the existing public service agreement regime. Will he explore some of those flaws and how they might be tackled?
  Mr. Mudie: I do not have much time and I am not sure where this speech is going. I might take that route, but other hon. Members wish to speak and we have little time.

  801
  I was speaking about the Treasury Committee and foreign affairs, but the hon. Gentleman has taken me entirely away from my argument. In terms of targets, I think that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who is sitting in front of me, mutter a word that puts the matter into some context—"ambition". As a taxpayer and citizen, I want a Government to have ambitions. I cannot fault them if they fall short of those ambitions, as long as they have tried and done everything to achieve them. The hon. Member for Yeovil was not in the House when the Conservative party was in government. When we attacked that Government and asked what they were going to do, their answer to every problem in the three failing areas that have been mentioned—the greatest problem was unemployment—was to shrug their shoulders and give the stock reply: "We'll still get elected in five years' time."
  They occupied these Benches for the status, the red boxes and the fame; with a few exceptions, they had no ambition for the ordinary people of this country. That was the most unacceptable aspect of their term in office.
  Much as targets are open to criticism—I would say the same about reform—they represent ambition. At least this Government have an ambition. If that is translated into targets that we sometimes do not reach, I can live with that. For example, when did a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer ever set a target for the abolition of child poverty? I cannot remember any of them ever mentioning it. They never had such a target or ambition. Poverty was about my class: they were a different class. We, by contrast, have a target. When the hon. Member for Yeovil heard me chase up the Chancellor about the subject, it was the target that enabled me to do it, because he had put his ambition on the table and said, "I will tell you the year when I expect child poverty to disappear from this country; and I will tell you, in stages, the point that I have reached." The hon. Member for Yeovil and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) were able to push the Chancellor and to make sure that he understood how important it was that he should meet his ambition to abolish child poverty. Then, as he moved on from the first milestone, we were able to say to him, "You should do this, this and this." If we did not have a target, an ambition and a statement, where would we be?
  Dr. Fox: rose—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mudie: No, because someone even greater than the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak: the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a world of difference between aspiration—which he rightly mentions, and which all Governments need to
  802
  have—and the process by which front-line services are micro-managed from Whitehall through the use of targets?
  Mr. Mudie: I accept that it is a learning process. Sometimes, the fault lies partly with spending Departments, which reach public service agreements with the Treasury. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Woodspring sat on the Government Front Bench, he would say, having agreed with the Chancellor that the targets were fine, "I would like to be left alone to put them into operation and, as Secretary of State, to have the opportunity to make the changes that I want." I see nothing wrong with that. Although targets are a good development—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mudie: When I have finished my sentence, I will sit down. The targets need to be finessed and changed as we jointly gain more experience.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Richard Bacon. [Interruption.] Order. I may have misunderstood the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). He said that he was going to sit down, not that he was going to give way.
  Mr. Mudie: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I meant that I was going to sit down to allow that very important Member, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), to intervene, but I fear that he may have tricked me, and I am sure that you would not want to be party to that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In future, less ambiguous language would be helpful.
  Mr. Bercow: I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, in his typically understated and kindly way, wishes the Labour Government to transmute contracts to promises and targets to ambitions. Why have the Government's targets on slashing the number of deaths from strokes and on reducing by half the incidence of prescription charge evasion—perfectly laudable targets—simply been dropped?
  Mr. Mudie: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to deal with that more easily than a layman who has little experience in such finer points of the health service.
  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pulling me up on my ambiguous language. It is the first time in my life that I have been accused of ambiguity.
  The Government, by setting targets and saying, "We are going to go through this painful business of reform", are making a rod for their own back. However much we muck about here debating the finer points of the meaning of the word "targets", the British people are interested in the ambitions and delivery of a Government who came in promising to make things better: that is what people want to see. If the Opposition's judgment is that the Government have not achieved all their ambitions, I should like—but will not, in deference to other speakers—to go through in detail

  803
  each of the three areas that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned. I should like to speak about the 50,000 additional nurses. If someone asks, "What's the difference between the two parties?", 50,000 trained nurses will say, "The Labour Government gave me a job." There are 10,000 additional doctors and 1,500 additional GPs. I think that that is right. I am trying to read my own writing and having some difficulty; I should have been a doctor. There are 300,000 more operations each year. Waiting lists are below 1 million for the first time in decades. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who intervened on the Chancellor to ask about cancer, is not here. I wonder how she could look at herself in the mirror and defend that intervention, given these figures: under the last Government, 63 per cent. of cancer patients saw a consultant within two weeks; now, 98 per cent. do so. The Chancellor was told, "That is only a figure; there is nothing really happening out there." People should come to my city of Leeds, where in the next few months a £400 million cancer block will be under way at St. James's university hospital. One can see the reality of ambition and targets delivering, as opposed to the Opposition's lack of ambition and targets.
  I turn to education. There are 25,000 more teachers. I attended a meeting in Leeds where the chief executive of Education Leeds, which is not a body that I support or wanted in my city, spoke to parents and pointed out that capital expenditure in Leeds has gone up by 10 times since the time of the previous Government. That is an amazing figure, and it was given not by a politician, but by a chief executive. That shows the advantages of ambition. As well as 25,000 more teachers, there are 122,000 teaching assistants.
  I conclude with reference to the Government's ambition on unemployment. I have one of the poorer constituencies. When we came in, we raised money, against the wishes of the Opposition, from the windfall tax on the privatised public utilities. We spent it on reaching parts of Britain, such as my constituency, that had been ignored for 18 years. The unemployment rate in my constituency went down by 50 per cent. in four years. We halved unemployment in east Leeds, and we have continued to work away at it as the years have passed. For targets, read ambition. I am very grateful to the Chancellor, who is interested not only in money, but in social policy and in converting valuable taxpayers' money into helping ordinary people to raise their families with a decent standard of living.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Richard Bacon: I, too, am interested in money. The Chancellor spent most of his speech boasting about it, as did the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). In the health service, much money is wasted: approximately £1 billion to £3 billion on fraud and theft; approximately £2 billion through bed blocking and late cancelled operations; approximately £2 billion through staff sicknesses and absences; approximately £1 billion through infections that are caught while in hospital; between £300 million and £600 million on over-prescribing drugs; approximately £400 million through clinical negligence, and approximately £230 million on treating patients who become malnourished while they are in hospital.
  804
  That is a total of some £9 billion, which means that between 16 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the NHS budget is wasted. Those are Department of Health figures.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bacon: No, I do not have time. Before examining and boasting about extra expenditure, we should discuss serious, proper financial management of it. The Government are good at playing fast and loose with taxpayers' money. I recently came across an example of a farmer who succeeded in claiming two different subsidies under the arable area payments scheme and the fibre flax scheme for the same piece of land. He also claimed for territories which, on closer inspection, when people could be bothered to examine the grid references that he had supplied, turned out to be in the North sea between Scotland and Denmark and on the mainland of Greenland and Iceland. Basic management, not targets, is what is needed to deal with that. The reason why £4 billion-worth of Apache helicopters are sitting in a shed on Salisbury plain is not targets but sheer mismanagement and forgetting to train the pilots in time.
  We have a chief executive in the health service who was sacked and paid £149,000 in compensation. Most of the payment was found to be ultra vires and it should have been possible to reclaim it, but the six-year time limit had elapsed and it could not be claimed back. The individual was subsequently hired elsewhere in the NHS and later summoned to an industrial tribunal to answer allegations of sexual harassment. He did not turn up and was therefore sacked. However, as any lawyer would tell us, it is unlawful to sack someone for not turning up to an industrial tribunal, so the individual received a further £195,000 in compensation. We do not need targets, but basic management.
  A classic example of poor application of targets and its consequences is education. Let us consider the halcyon days of 2001–02, when the Department for Education and Skills underspent its budget by £1.7 billion and £6 billion was underspent throughout the public sector. It is a shame that the Economic Secretary is not present because he was the Minister with responsibility for adult skills at the time of individual learning accounts, which were a model of how not to do something and showed why targets by themselves do not work. The cost was £300 million. Much, possibly even most—the Department cannot say—was wasted. Seventy civil servants are spending two years trying to sort out the mess, which was caused by targets.
  In a unanimous report, the Select Committee on Education and Skills stated:
  "It should have been possible to design a scheme to encourage new providers that was not wide open to abuse by unscrupulous people posing as learning providers, but the lack of quality assurance made it almost inevitable that it would be abused."
  Subsequently, the Public Accounts Committee examined the individual learning accounts scheme. Its report stated:
  "In the absence of quality assurance, the decision to give a positive incentive to providers to recruit learners was fundamentally flawed."

  805
  In other words, the fraudsters envisaged easy pickings and came steaming in. The PAC report continued:
  "Because of ineffective monitoring, the Department was not aware of unusual patterns of activity, including very large payments to individual providers".
  The permanent secretary to the Department, Mr. David Normington, said that the large amount of activity on the individual learning accounts scheme was taken as a sign of success. The Department budgeted £199 million for two years, but it was spending three times that rate: £25 million a month, which is a total of £600 million over two years. It did not realise that it in spending that money it was being diddled and defrauded. It believed that it was a sign of success. There was no control of cash. In evidence to the Education and Skills Committee, the Economic Secretary, who was formerly responsible for adult skills, said:
  "At the moment because of the uncertain number of individual learning account discount payments we are going to have to pay we simply cannot give you a sense, even a ballpark I regret to say, of what the possible overspends are going to be."
  There was a complete lack of financial control, yet the Chancellor had the gall to boast about spending extra money.
  How did the Government get into such a mess? They were genuinely interested not in quality but in quantity—never mind the quality, feel the width. The Government had a manifesto target to include 1 million people in their programme. As the Education and Skills Committee said of the individual learning accounts scheme:
  "Presented with a manifesto commitment, and a single target of one million users, insufficient attention was given both to the reasons for the previous rejection of an ILA scheme and to ensuring that quantity was balanced by quality."
  That is a perfect example of too much emphasis on targets and not enough on information for users of public services.
  In the health service, we need to enable people to understand what goes on in hospitals and what happens to waiting lists and mortality rates, and let them make the decisions. In schools, we need to enable people to understand what is happening with class sizes, exam results and university entrance Performance and let them choose. Dare I say it, parents should be given the money to enable them to make the decisions. What we need to do is to diminish the emphasis on targets and increase the emphasis on choice.
  6.36 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: This has been a short but informative debate. The contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) were especially informative. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made an interesting, thoughtful and informed speech. Perhaps it was the most thoughtful speech of the day; it gave hon. Members much to ponder. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk had a productive seven minutes. He managed to make many points about the way in which money without new reform is wasted and the need for sound financial discipline and good management in
  806
  public services and taxpayer-financed programmes. He also emphasised the need to give professionals far more autonomy in making decisions about the day-to-day running of the services in which they find themselves.
  Much of the debate has focused on targets in the health service. The Government face charges that the targets distort clinical priorities put political interests before those of the patients, and are contradictory and often produce conflicting results. They face charges that they often fulfil the targets by changing them en route or fiddling the figures, and that the targets create a culture that is deeply corrosive to professional people.
  There is no better example than that detailed in an article in The Sunday Times yesterday, which stated:
  "In one case earlier this year, a team of four surgeons was prevented from operating for five hours while it argued with a performance manager about a patient who was about to breach the 15-month waiting time.
  Paul Thorpe, chairman of the British Medical Association's junior doctors' committee and one of the surgeons involved in the argument, said: 'It was decided by the surgeons that the operation should be cancelled because there would not be an intensive care bed available after the operation.
  The performance manager came down to the theatre and said, "Don't do anything else; you must do this lady. I could lose my job over this." We spent from 9am to 2pm arguing about this one case because it involved a government target.'"
  That happens in the health service throughout the country. It is not the rare event to which the Secretary of State for Health referred; it happens increasingly frequently.
  Who should make decisions for an individual patient? Who would be best placed to make them? The best decisions would be made on the basis of sensitive and specific information. However, targets such as the maximum waiting time mean that the decision is taken as far away from the patient as possible. For example, a patient with severe arthritis of the hip can be pushed down the waiting list because someone with an ingrowing toenail has reached the maximum wait. That is illogical.
  Even if one agreed with the Government that targets were necessary, these particular targets are wrong. The most logical place for a target is not the time between presentation and diagnosis, which is when doctors have no idea of the clinical urgency needed. Doctors could give a clear waiting time, dependent on diagnosis, from the time of diagnosis to the time of treatment. The Government's targets are upside down.
  All this results from a single pledge given by Labour back in 1997 on elective surgery targets. Now all the activity in the NHS is distorted by that one target, which has become the centrepiece. Many of our primary care trusts are having money sucked up from them because the acute trusts have to make their waiting time targets.
  Let me give the House an example of how contradictory targets can be. The Government have a target for ambulance response times and a target to reduce accidents. The way to improve ambulance response times is to achieve a better speed between the location of the patient and the acute hospital, yet the Government have been so obsessed with their accident reductions that they have stuck speed limits all over London. Every one-minute delay in getting a patient with a myocardial infarction to hospital results in a 10 per cent. increase in mortality.

  807
  The Government have so many targets, which are often completely contradictory, that they are undoing many of the things that they set out to do in the first instance. The first way that the Government meet their targets is to abandon them along the way. In November 1996, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said when referring to mixed-sex wards:
  "Is it beyond the … wit of the Government and the health administrators to deal with that problem?"—[Official Report, 19 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 832.]
  In January 2000, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, then a Health Minister, said that mixed wards are
  "wholly unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring that those wards … disappear by 2002".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 2000: Vol. 608, c. 1118.]
  However, in July 2002, the target was moved from eradicating mixed-sex wards to introducing more single-sex accommodation. That is an entirely different concept—in other words, "If you can't make the target, change the target."
  The second way that the Government meet their targets is to force the staff to fiddle the figures. Ian Perkin, former finance director of St. George's hospital, Tooting, said:
  "There's a culture that's grown up where the emphasis of management within the NHS has been about achieving targets, you know … come hell or high water. It doesn't matter whether achieved legitimately, you just have to achieve them"
  That is a terrible thing for a professional person to say.
  A former chief executive, who did not want to be named, for understandable reasons, said:
  "It was always my understanding, and that of my colleagues, that certain of the targets were what are euphemistically described as P45 targets. What I mean by that is if a particular target wasn't delivered, it was absolutely a sackable offence."
  Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a damning indictment of the culture of fear in the health service over targets that so many managers with real concerns were too scared to have their faces shown on "Panorama" for fear of the repercussions from their political masters?
  Dr. Fox: I will come to that point in a moment, but it is entirely right that there is a culture of fear and intimidation throughout the NHS. Those who might be willing to speak out about what they perceive to be failings in the system are afraid to do that. Indeed, the Government are intent on introducing a gagging clause for consultants in the negotiations on the consultants' contract.
  Perhaps the most obvious example of the Government attempting to fiddle the figures occurred in the recent exercise on the four-hour accident and emergency waiting time. The British Medical Association survey, which was mirrored by the "Panorama" survey, said that two thirds of A and E departments in England put special arrangements in place during the monitoring week.
  Preliminary results from a questionnaire sent to 500 A and E consultants found that the temporary use of medical and nursing staff was the most common tactic, at 56 per cent., followed by staff working double or extended shifts, at 25 per cent. Indeed, 14 per cent. Of
  808
  respondents were aware of routine surgery being cancelled so that extra beds would be available to admit patients through A and E. The majority of respondents believed that efforts to meet Government targets distorted clinical priorities. That involves not isolated cases, as the Secretary of State would have us believe, but 60 per cent. of A and E consultants.
  Don Mackechnie, an A and E consultant and chairman of the BMA's A and E committee, said:
  "I am appalled to see how A&E departments have been forced into taking extraordinary measures for a week-long period just to meet political targets. It is completely immoral of the Government to claim that it is raising the standard of performance in the NHS when this is how they measure it. It is quite wrong for patients expectations to be raised in this way … the Government's obsession with waiting times is nothing more than bean-counting. Patients deserve better than being treated simply as goods on a production line."
  That is what medicine, is being reduced to.
  It is not only medical staff who are involved. Brian Dolan is an emergency nurse consultant—one of the grades that the Government have been proud to introduce. He confirms the suggestion of further manipulation:
  "There's an awful lot of scams and an awful lot of juggling of the targets. For example, 5 cubicles and you count only 3 of them when you're counting the trolley waits. You put a patient on a bed and they say you stop counting the hours they're there because … they're … effectively admitted … Putting a door up and saying, Well that's an observation unit, its no longer a cubicle, so … we won't count those trolleys. Putting a bit of a wall up and putting five or six patients in there and saying … that's the observation area, so we won't count those ones either. Sending them up to CT scan and stopping the clock. If they're being discharged and they're … simply waiting for transport, discharging them off the computer so it doesn't look like they've been there for quite as long."
  That is the ethical destruction of what we have, confirmed by the chairman of the Audit Commission, James Strachan:
  "The system is being distorted to meet those targets in the sense that money was intended for longer term purposes, like buying medical equipment, buying computers, simply maintaining the buildings, that's being diverted in order to be able to meet waiting time targets."
  In other words, what was intended as long-term reform is being sabotaged by the targets that the Government have put in place not to improve the short-term running of the health service but to achieve the headlines that Ministers so like, and also to ensure that their spin gets the right results.
  Today's debate began a great new double act—the Chancellor and the new Health Secretary. Interestingly, between them they apparently did not know the difference between heart disease and a stroke. That was either poor evasion by the Chancellor or a deeply worrying indication of the state of medical knowledge in the Government. However, we will give the Chancellor the benefit of the doubt—he was simply being evasive, as usual.
  We saw the amazing sight of the Chancellor—swivel-eyed and charging at imaginary demons during his 30 or 40 minutes at the Dispatch Box—abandoning any pretence of defending his record on targets in government. Instead, he ranted about Conservative proposals to liberate patients and to liberate British taxpayers. We saw the man once regarded as the

  809
  intellectual bedrock of new Labour, if that is not an oxymoron, reduced to the propaganda equivalent of Comical Ali.
  Then we saw the even more sinister spectacle of the Health Secretary accusing, first, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and then the Conservatives of trying to run down NHS staff. I remind the Secretary of State that some of us on the Conservative Benches have been NHS staff. We were questioning, the integrity not of NHS staff, who are as much victims of the Government's programme as the patients are, but of Ministers, who force NHS staff to act in a way that they find deeply unprofessional. Again, I quote the outgoing BMA chairman:
  "You would think wouldn't you that the government would be distancing itself from these corrupt and immoral practices. Instead, it has turned a blind eye, been triumphalist about its `achievements' and colluded in the deception and doublespeak."
  That is the reality of where we find ourselves.
  The tactic of claiming that any criticism of Ministers' running of the NHS is an attack on NHS staff is deplorable and disgusting. Using NHS staff as a political human shield shows the deep moral corruption that is new Labour. NHS staff will rightly be appalled that they are being used in that way.
  We have had tax, spend and fail. There has been no real reform, just more spin. No wonder no one believes a word the Government say any more. New Labour is as corrupting as it is corrupt. The quicker the Government go, the better.
  6.48 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): Is it not significant that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—in the very last minute of his speech and the very last minute of 45 minutes of speeches from the Conservative Front Bench—finally had a good word to say about national health service staff? Let me start by paying a tribute from the Labour Benches to every one of the 1.3 million people who work in the NHS. We founded the NHS, we have defended it, we will modernise it and we will stand by it against every attack from the Conservative party.
  The truth of the matter is that tonight's debate is not about targets. It is about something much deeper: the great debate that is opening up as a result of the breakdown of the post-war consensus on health in this country. It is about a clear choice for the people of this country: between those of us on the Government Benches, who believe that health care should be free at the point of need to everyone in this country, irrespective of their background; and those on the Conservative Benches, who want to push people out of the national health service with 20 per cent. cuts, and to pull them into the private sector through partial subsidies—a point to which I shall return.
  Dr. Fox: rose—
  Dr. Reid: Sit down—you have had 45 minutes to say your piece.
  810
  We make no apologies for targets. Targets identify priorities, and I say that not just because priorities are, as Nye Bevan said, the "language of socialism", but because they are also the language of good business. We should compare the Conservative Front Benchers' observation that targets are not used by business with that of Lord Browne, chief executive of BP-Amoco, who has run slightly bigger businesses than most of the Conservatives. He said:
  "Targets are two things really. They set standards for compliance but they do much more important things as well … they motivate people to … do better."
  They identify priorities and they offer delivery, because they drive effort and focus ingenuity towards achievable ends. In the national health service they also represent accountability, because they are a public benchmark of where and how we are delivering improvements.
  Incidentally, the Opposition Front Benchers did believe in targets. They told us before the last election that we should have a target not of waiting lists, but of waiting times. That is the policy on which they fought the last election. Of course, they have now changed. The hon. Member for Woodspring tells us that they do not believe in targets any more—they believe instead in setting measurements for quality in the system. The truth is that anyone with objectives that are to be pursued, focused and prioritised would find it reasonable to set targets.
  Of course, sometimes we do not meet the targets.
  Mr. Laws: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Reid: I am sorry, but I must finish as I have only eight minutes. By this year, we wanted nine out of 10 of those who wished to see a GP to have an appointment within two days, on the way to achieving a 100 per cent. figure next year. It is a matter of regret that we failed: we achieved a figure of only 88 per cent., but that is 35 per cent. more was than was ever achieved under the Conservatives.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring—who will admit, given that he is the Conservative spokesman on these matters, that he is slightly biased—asked us to consult, so let me tell the House about the comments of Professor Sir George Alberti, who, like the hon. Gentleman, has considerable experience in the health service. He said:
  "The target is a bloody good thing because it has finally brought the spotlight onto a piece of the system that was unacceptable."
  He is talking about accident and emergency. He continued:
  "The A and E community is happier partly because they see the resources coming and partly because of the focus on them."
  Despite such effort and achievement this year in making sure that 100,000 fewer people spend four hours in an A and E department, all that the Opposition do is to run down the staff for fiddling the figures. They tell us—it is a disgrace that the Liberal Democrat spokesman did the same—that, somehow, the target was only achieved in a single week, through the giving of certain examples and a fiddling of the figures.
  Mr. Laws: rose—
  Dr. Reid: Let me put it on the record that there was an improvement in A and E figures not over one week or one month; in fact, the figures improved over five consecutive months. That is testimony to the professionalism and conduct of the people who work in the NHS.
  Mr. Laws: rose—
  Dr. Reid: If I misunderstood what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) said, I withdraw my remark, but it certainly applies to the Conservative Front Benchers.
  Let us ask the question—[Interruption.] They can shout but they cannot run.
  Dr. Fox: rose—
  Dr. Reid: Ever since the Conservatives voted against a Second Reading of the legislation that established the national health service 60 years ago, we have wondered when they would revert—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but a difficult situation arises when there is too much sedentary noise from Opposition Front Benchers and he addresses his remarks to a different part of the House. The combination is such that I cannot hear what is being said.
  Dr. Reid: I was trying to be emollient, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you think that I should eyeball the Opposition, I am more than happy to do so.
  Why are the Conservatives so upset when we make advances towards our targets? Are they really upset because we have 50,000 more nurses? [Interruption.] No, they are happy—look at their smiles. Are they upset or disappointed that we have 10,000 more doctors? Do they seriously think it a cause for regret that last year, 450,000 more operations were carried out, or is it a cause for rejoicing? Suddenly, they have gone quiet. Are they really so upset that administration and management in the national health service account for 3 per cent. of staff, compared with the private health system in the United States, in which such people account for 24 per cent. of staff? Do they rejoice in that, or do they find it a cause for concern?
  Do they not understand that a reduction in the number of people waiting for an operation for more than a year in discomfort or pain from 22,000—the figure under the Conservatives—to the current figure of 159 is not just a statistic on an accountant's wall, or an entry in a Government ledger? Some 20,000 human beings have been removed from pain, distress and discomfort, at no cost to themselves. We on the Labour Benches rejoice when that happens.
  Mr. Howard: rose—
  Dr. Reid: I can explain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way!"] If anyone wonders why the Conservatives are disappointed when we achieve those targets, through the efforts of those who work in the health service, I can
  812
  explain by recalling the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring. He said that the Conservatives' first task is to persuade the public that the NHS is not working, that the second phase is to convince them that it will not work and that it cannot work, and that the third phase is to introduce into the debate themes on how to fund reform. If he did not say those things, let him deny them. [Interruption.] He did say them and he is proud of the fact. If anybody ever wanted to know the true intention that lies behind the synthetic tears of the Conservatives—the intention that lies behind their disappointment at our reaching the targets—they need look nowhere other than to the words of the hon. Gentleman.
  If anyone in this country wishes to know the intention behind today's debate, they should do what we do in a whodunnit—follow the money. [Interruption.] The Conservatives have made two pledges: the first is to take 20 per cent. away from the national health service, and the second is—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but I do not want to hear accusations of lying directed at any Member of this House. May I suggest to the House that this debate be concluded in an orderly manner?
  Dr. Reid: The Conservatives' second pledge is the voucher—
  David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 178, Noes 336.

  Division No. 275]

  [6:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Breed, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Barker, Gregory

  Butterfill, John

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Barrett, John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cameron, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bercow, John

  Cash, William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Blunt, Crispin

  Barnet)

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Surrey)

  Collins, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Conway, Derek

  Brazier, Julian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  813

  Cotter, Brian

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Howden)

  Coldfield)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Westminster)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Page, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice,James

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Portillo, rh Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Redwood, rh John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendal, David

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  M-Kent)

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hague, rh William

  Ruffley, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Sanders, Adrian

  Abingdon)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Harvey, Nick

  Selous, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hermon, Lady

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

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

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Kincardine)

  Holmes, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Howard, rh Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Streeter, Gary

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Stunell Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Syms, Robert

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Inverness)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Thurso, John

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Tredinnick, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Trend, Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Lamb, Norman

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Leigh, Edward

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Lidington, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Willetts, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  (Macclesfield)

  Maclean, rh David

  Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Young, rh Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Mr. John Randall and

  Atcham)

  Mr. Mark Francois

  814

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Corston, Jean

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Alexander, Douglas

  Crausby, David

  Allen, Graham

  Cruddas, Jon

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Darwen)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Atkins, Charlotte

  (Copeland)

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Baird, Vera

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Banks, Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barnes, Harry

  David, Wayne

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Battle, john

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beard, Nigel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Benn, Hilary

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Doran, Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Best, Harold

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Edwards, Huw

  Blizzard, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Blunkett, rh David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Fisher, Mark

  E)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Wallsend)

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Follett, Barbara

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Burden, Richard

  & Rye)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burnham, Andy

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Cairns, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Godsiff, Roger

  Casale, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hanson, David

  Pentlands)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chryston)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Rhymney)

  Clelland, David

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heyes, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  815

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  McFall, John

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  McKechin, Ann

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  McNulty, Tony

  Sefton E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  McWalter, Tony

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  McWilliam, John

  Urmston)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hutton, rh John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Shettleston)

  Highgate)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Jamieson, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Jenkins, Brian

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hatfield)

  Miliband, David

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Mole, Chris

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Moran, Margaret

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Mudie, George

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kidney, David

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  O'Hara, Edward

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Owen, Albert

  Bow)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Perham, Linda

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Lammy, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Love, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  McCafferty, Chris

  Bellshill)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Anniesland)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McDonnell, John

  NW)

  MacDougall, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  816

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Ruane, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruddock, Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Chester)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sawford, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Singh, Marsha

  Ward, Claire

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Watts, David

  Finsbury)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Lunesdale)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Soley, Clive

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Southworth, Helen

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wilson, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  C)

  Wishart, Pete

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Baillieston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Yarmouth)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's record extra investment in health, education and Britain's other vital public services; supports the Government's agenda of linking this investment to public service reform through Public Service Agreements to build high quality public services for all; welcomes the attainment of economic stability, with low inflation, low interest rates, and low unemployment; believes that the achievement of this platform of stability has made record extra investment in public services possible; supports the Government's determination to do nothing to put this stability at risk; believes that after years of neglect between 1979 and 1997 it is even more important to invest in our public services and that to fail to invest in health, education, and other vital public services would be deeply damaging; and supports this Government's resistance to any attempt at this time of global economic uncertainty to cut public spending.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government for failing to pay the new tax credits on time to millions of entitled families, including those who applied before the January deadline; is concerned that many families are still waiting to receive the money they are owed; regrets the serious financial difficulties suffered by many of these families; condemns the clumsy arrangements for paying overdue tax credits; calls on ministers to explain why the Inland Revenue computer system has proved so unreliable; shares the widespread concern that take-up of the new tax credits is likely to be low; regrets the quality of information available on the new tax credits; and calls on the Government to set up a system of emergency Social Fund loans to people who are still waiting for the correct tax credit payment.
  This debate is not about the principle of boosting families' incomes through the tax or the benefits system. That has been a well-established part of British policy for a long time. Nor is it about helping families in low-paid work. Again, Conservatives have long been in favour of providing extra assistance for such families, which indeed is what the family credit, which we introduced, was all about. Those issues are shared ground, and invented disagreements on them need not detain us tonight. We have called this debate for the simple reason that 1 million families are still not getting the tax credits to which they are entitled. That is the scandal to which we are drawing attention through this debate.
  Some of those families have applied, but have not yet been able to wade through the thicket of red tape to get their payments, while many others have not even applied in the first place. Ministers have given a range of estimates of the number of families affected, so I want to make the arithmetic absolutely clear. The Inland Revenue set it out in a very helpful poster, simply saying,
  "9 out of 10 families with children are now entitled to tax credits".
  As a result of a serious oversight in the Treasury, it gave a full and accurate answer to a question that I asked on the subject. I was told:
  "The number of families with dependent children in the United Kingdom in November 2002 is estimated at 7.2 million."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 440W.]
  So we have 7.2 million families with children and 90 per cent. of them are entitled to the tax credits. That makes 6.5 million families with children who should be receiving those credits. That is the basic arithmetic—[Interruption.]—and I am pleased to hear that it is welcome on the Government Benches.
  We have had a range of estimates from the Government. The Paymaster General has sometimes said that 6 million are eligible. In the pre-Budget report the Chancellor said that around 5.75 million families with children were expected to benefit from the child tax credit. In fact, as fears of a debacle loomed, the Treasury's official estimate of the number of children and families entitled to the tax credit miraculously started disappearing. The Treasury took the cautious and careful measure of reducing the target before being
  818
  judged against it. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that for the first time from this month, 5 million families with incomes below £58,000 a year would receive the new child tax credit. However, not 5 million, not 5.5 million, but 6.5 million families are entitled to it.
  What we know—the Paymaster General has made it clear again today—is that so far 4.2 million families are receiving the child tax credit and that a further 1.3 million families on income support or jobseeker's allowance will be moved on to that credit. That adds up to 5.5 million families: the gap between 5.5 million and 6.5 million is 1 million. There we have the 1 million families that are not receiving the help to which they are entitled. Those are the simple facts, and those are the families that we are representing in the debate tonight.
  Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman seems to have a good command of the figures, so can he tell us how many families are eligible for the credit in his constituency and what he has done to inform them about how to take it up?
  Mr. Willetts: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have done considerable work on the Inland Revenue MPs' phoneline trying to help constituents who come to my surgeries in great distress about their inability to get the tax credits, and every Opposition Member—and, I suspect, Government Member—has been doing exactly the same. We all know what the problem is and why it arose. Part of the reason I have before me now—a 12-page claim form that every family is supposed to fill in. It is said that it could be a lot worse, but the reason that it is only 12 pages is that in order to fill it in claimants have to read the 47-page information booklet as well, taking them through question after question, so families have to wrestle through 59 pages in all in order to get the tax credits that should be theirs by right.
  Let me quote an accountant from Grant Thornton:
  "We fill in lots of forms for clients. From the point of view of the claimant, they can't fill them in because they are simply too difficult. The people who most need the help can't afford that advice."
  The system has collapsed under the sheer weight of its own complexity and the last three months have been some of the blackest in the history of Inland Revenue, as millions of families have tried to make their way through the system.
  I shall give the House some examples of the problems that people have encountered. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), whom I see in his place, mentioned his constituent, Mrs. Stocker, who received a letter from Inland Revenue stating that she had not
  "signed and returned the award notice issued on"
  —and the date was supplied in this way—"00/00/0000". That was the date with which Inland Revenue was working. As a result, it was said that the payment of tax credits had stopped. Inland Revenue was simply incapable of recognising the date from the start of the claim. To add insult to injury, my hon. Friend's constituent received a letter from Inland Revenue stating that she did not qualify for tax credits because she was part of another household for which an award was currently in payment. They meant her husband's household, in which she thought she had lived, with him,

  819
  for many years. The husband received a similar letter explaining that he could not be paid because she was supposed to be in receipt of the tax credit. They were then separately told that their children lived in a third household. That is the sort of shambles with which many people have had to wrestle in the past few months.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mrs. Stocker, my constituent, originally applied for the tax credit as long ago as last September. Despite much correspondence and many telephone calls, she received an acknowledgement only in November. She eventually received the reply to which my hon. Friend referred, but does he realise that she worked for Inland Revenue, so they had all the details all the time? Even worse, when I rang the MPs' helpline I was told that, because she worked for Inland Revenue, I could not use the line because her details were confidential.
  Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extra twist in this extraordinary saga. Other examples abound. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) cited a case of someone who did not receive the tax credit, despite earning only £10,000 a year, because Inland Revenue had placed the comma in the wrong place and believed that she earned £100,000 a year. She received a letter explaining that she would not receive the tax credit for that reason. There are many examples of families caught in that trap.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) showed me a phone bill from one of his constituents who had made 325 phone calls to the hotline to try to disentangle his child tax credit claim. One of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), also in his place this evening, made 70 phone calls to the hotline. The man on that line eventually told him that someone would call him between 8 and 11 the next morning to sort out his problem. He then added, in a moment of truthfulness, that
  "the chances of…getting that call were the same as winning the lottery without buying a ticket".
  Having given the official answer, the man then gave the accurate answer—and, needless to say, no phone call took place the next morning. Those are the sort of problems with which hon. Members throughout the House have had to wrestle on behalf of their constituents.
  Mr. David Cameron: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem with administration also affects the Pension Service and pension credits? My constituent, Mrs. Costar, received a letter from her mother's last address, saying:
  "You will be pleased to learn that there is a new Government entitlement called pension credit, which could give you extra money each week."
  The only trouble is that her mother died in 1972.
  Mr. Willetts: I am afraid that that is the sort of example that every hon. Member has encountered and the problem is that enormous personal distress is often caused in that way. Hundreds of thousands of people have received insulting letters about their personal
  820
  affairs and suffered enormous financial problems as a result of their failure to get money that they expected and were entitled to receive.
  Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend rightly talks about the distress caused to people applying for the credits, but does he agree that those who work in Inland Revenue offices have themselves had to put up with an intolerable amount of stress because of what has gone wrong in the system? We should not forget them in this debate either.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right and I want to make it absolutely clear that our motion is in no way an attack on the people working in Inland Revenue, who find themselves in desperate circumstances trying to wrestle with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of inquiries from taxpayers throughout the country who are seriously worried about their financial circumstances. The source of the problem is not Inland Revenue, nor even software problems and computing systems—though they may be part of the problem. The real source of the problem is the policy decisions taken by Ministers.
  To gain a measure of the shambles that people now face—some having to contend with months of delay before they receive their tax credits—let me remind Ministers of the speech given by the Prime Minister to his party conference on 1 October 1996. Those were the days when he could say, in a savage attack on the delivery of benefits under the Conservative Government:
  "It takes two weeks to get your first Income Support payment and then one in seven will be wrong. It takes a month to get your first Child Benefit cheque".
  Yet we know hundreds of thousands of people who would be delighted if they could receive their child tax credit within a month. They would look back on that period as one of halcyon days in which the benefit system actually worked. The Prime Minister then went on to say, because he was so shocked at people having to wait one or two weeks:
  "We will introduce a programme to reform Government. Our aim is to co-ordinate services across government using the advantages of technology now available, to provide a modern and up to date service for the customers of the state. Government for the people, not Government for the Government."
  That is what he promised in 1996. The gap between that rhetoric then and the reality now tells us everything about what has gone wrong under the Government.
  Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the administrative shambles of the tax credit, and we support his motion in that regard. He said that he is concerned about the actual policy, but the motion makes no positive proposals, apart from an emergency social fund. If he were in government, what policy would he adopt to make tax credits work?
  Mr. Willetts: I have three practical proposals to try to make the system work better and I hope that Ministers will consider them carefully. I hope that I do not have to superglue my hand to the Dispatch Box to get Ministers' attention.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Has my hon. Friend noticed a pattern developing in recent

  821
  debates? The Government make an absolute Horlicks of everything and then demand that we come up with the solutions to their mess.
  Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful to her for that point. If I give the House a short summary of the story so far, it will be clear why our system of tax and benefits has descended into shambles. In the four years since 1999, we have seen the abolition of the family credit, then the introduction of the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit, the child care tax credit and the employment credit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] Then the Government abolished the married couple's allowance. Then they introduced the children's tax credit and then a baby tax credit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] Then the system needed further reform, so the Government abolished the working families tax credit, the disabled person's tax credit and the children's tax credit—some of the very tax credits that they have just been cheering. Labour Members are a bit behind, but same of the tax credits only lasted a year, so they have to be quick. Having introduced the baby tax credit, the Government abolished it after a year. Then they introduced the new child tax credit, abolished the employment credit and introduced a working tax credit. That is what they have done in the past four years, and they ask us why the situation has become such a shambles.
  Mr. James Plaskitt: The combined effect of the changes introduced mean that for the first child in a low-income family the weekly support is now £54.25. How much was it when the Conservatives left office?
  Mr. Willetts: At least under our Government, we did not have 1 million families who were not getting any help. It does not matter what the theory is, because if families are not getting the money, they are not getting the money. That is the point.
  I have three practical proposals for retrieving the situation. The first is to make better use of the provision that already exists in the social fund to make alignment loans.
  Mr. Russell Brown: I do not know what sort of working relationship the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have with their local Inland Revenue offices, but I have had many people come to my office and had no problem in diverting them to the local revenue office for payments to be made within 24 hours.
  Mr. Willetts: Sadly, many of us have found that the Inland Revenue emergency interim payments have not arrived to the timescale that many people have expected, and I shall give examples in a moment.
  The social fund includes a mysterious provision for something called alignment loans. They are a special invention whose sole purpose is to tide people over when they are not receiving other benefits to which they are entitled. It is a sad reflection on our social security system that we have to have alignment loans to lend people money while they wait for other benefits. Indeed, alignment loans are an increasing proportion of all crisis
  822
  loans made by the social fund. For the last year for which we have figures, alignment loans were £36 million of the £75 million paid out in crisis loans. So the social security system already contains provision to make loans to people who have not received money that they are owed by Government agencies. It would he right to use those funds in this situation.
  I put that proposal to the Paymaster General, asking what discussions had been had with the Chancellor on that point. Her answer, in terms of sheer complacency, breaks even her record. She said:
  "The Department for Work and Pensions is working with the Inland Revenue to ensure that there is a seamless transition"—
  a good, old seamless transition—
  "to the new tax credits system and that there is good liaison between the two organisations to ensure that awards of both tax credits and social security benefits are made promptly to people in the most urgent need."—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 684W.]
  That is what the Paymaster General claimed, but that is not the reality. If it were, we would not need the social fund loans. However, many people on low incomes have not received their money.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Willetts: We all know that hundreds of thousands of people have not received their money, and that is why the social fund loans are necessary.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Willetts: I wish to make progress, because hon. Members on both sides wish to speak in the debate.
  Secondly, the Paymaster General should lift the deadline, which falls tonight, after which people will no longer be able to apply for the child tax credit and receive the full year's payments. If one already has children and put in an application for the child tax credit from tomorrow, it will be backdated by three months and, therefore, it will not be for the full year. As every month passes, people will not be able to get the full year's value of the child tax credit. There is no reason why the Inland Revenue should have a rule on the backdating of payments of tax allowances within the financial year. Most tax allowances may be claimed even after the end of the financial year.
  The same Inland Revenue and Treasury press officers who were briefing over the weekend that it would be impossible to remove the backdating rule were saying the opposite when it came to the baby tax credit. The baby tax credit is a special, double rate of tax credit, payable for children in the first year of life. It is a record-breaking tax credit—out of 500,000 families entitled to it, so far only 150,000 have received it. That 30 per cent. take-up rate is perhaps the lowest of any tax credit yet, although the Government may yet manage to improve on that performance. When we drew that to the attention of the Treasury, a spokeswoman did not see what the problem was because
  "People have up to 2009 to claim for the baby element of the old children's tax credit."

  823
  So when there is a low take-up of the baby tax credit, people have until 2009 to claim, but the guillotine is about to drop for people who wish to claim the child tax credit this year. There is no reason for that and we believe that there is a strong case for flexibility.
  Thirdly, there is a strong case for compensation. We hope that we will hear authoritatively from Ministers what their policy on compensation will be. People need guidance. They have suffered serious financial losses as a result of the failures of the system. For example, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) found that the Inland Revenue was no longer sending payments directly to her account on the dates that it was supposed to. Instead, she was being sent giros irregularly. As a result, she could not be sure that the money would be in her account to pay her direct debits, and she has incurred £129 of bank charges because she has gone into debt because the payments have not been received regularly. In another example, a lady's bank charged her £320 in returned cheque fees after she had written cheques on a promise by the Inland Revenue that the interim payment would be made within 24 hours—as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) claimed. She did not receive the money, the cheques bounced and she faces £320 in charges as a result. Those are the people who need to know whether they are entitled to compensation, and I hope that we will hear from the Minister on that point tonight.
  Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: No, I want to move to a conclusion as other hon. Members want to speak and I want the Secretary of State, in particular, to talk about his responsibilities.
  What is going on? This shambles of a tax credit system has the Inland Revenue, which finds it difficult enough to be a tax-collecting department, suddenly trying to become a benefit office as well. The implications of the shambles go way beyond the Inland Revenue and the child tax credit—although those are serious enough—and spread to the entire structure of the welfare state.
  Will the Secretary of State comment on two problems? The first is the problem of unemployed people who are on income support and whom all of us, on both sides of the House, want to see encouraged into work. I shall report for the Secretary of State a conversation that a person on income support had with his new deal adviser recently. He wanted advice about how, under the new tax credit, he could be better off in work than out of work. The new deal adviser said:
  "If you were to ask if there was any problem with registering for 'Tax credit', I would have to say no. I could not tell you that if you registered today you would not be able to feed your children in 3 or 4 weeks time. I could not tell you that we can't access the system on computer or phone. I could not advise you to wait until the backlog"—
  of hundreds of thousands of cases—
  "is dealt with. Should you decide to wait I can't tell you that you will go into an unofficial file in order that we may notify you if and when the situation improves. I also can't show you an internal memo stating that the system has totally collapsed."
  The memo was turned towards him.
  824
  In the light of that conversation, that person decided that the safest thing was to remain unemployed on income support. He was being advised by the new deal adviser that the tax credit system was such a mess that the only way to guarantee that he would continue to receive payments was to stay on income support.
  I know that that is not what Ministers intended. I fully accept that that was never the purpose of their system, but I hope that they will have the honesty to admit that that is the consequence of the introduction of their policies.
  Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State about pensioners and the pension credit regime? We are concerned that the Government are learning the wrong lesson from the child tax credit shambles, as they look to the implementation of the pension credit, which is supposed to start in October this year. They seem, above all to be concerned with minimising applications.
  All Members have received a letter that states:
  "We will be contacting about 20 per cent. of the pensioner population, selected at random, between April and September 2003…but the main telephone application service and the Pension Credit launch starts in October…We have introduced this special arrangement before October so that we have a controlled and measured build up Of applications."
  In fact, the letters do not even contain an application form. They are not intended to make it easy for people to apply for their benefit; they do not even contain details of the application procedure.
  A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman was quoted as saying that the Department wants to
  "minimise the number of paper applications".
  I do not know how many pensioners will apply over the internet—no doubt, some will—but that is not the way that most of them want to apply for the pension credit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Phone."] Before Labour Members shout about the phone, they should be aware of the experience of almost every phoneline introduced by the Government.
  On the pension credit form, the answer to the question "How will I be able to apply?" was:
  "We will be writing to people aged 60 and over between April 2003 and June 2004."
  That end date is nine months after the supposed launch of the new pension credit. The Government have not been publicising the phoneline that pensioners can use. They do not want pensioners to know about it; it does not appear on the posters. The Government have concluded that the best way of ensuring that the pension credit does not have the same problems as the child tax credit is to give it such a low profile that not many pensioners will claim it.
  If low profile is what the Govt want, the Secretary of State is the ideal man for the job. Low profile is not good enough, however. We want pensioners to receive the pension credit to which they are entitled. We want families to receive the child tax credit to which they are entitled. Instead, for the past three months, we have seen administrative failure, policy failure and distress for millions of families up and down the country. That is why we are moving the motion.
  7.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the introduction of the Child Tax Credit is the biggest single change in support for families since the Beveridge reforms of the 1940s, and a more radical change than the introduction of Child Benefit 25 years ago; notes that the new tax credits represent the biggest ever investment in families with children, with no government ever having spent so much on children and families; welcomes the fact that 90 per cent. of families with children are eligible for the Child Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that tax credits are now being paid to 4.2 million families; notes that in addition 1.3 million families with children on Income Support and Jobseekers' Allowance are already benefiting from the increased level of support through their benefits; welcomes the fact that 5.5 million families are therefore now benefiting from tax credits, with more and more being paid every week; and believes that these figures belie the persistent criticism that people would not claim, and that those who said that families would not apply for the new tax credits, and that take up would be low, have been proved wrong."
  I am pleased to move our amendment and to reject the claims of the Opposition. Their motion talks about low take-up, yet 4.2 million people are already receiving the new tax credits—[Interruption.]—the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is nodding; and 1.3 million people are receiving new rates of benefit. That the Opposition try to brand tax credits a failure when millions of people are gaining from a system that has been going only for a few months shows how ludicrous the hon. Gentleman's claims are.
  Even on the arithmetic that the hon. Gentleman set out at the beginning of his speech, take-up is about 84 per cent. He told us about the shared ground on helping poor families and helping people into work and how wonderful the family credit was, but does he know the take-up rate for family credit in its first year of operation? It was 57 per cent. at most. His is a classic case of "Do as we say", not "Do as we did". When the Conservatives had the chance, they got it wrong; family credit take-up was abysmal, so we shall take no lectures from them. Millions of people are already gaining from tax credits.
  If people needed any convincing that today's Tory party has something to hide, a policy agenda that they dare not tell the British people, the hon. Gentleman's speech, bereft of any positive policy proposal—as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out—will have persuaded them. I listened in vain for any idea of what the hon. Member for Havant and his party would do to replace the tax credits that they are so keen to run down. I am surprised by and disappointed in the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We all know him to be a man of some intellect—
  David Cairns: Two brains.
  Mr. Smith: In one of those brains, there must be some thoughts about what the Conservatives would actually do in government.
  I think that the hon. Member for Havant is being held back and gagged by the ever more extreme shadow Chancellor, who clearly did not relish conducting this debate himself. There is a sinister reason for that. The truth is that the shadow Chancellor has his eye on the
  826
  £13 billion investment in children through the tax credits as part of his commitment to cut public spending by 20 per cent.
  Mr. Cameron: I am not sure whether I regret interrupting the right hon. Gentleman's rant, especially after such a reasonable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). My question relates to an e-mail that I received from one of my constituents, Mrs. Summers of Chadlington. She asked why the baby element of the child tax credit applies only to one child at a time. Why is not it payable for twins? That seems a reasonable point, given that the cost of bringing up twins is so much greater.
  Mr. Smith: It follows the rules for child benefit; they are applicable to the credit and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants them properly applied.
  I was talking about the shadow Chancellor's designs on the £13 billion. We all know about his plans to cut the new investment that Labour has made in health and education. The last thing that he wants is for the hon. Member for Havant to apply his ingenuity to developing positive policies, and still less that he should tell people about them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman simply wants the hon. Gentleman to get on with undermining and trying to destroy the tax credits, without getting caught up in the arguments about the best way to tackle poverty, turn welfare dependency around and support children and families. The shadow Chancellor may not want to address those arguments, but that makes it all the more important for us to spell out why tax credits are the right approach—[Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to hear why they are the right approach; they do not want to hear that tax credits are already benefiting more than 4 million people and why it would be so disastrous if the Tory party got the chance to do away with them.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: It is a pity that the Secretary of State only took about 90 seconds to move from the Government's figures to discuss Opposition policy, but he referred again to more than 4 million tax credit payments being made. On 28 April, the Paymaster General told the House that there were more than 4 million applications, and the Government are now telling us that there are 4.2 million claims in payment. Will the Secretary of State therefore guide us through the relationship between those figures? More than two months ago, we were told that there were more than 4 million applications, but how many applications have now been made and how many are applications are awaiting a decision and not yet in payment?
  Mr. Smith: There are 4.5 million applications, of which 4.2 million are in payment, as we have already said. The hon. Gentleman accuses me of moving from the figures, but I shall come to the figures later; he has not heard the last of the success that the figures demonstrate.
  As we all know, the new tax credits represent the biggest change in social support since Beveridge. They help people to move from welfare to work, bridging the gap between support for those who are not working and help for those who are. For the first time, they recognise

  827
  in the tax system the extra cost of bringing up children, and they improve work incentives for second earners who work part-time at typical entry wages.
  I listened to the hon. Member for Havant telling us his story about the new deal adviser and the tax credits. Does it not occur to him and his right hon. and hon. Friends that, if the Conservatives had won the last general election, there would be no new deal, no new deal adviser and no tax credits for them to talk about?
  Tax credits are inclusive because they support people with children, whether or not they are in work, and people in work, whether or not they have children. They are more generous to working families on modest incomes. They give more flexibility over child care, enabling parents to change their arrangements to suit their needs and ensuring that those on maternity or paternity leave continue to receive the working tax credit. They represent a decisive break from a past in which there was one system of support for the poor and those out of work that was easily stigmatised, and another system of support for the better off, so the tax credits tackle stigma. Those are decisive advantages.
  I heard nothing in the speech of the hon. Member for Havant to suggest that the Conservative party wants to do anything other than turn back the clock, making it harder to move from welfare to work, as it was when the Conservatives were in government, giving inadequate recognition to the cost of bringing up children, entrenching social division, denying parents choice, limiting child care options and stigmatising the poor. It is clear that they have learned nothing and would return the country to the high unemployment, welfare dependency and deepening poverty that was the hallmark of the Conservative years.
  Mr. Webb: A moment ago, the Secretary of State rightly pointed out that what is distinctive about the new tax credits is that, for the first time, they include people without children in in-work support, but we have heard no separate figures for childless people, who might be expected to have low take-up because they have never been in the system before. Will he tell us how many childless people are receiving the new tax credits? If he cannot do so off the top of his head, will he us assure that the Paymaster General will give us the precise figure for childless people when responding to the debate?
  Mr. Smith: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will give the precise figure, but what I can say—the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that aspect of the tax credits—is that the gain for those on low pay can be as high as £50 a week. Whatever differences exist in the Chamber on the principle of tax credits and the resources that go into them, I hope that every hon. Member will join in campaigning not to run them down and discourage people from applying for them, but to claim their entitlement.
  The motion and the debate show us that Conservative Members' real complaint is not the practical problems of introducing the new credit, but that we are introducing a progressive system. The whole aim of their campaign and today's debate is not to make the new tax credit work better, but to undermine them and the help that they provide to millions of people. If that were not their aim, they would go out and campaign
  828
  for take-up, or they would come to the House with an alternative policy and tell us how they would tackle poverty, welfare dependency and the cost of bringing up children. They have done neither. We have heard no such case. Instead, they try to misrepresent the difficulties that there have been in implementation as a failure of the whole approach. Those claims are just as wrong as the predictions that they made when they said that families would not apply for the new tax credits. They said that take-up would be low.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The House has been subjected to a few minutes of bluster of which Alastair Campbell would be proud. Let us now face the facts: there are decent, honest civil servants in the Paymaster General's office, for whom I personally have a high regard, who have cringed with embarrassment and then sent motor cycle couriers around the country with money, trying to bail out our constituents who have been left destitute and run up debts. Will the Secretary of State just answer one simple question—yes or no? Is he satisfied with the operation of his Department's national computer?
  Mr. Smith: I am not certain what my Department's national computer has got to do with the debate. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about civil servants' integrity and commitment. People throughout the country are committed to making a success of tax credits, as are the Government, and the Conservative party should be supporting that campaign and take-up effort, not using every pretext to run it down, make ludicrous predictions about what will happen and brand the whole thing a failure. Let us look at the facts: 4.5 million claims have been made already and tens of thousands more are coming in every week—and 4.2 million claims are already in payment, as we have said.
  Ann McKechin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are childless workers now benefiting for the first time, but that the benefit is very valuable for disabled workers? One of my constituents, who is disabled and works part-time, will gain an additional £3,500 per annum as a result of the new tax credit system, so I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this Government, unlike the Conservative party, are making a real difference to disabled people in this country.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very good point indeed. The extra help that the tax credits provide is of enormous value; it is helping our whole drive on welfare to work for people with disabilities and others.
  Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, at 90 per cent., take-up is very high indeed, compared with the previous means-tested take-up, which was nearer 50 per cent.? Does he also agree that, given that the benefits apply to those with incomes of about £58,000 a year, it is very likely—the facts bear this out—that the people who are not taking up the benefits are those who earn more than £50,000? So there has been a terrific success in targeting and delivering money to families and paying benefits through people's pay, rather than through the old, stigmatised Tory system that did not work.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Not only is the take-up higher than was the case with the

  829
  measures taken by the Conservative party, but the benefits are very much more generous and they are transforming living standards and opportunities for people throughout the country. Millions of people have benefited in the first few months of the scheme. There have been practical failings in implementation, for which the Government have apologised, but the overall picture is one not of tax credits failing, but of tax credits succeeding.
  As I have said, we acknowledge that there were problems in implementation, delays in payment, difficulties using the helpline and slow running of the IT system, and the Government and the Inland Revenue have apologised for the effect that that has had on the families affected. We have taken early action, putting in place a system of interim payments, and we have taken other steps to improve the system. The hon. Member for Havant advocated the social fund. I cannot understand why the system of interim payments that the Inland Revenue has operated does not commend itself to him as obviously more simple.
  Mr. Willetts: It is not working
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that, but 200,000 people have benefited from interim payments, paid within 24 hours of their asking for them.
  Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State has captured in his last few sentences the fact that however well the policy was addressed and passed through the House, the administrative difficulties have been greater than anticipated. For that reason, if for no other, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was on a strong point when he asked the Government to reconsider the window for backdating. A three-month period in normal circumstances is perfectly reasonable. Having regard to the difficulties with the administration of tax credits, will the right hon. Gentleman, working with the Inland Revenue, allow at least until the end of this calendar year to get people sorted out and to get the administration sorted out before the three-month travelling window of backdating kicks in?
  Mr. Smith: I understand well why such a case is made, and I listen to it with special care when it comes from the Chairman of the Select Committee. A real danger exists, however, that those who advocate it will contradict themselves. On the one hand, Conservative Members have argued that the system is too complicated, yet now they urge us to add further complexity. All Members will know people whose circumstances have changed and for whom several sets of information would have to be given. Conservative Members should consider again what their party did in office. When the Conservatives faced this issue with family credit, did they provide a year's retrospection? No; they operated normal backdating of a maximum of one month, and people had to show just cause to access it.
  Annabelle Ewing: On that latter point, I find the Secretary of State's answer unconvincing. Surely it does not matter what the Tories did when they were in
  830
  government. Surely it is up to this Government to do better. In any event, my key question concerns the admission by the Secretary of State a moment ago that errors were made. Can we have a statement on whether the Government will pay compensation to those people who have out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the errors that he admitted a moment ago?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady said that we ought to do better than the Conservative party, and I certainly agree with her about that. Of course, we are doing better with the new tax credits, which are three times as generous as the family credit arrangements. On compensation, that is governed by an Inland Revenue code of practice, which must apply in this case as in other cases.
  We acknowledge the difficulties that have been experienced, and we apologise for the effect on families. Let us also remember, however, that the overwhelming majority of payments were made to families on time and accurately. Performance of the system has improved. The Inland Revenue is clearing many more cases than it is receiving. I have certainly had more positive feedback from constituents and others who appreciate the real difference that the new credits are making to their standard of living and to their child care choices. Building on what has already been achieved through economic stability, 1.5 million more people in jobs, the new deal, the minimum wage, the increases in child benefit—which the Conservatives froze for nearly their whole period in office—the working families tax credit, improved child care and the new tax credits bring further help to families and those on low incomes. They carry forward our drive for a strong society in which everyone has the chance to make the most of their potential, and in which no one is left behind.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I applaud the extra £2.7 billion that is going into help for families. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that some families—perhaps a larger number than we currently understand—who were on income support and who work for low wages received the tax credit and lost income support? They found themselves paying council tax and rent, and in one case in my constituency they found that they had £60 a week less for their children than previously because of bills coming in and because they had been taken out of income support by the tax credits.
  Mr. Smith: I recognise that the movement from welfare to work, which was very difficult under the Conservative party, and which we have improved substantially, involves withdrawal rates, tapers and additional costs. That is why, all the time, we are examining how we can improve the gains to work for those who make that difficult transition. I must say, however, that there is no comparison between the support and the extent of movement from welfare to work under this Government and the abysmal record of the Conservative party. It is the combination of the new deal help, which it opposed, the minimum wage, which it opposed, and the tax credit system, which it opposes now, that makes the difference. Let us remember that we started with the awful legacy of the Conservative years, inheriting a fractured society—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear it because it

  831
  is so true. It was a society riddled with divisions and plagued by poverty and social exclusion. Over 18 years, the Conservative party widened the gap between rich and poor, with millions being thrown into poverty.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am listening carefully to the Secretary of State's speech, as I did to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. Both of them have done a service to the people of this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman not admit, however, that one of the grave problems with the implementation of these tax credits, which I warmly support and with which I agree, is that people lose benefits that they have hitherto received before the tax credits were implemented? People are therefore left with much less income to pay large bills. Will he not only reply to that but indicate whether the Inland Revenue regulations relating to compensation might take that point into account, so that people can get redress for the huge debt that they piled up through no fault of their own?
  Mr. Smith: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically kind remarks. I recognise in him and in the spirit with which he addresses this matter a true one-nation Conservative. If more of his right hon. and hon. Friends would listen to him and to that approach, which is designed to build communality and strength in our society, and communality of interest—[Interruption.] I must be careful what I allege that he supports: a strong society in which our interdependence is recognised and in which we help people out of poverty by giving them a helping hand. If he can give me illustrations of the problem of the gap between benefits and tax credits kicking in, I will be pleased to look into them. I know of nothing within the design of the system that allows that to happen or should allow it to happen. Indeed, I know of many instances in which we are operating benefit run-ons to enable people to be assured that they are still getting their benefit income while meeting the costs of taking up a job.
  We have been turning things round from the devastation and the division of those Conservative years—[Interruption.] Conservative Members groan, but millions of children grew up in neighbourhoods in which the odds were stacked against them and they were consigned to a life on inadequate benefits. Since 1997, we have started to turn that awful legacy around. For the poorest families in this country—as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) asked and the hon. Member for Havant—was unable to answer earlier-child support was £27.70 a week in 1997. Through child benefit increases and the child tax credit, that will now be £54.10 a week for the first child: a near doubling of support since we took office. With economic stability and growth, we are helping to make work possible through the new deals, the investment in rolling out Jobcentre Plus, expanding child care and tackling the burden of child care costs. More than 180,000 families are receiving an average £41 a week to help with child care. We are helping to make work pay through the minimum wage and reform of taxes and benefits to improve the gains to work, to help with the costs of children and, for the first time, to raise the incomes of those in work without children. The Conservative party really cannot stand the fact that all of this is working. Our policies have got record numbers
  832
  of people into jobs and have meant that 1.5 million fewer children endure the sort of poverty that was experienced during the Tory years.
  If all our tax and benefit measures are taken together, an average family with children gains £1,200 a year and the poorest families gain £2,500 a year. We are determined to go further, which is why we have pledged to halve child poverty in a decade and to abolish it entirely in a generation. The British people know that when the Tories oppose the new tax credits, they are opposing the crucial next stage of making work pay and supporting families. It is clear from the debate that the Conservative party stands in the way of opportunity for all and a fairer Britain. We relish the opportunity to argue our case because with a Labour Government and the tax credits, Britain has more jobs and higher living standards. We do not leave the poor behind.
  Mr. Willetts: May I make it clear to the Secretary of State that the purpose of the proposal to remove the deadline today is to allow more families to get the tax credit and be sure of the income that he is talking about.
  Mr. Smith: That point would have been more persuasive if the hon. Gentleman and his party did not keep arguing and voting against the tax credits and trying to undermine and destroy them. The truth is that as we lead the country beyond the damage and division of the Tory years, our record on making inroads into poverty and raising incomes for all—for the poorest, most of all—is cause for confidence that we will complete our work of building a society of social justice and opportunity for all. That is what the debate is all about: we are in favour of opportunity for all and a fair Britain, but the Conservative party stands in its way.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: It is quite right that we are debating the administrative shambles of the tax credit system. All constituency Members will have met and spoken to many people who have been unable to get through to the helpline and who have been deprived of money because one benefit has been taken away before the new tax credit has been introduced, leaving them in urgent need. I asked whether that will happen next April following additions for children. I am told that it cannot happen and that people will retain the child element of their income support until their child tax credit comes through. I hope that that happens in practice because it clearly did not happen this time round and many vulnerable people lost out.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that point so early in his speech because it was the point that I put to the Secretary of State. He denied that such things were happening, but, unless I have completely misunderstood the letters that I have received, it is happening. Benefit is being taken away before the new tax credit is implemented. Is the hon. Gentleman confirming that, because, if he is, it is the real issue about which I am deeply concerned?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on precisely what is happening. There should have been a

  833
  guarantee that the most needy families who received the old top-ups to their wages—the old working families tax credit—would keep the money until the new money was on stream. That would have prevented a lot of the pain, but it did not happen.
  We should set the context of the debate by pointing out that the Bill that introduced the system went through the House unopposed. No party objected to the principle of the new tax credit regime. I had the dubious privilege of serving on the Committee that considered the Tax Credits Bill and on the Committee that considered the previous Bill on tax credits. The Conservatives tabled many amendments on fraud, quite reasonably, but very few related to the issues that we are discussing. There has been an administrative failure to deliver a system of extra help for low-income families that was broadly endorsed by the House as a whole.
  The schizophrenic relationship between the Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions was beautifully summed up when the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked about the Secretary of State's computer. The Secretary of State said, in as many words, "Don't ask me, it's not my Department." The computer is not his at all—it belongs to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue. I am slightly puzzled that the Secretary of State is speaking in the debate at all, because the new regime is supposed to be part of the integrated tax system.
  Mr. Andrew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the official Opposition had put up the shadow Chancellor to lead the debate—I suggested earlier that they should have done, but he clearly did not want to debate the subject—Treasury spokespeople would be speaking rather than the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), me and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb)? Why is he speaking?
  Mr. Webb: The shadow Chancellor led the previous debate and I think that one debate in a day is quite sufficient for him.
  Who is responsible for the system? The Secretary of State did not say that he knows nothing about it, so he clearly takes a close interest. The problem is that it is not really a system of tax credits at all because the Government have not integrated the measure in the tax system. The three-month backdating rule is a benefit rule, so the credit is really a social security benefit. There is a take-up problem because the credit is not integrated in the tax system. I recall that there was no take-up problem with the married couple's allowance, but the flat-rate child credit—the analogue of the old married couple's allowance—does have a take-up problem. Some people receive less money under the new system because they took up the married couple's allowance but do not claim the new tax credit.
  Take-up is important. It is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to point out that there was low take-up during the initial phases of family credit, but he cannot gloss over the fact that 1 million families are missing out. The baby credit take-up rate is
  834
  extraordinary. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) read a quote from The Times on Saturday that said that the baby credit may be claimed until 2009—I suspect that most children will have grown out of baby clothes by that time. Indeed, the claim could probably be combined with claims for pension credit to save trouble. However, the idea that the baby credit may be claimed five or six years after children were babies demonstrates the absurdity of the entire system.
  Take-up is a real issue, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, is absolutely right to say that we could put back the deadline without a problem. I did not understand the Secretary of State's response to that point. If people claim in August, the assessment is still based on their income during the whole financial year because that is the way in which the system works. Why must they supply more or different information if the claim is backdated only three months rather than to 6 April? The claim is still based on annual income, so payment must just be made for more weeks. The Secretary of State will reflect that his argument was specious, and given the deference that he properly paid to my hon. Friend, as we all do, I hope that he will revisit the point and either give us a more credible response or accept the point that we made over the weekend. Although that point is not detailed in the Conservative's motion, I am delighted that the hon. Member for Havant has come on board.
  I also hope that the Paymaster General will answer my point about childless recipients, because they are the great forgotten people. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that nearly 500,000 childless couples and single people with full-time, low-paid jobs would be brought into the new system for the first time. We have not received any separate figures showing the take-up among those groups—presumably because it is appalling. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Paymaster General if she wishes to contradict my point.
  Dawn Primarolo: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow. It is not the case that there are no figures, and I shall answer his question when I wind up the debate.
  Mr. Webb: I am bereft.
  A second group of people with problems are not those who have not yet received their money but, bizarrely, those who have received too much. Now that people have started to receive money, some have received ridiculous amounts. The hon. Member for Havant mentioned a person whose income was entered as £100,000 rather than £10,000, but there are also people who are receiving far too much money because their income was entered too low. They are trying to give the money back but they cannot. I am worried because the maximum payments can be thousands of pounds. If such payments are made to people who are entitled to only the basic payment of £500, they will be thousands of pounds in surplus.
  Will the Paymaster General tell us how the money will be clawed back? Small overpayments could be dealt with by reducing the following year's payment, but if people are entitled to £500 yet receive £5,000 will they receive

  835
  nothing for nine years or, as I suspect, will the Inland Revenue ask for it back rather more quickly? People might hear the Government's rhetoric and think that the new system generously gives lots of money and, thus, spend the money on their children. What will happen if the Inland Revenue asks for it back? Will she run a scan on her computer, as I asked her to in a Westminster Hall debate on the same subject, on entitlement this year to the children's tax credit and entitlement last year to the working families tax credit to spot cases in which someone's entitlement has shot up tenfold, and investigate where mistakes have been made? That would help to pre-empt the problem and would be better than merely reacting to it when something goes wrong.
  Much of what we have heard relates to problems with the IT system. A common thread runs through those problems. I understand that the company EDS is involved in the computer system for the tax credits. I also understand that it is involved in the computer system for the Child Support Agency, which is not going well. In addition, I understand that it has a hand in the pension credit system as well. How can we be confident that the pension credit system will not be even more of a shambles than the existing tax credit system? The same hands appear to be on the tiller in each case. There are some important questions to ask about the Government's IT projects, the management of those projects and whether the Government become beholden to one supplier when the contracts come up for renewal because no one else would dream of taking them on, in which case the taxpayer is not getting good value for money and the public are not getting good service.
  Mr. Gale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a fairly senior civil servant involved in the CSA told me this morning that there is no prospect in the foreseeable future of historical cases migrating to the new system because the CSA computer is in total chaos? As I said to the Secretary of State, who clearly does not have a clue what is going on in his Department, his computers in general are in chaos.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right. Dealing with new CSA cases should be straightforward because they have been relevant only since March. If a small fraction of the caseload is in chaos, I am worried whether the whole system will work correctly. The addition of the tax credits and the pension credit means that we are heading for chaos. That has to be a worry for our constituents.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) raised the important issue of passported benefits. That has also been a bit of a shambles. I hope that the Paymaster General can clarify the rules. When people who are not on the maximum rate of income support move on to the child tax credit, they could lose the income support element entirely. How will the passporting work in that situation? I visited the Department of Health website today to look at the health benefit scheme, which is important to low-income families because it includes measures such as free prescriptions. The website on low-income health benefits says, "If you are on working families tax credit", which was abolished four months ago, "these are your entitlements." There is then a little note that
  836
  says, "This page will be updated." That shows the lack of joined-up thinking across the Government on passported benefits because, four months into the new system, the Department of Health has not got round to issuing new guidelines. Problems will be acute next April when the poorest families come across to the new system, because they really need the passported benefits. I hope that we have a coherent explanation of how passporting will work.
  There is one aspect of tax credits on which I will court unpopularity with the public at large. I understand that the Inland Revenue has thrown resources at trying to sort out the problem of the tax credit backlog by putting people's tax returns in a corner in a room in Bootle. I am reliably informed that somewhere in Bootle there is a cupboard with a big pile of unopened tax returns.
  Dawn Primarolo: I need to correct the hon. Gentleman. There is not a cupboard in Bootle, or anywhere else for that matter, with tax forms, filed in boxes or any other way. They have been processed; his story is incorrect.
  Mr. Webb: I am grateful for that reassurance. Everyone will get their tax demands on time after all. I have succeeded in gaining another Liberal Democrat victory.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) raised the small issue of twins. The Government could do some good on that without spending serious money. I am grateful that the Paymaster General indicated that some progress might have been made on that front. If twins are born, the child credit system means that the family receives one lot of child credit, because it is an amount per family, unless they are on a very low income, in which case there is an extra amount. However, the lump sum cost of twins is, potentially, double. For example, a family needs two prams; it is not possible to have a hand-me-down pram. I gather the cost of extending the family rate of the child tax credit to twins is £5 million—the Secretary of State confirms that by a hand gesture, and I do not think that he gestured £2 million. That would be a small thing to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) is campaigning for that and I hope that the Government do something about it.
  The nub of the issue is what is the right thing to do about tax credits. I draw a distinction between the tax credit strategies for people of working age and of pension age. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats take the view that for people of pension age there is an alternative to targeting poor people, using age rather than income as a proxy. However, there does not seem to be an obvious alternative for people of working age. The only difference between people who are poor with kids and people who are rich with kids is that the former are poor. Using income to target support is probably the only thing we can do.
  There are simple ways and complicated ways to do that and aspects of the system could be streamlined, but we must support giving extra help to lower wage families with children. That is why we did not vote against the Tax Credits Bill and we do not oppose the principle of tax credits. When I asked the hon. Member for Havant about his policy, he said that it was about undoing

  837
  administrative problems. He mentioned social fund loans, which is one part of the motion that causes me a problem. We really have to get that sorted out. I should like the Inland Revenue to devote all its energy to sorting out the outstanding cases. By the time a new system is properly implemented, we could have dealt with the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the policy included extending the deadline, which is, of course, right, but that does not change the fundamentals of the scheme, save to compensate people when it has gone wrong, which is also right. Bizarrely, hon. Members do not differ on the fundamentals. Whenever I have pressed the hon. Gentleman, who is always a good sport and responds in debate, it is clear that we are talking about a difference of degree, not a difference of principle, however he may want to dress it up. He did not vote against the Tax Credits Bill either.
  Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to improve the administration of tax credits for our constituents, but in the weekend magazine of the Financial Times on 12 May 2001, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said:
  "But most of all I want an end to the ludicrous tax credit system Gordon Brown has introduced, which was a failed idea from the 1970s."
  Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the hon. Member for Havant has changed his spots?
  Mr. Webb: I am intrigued by that quote. I will not leap to the defence of the hon. Member for Havant. We look forward with great interest to the Conservative party manifesto on that subject.
  The key issue is where we go from here. Clearly, the system has been a shambles. The Department must take on board the serious point that the image of telephone-based claiming has suffered a huge dent.
  John Barrett: Does my hon. Friend agree that being advised on the telephone that a good time to call for advice is when "EastEnders" is on is not something that the general public should expect from a Department?
  Mr. Webb: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. It may have been good advice, but it is not the sort of advice that we would expect.
  It is a serious point. The image of telephone-based claiming has suffered a huge dent and the public will not trust the Government on it. The fact that that is to be the centrepiece of the pension credit strategy is worrying. I hope that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions offers us better assurances that the telephone infrastructure for that credit will be quantitatively and qualitatively better.
  Where do we go from here? Surely we need a period of stability. The Paymaster General and the Inland Revenue have apparently blamed the victims, criticising people for failing to claim before the January deadline—I am not sure how well publicised that deadline was—something that has changed its name half a dozen times
  838
  in the last four years. It is hardly surprising if people cannot keep up with all the changes. That is why we need stability, with no major overhauls, no name changes and no complete rewrites. Let us give the system a chance to settle down and give people a chance to get familiar with it. Stepping aside from the point scoring about administration, which has been a shambles, I suggest that if we are to deliver a better system, the moral of the story now must be, "Leave it alone."
  8.29 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: Over the past few months I have been very critical of the administrative introduction of tax credits. I first raised the matter on 14 April at Work and Pensions questions, following many phone calls to my office by constituents whose money had not been paid into the bank at the end of the previous week, when they had expected it. I also took part in a Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), and I was critical of the administrative problems that were being experienced. I have to ask the Conservative party, however, why it is having this debate now, just when things are getting better and the system is on the mend. Where were the Conservatives in the early days when there were serious problems with the introduction of tax credits, that the Treasury has been at pains to sort out?
  Andrew Selous: The reason for the debate, and its focus, is the deadline for claims, which has been referred to several times. If the Government would simply extend the time within which people can claim tax credits, many of the problems would be solved, so the timing of the debate is relevant.
  Miss Begg: I am busy looking at the motion before the House, and I can see no reference to that. In fact, according to the motion, the solution would be for
  "the Government to set up a system of emergency Social Fund loans to people who are still waiting for the correct tax credit payment."
  The hon. Gentleman, who serves with me on the Work and Pensions Committee, is all too aware that the social fund is not held in high regard by anybody—apart from the Tory party, which is holding the social fund out as the solution to this problem. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) say that we should stay where we are and get this problem sorted out. He admitted that this is a good system, and that is what I want to say tonight.
  This is an excellent measure. Tax credits were the right policy decision. Money is going into the pockets of families who desperately need it, and we should not be deflected from the system's importance to many of our constituents by the fact that it had a number of administrative hiccups in its early days.
  I would like to know whether a Conservative Government would ever have undertaken such a huge anti-poverty strategy. In one fell swoop, this Government have tried to bring all families with children into a system that would give them a great deal of money. Perhaps even the Conservatives would have found that, logistically, it is difficult to introduce such a system, and hiccups are inevitable. I do not deny that there were hiccups—I know how many phone calls my

  839
  office received. I have to say, however, that, rather than continuing or even slowing to a trickle, those phone calls have now dried up. After my last speech on this subject in the House, I wrote to all the constituents who had contacted me and asked them to get back in touch if they were still having problems, and none did.
  Paul Farrelly: My hon. Friend and the House may be interested to hear that despite all the sound and fury on the subject, I have been contacted by only eight constituents who have experienced delays in their payments, and all those problems were fairly easy to sort out.
  My hon. Friend will know that for years and years there has been much comment on the common sense in integrating the tax and benefits systems, and I note that the Conservative party has not said that it would reverse that move. On the point about encouraging people into work, my hon. Friend will be as mystified as I am by the Opposition's comments. I well remember their policy on incapacity benefit—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made enough of a point.
  Miss Begg: It is hypocritical and outrageous of the Conservative party to hold this debate, and some of its allegations are simply wrong. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) dismissed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), who said that his local Inland Revenue office had been excellent in providing interim payments. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is certainly true of the Inland Revenue office in Aberdeen. That has been far more effective in helping to get interim payments into the hands of my constituents than any new scheme for loans through the social fund would be.
  Annabelle Ewing: The fact that interim payments have been made in some cases is extremely helpful, but in many cases, including those in which such payments have been made, my constituents and others have incurred out-of-pocket expenses. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should confirm unequivocally tonight that they will pay compensation where out-of-pocket expenses have been incurred?
  Miss Begg: I am not sure how easy it would be to prove that such expenses had been incurred, which may explain the Government's hesitancy. The important thing is to get the scheme sorted out. I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it is a good system, putting large amounts of money into the hands of people who need it.
  Therein lay part of the reason for the phone calls to my office. People who had been in receipt of the working families tax credit had got used to that level of income, and therefore found it distressing when payments were not made. If it had been a matter of a couple of pounds a week, or even £4 or £5 a week, they would not have been in such dire straits. But the sums in question were £60, £70 and sometimes even more a week. I had a constituent who qualifies for the disabled element of the working tax credit. For her as a single woman, that means £50 difference in her weekly income. Not
  840
  receiving such a large sum created a gap in the income of the families affected. I am glad to say that those families are now getting paid and will continue to get paid. Once the scheme is up and running, it will be much easier to ensure that any new families coming into the system are paid correctly in the first place.
  Mr. Gale: A few moments ago, the hon. Lady referred to outrage from Opposition Members, and implied that it was synthetic. She must understand that the pain felt by our constituents was felt by us in representing them. I pay tribute again to the civil servants in the Paymaster General's Office, who tried very hard to sort out some extremely difficult cases. The fact remains that those people were out of pocket for a considerable time and ran up debts as a result. If the Inland Revenue is owed money by any Member of the House, it will charge interest on that. Does the hon. Lady seriously suggest that the people who suffered as a result of the introduction of the tax credit system should not receive compensation from the Inland Revenue?
  Miss Begg: I have not disputed the assertion that the introduction of the scheme caused difficulty for our constituents. I was one of the first to raise the matter in the House. However, I found it outrageous that the hon. Member for Havant said that he was not against the principle. He seems to have undergone a Damascene-like conversion and suddenly thinks that tax credits are the best thing since sliced bread. He went on to say that all the problems were the result of policy decisions made by Ministers, whereas in fact the problems have been administrative and logistical. There is nothing wrong with the policy. It is a good one that is putting money into the pockets of families in all our constituencies.
  I suggested earlier that if the Conservative Government had tried to introduce as radical an antipoverty strategy as the tax credits scheme, they too might have encountered difficulties. The more I think about it, the more I realise what a short memory the Opposition have. I remember the problems of the Child Support Agency at the time when I was elected in 1997. The CSA had been established the previous year, and it was not a case of a flood of complaints that tailed off to nothing as the system got sorted out. When I was elected in May 1997, the first thing that hit me was the number of CSA cases that I had to deal with, and that went on week after week. As my constituents realised that they had a new MP and learned my name, the number of complaints went up. It took some time before the parliamentary hotline was set up and helped to solve some of those cases.
  I understand that there were also problems when the disability living allowance was introduced. I do not criticise the DLA—it is an excellent allowance which helps disabled people, but the National Audit Office was extremely critical, as was the Social Security Committee, about its introduction. What outrages me is the shortness of some Opposition Members' memories in thinking that it is always possible to introduce such major reforms completely hiccup-free. I wish that that were so and that we did not have problems with the IT systems. I suspect that anybody who could think up an IT system that could deal with such large numbers without such a hiccup would make a great deal of money. Obviously, EDS has not done that, but someone else out there might be in a position to bid.

  841
  I worry about the tone of debates such as this, which can undermine the good work that has been done in respect of the new tax credit. There are questions about take-up, but I do not think that it has been particularly bad. Unlike the hon. Member for Havant, I did not sit back and wait for the complaints to come to my office. I made sure that every parent in my constituency was well informed about the tax credit. I suspect that that is why I received more phone calls than many other MPs and did so more quickly; people had my phone number at the bottom of the letter that told them about the tax credit. Many hon. Members actively sought to ensure that the tax credit was promoted. I suspect that, as a result, take-up is higher in their constituencies than in those of the many Opposition Members who preferred to sit on the sidelines and complain rather than do something proactive that would have helped their constituents.
  I share the views of the hon. Member for Northavon, as I believe that the system is right and that it is good, but that we need to ensure that it is delivering the money that is necessary for everyone. It is the right thing and I am proud that my Government have embarked on such a major anti-poverty strategy that has taken so many children out of poverty and will continue to do so in years to come. This one measure has probably taken more children out of poverty than any other measure introduced by any other Government. That is something to be proud of and we should not be nitpicking about it. The Government will have my wholehearted support in the vote.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Unlike many speakers so far, I am not habituated to discussion of social security matters and tax credits in particular. I come to the debate mainly because of one issue of principle that I find surprising, which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), and an issue of practicalities relating to one of my constituents that has again been raised by other hon. Members.
  The issue of principle is the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) pointed out, we meet today at the point at which applications for the tax credit will no longer be eligible for backdating for the whole year. Instead, a moving three-month window will be available. As the hon. Member for Northavon rightly said, that is a consequence of the transfer into the tax system of a benefit rule, and I find it very surprising.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and the hon. Member for Northavon made an important point in asking about that limit. I do not understand why it is necessary that that particular limit should be placed on claims. As my hon. Friend said, and as has been pointed out during the debate, on the face of it, 700,000 potential claimants have not made a claim. On the basis of the Government's figures, there are 7.2 million families with children, 6.5 million are reckoned to be eligible, 4.5 million have applied and 1.3 million will be migrated from income support and jobseeker's allowance. Thus,
  842
  there are 700,000 potential claimants, so the question is: what will happen to those people as the three-month window moves on and their claims come in? What proportion will not have made the protective claims that people are advised to make? With the best will in the world, despite the £12 million that the Government spent on advertising and the efforts of Members of Parliament and others to encourage people to think about the potential of available family tax credits, it is clear that about 700,000 people have not made that claim.
  The Government should recognise the difficulties that have arisen. Some of the administrative difficulties that are spoken of have not been overcome with the passage of time: they have had a deterrent effect on those who might otherwise have made claims, but felt—Conservative Members may be more prone to express it in these terms—that it was just another case of the Government putting a whole load of bureaucracy and administration in the way of people's ability to secure benefits.
  What will be the situation of people who did not make claims, and why is it necessary for the three-month cut-off to be applied? If the tax credits system is genuinely part of the tax system, as we are told that it is, the year's income is the relevant consideration in relation to the application for credit, and particular circumstances should not necessarily be relevant. In that sense, it is not like the old family credit, which, like the benefits system, was geared towards particular circumstances at one time, as distinct from the financial year income of the family as a whole.
  I want to join other hon. Members in pressing the Paymaster General not to attempt the rather curious argument that was advanced by the Secretary of State, and which had little basis. Anybody making a claim for family tax credit has to supply information relating to a change in circumstances during the year in any case. Only those who have made a protective claim and do not think that they have a chance of anything other than a nil award would have any reason not to make additional information available. People have to make additional information available in order to be able to update and carry forward their claim. I cannot see why the Government do not accede to the argument, which has been strongly put, that far from closing the door on applications and claims at midnight tonight, they should, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions suggested, open the door to claims to the end of the year. The logic of the system is that it should be open right through to the point at which one makes a tax return for the 2003–04 financial year, since the claim relates to that income. That time scale is also logical for applicants who are self-employed.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman see any contradiction in the fact that he is calling for an extension to the deadline, while his party has, at best, an ambiguous approach as to whether it will support tax credits in its next election manifesto?
  Mr. Lansley: I do not subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's premise. As the hon. Member for Northavon made clear, the legislation passed through this House without a contrary vote on our part. We are all in favour of the application of the tax credits system.

  843
  My point—here I speak entirely for myself—is that if it is to be moved it into the tax system, it should acquire the characteristics of the tax system. That is exactly the kind of question that arises in relation to independent taxation. A benefit has been moved into the tax system, with the consequence that, for a large number of families with two earners, what was previously independent taxation has been given away in pursuit of the structure of tax credits. In the past, children's tax allowances likewise depended upon the calculation of both parents' income, and we moved away from that in order to secure independent taxation. What is important is the structure by which objectives are delivered. I have no difficulty with the objective of trying to follow through the logic of the tax credits system in the way proposed.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, and I am listening carefully to his remarks. He is now contradicting himself, however, and I want to bring him back to the purpose of the tax credits system. It was not created as a system to move social security benefits into the tax system: rather, it is a completely new framework that takes the best that both systems offer so as to integrate into the tax system the best way to support families.
  Mr. Lansley: The Paymaster General knows that I am keen to support families. Perhaps I should declare an interest, although I will not benefit from the structure that we are discussing. I have always favoured supporting families with children through the tax system. If we have found the best way of doing that, all well and good, but I have always favoured universal support through the tax system for those who are responsible for raising children. Child tax allowances had the advantage of not depending on means-testing. If my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and I were pursuing policy issues in the debate, we would discuss the extent to which the credit should be available either as a universal benefit—child benefit—or a tax allowance, which is not means-tested apart from being part of a normal tax return. The Government have chosen something in the middle. However, we are here to debate not the policy—the motion is not about that; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) lured me down that path—but the way in which the system works. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant led the debate in that direction.
  I want to consider the case of a constituent, to whom I shall refer as Mr. A to protect his privacy and that of his partner. If the Paymaster General wishes to pursue the matter, I can give the name and details later. I wrote to the chairman of the board of the Inland Revenue on 11 June about the subject, and the Paymaster General can find out about that later if I give her further details. I have not yet received a reply but I am happy to raise the case as a point of principle; I do not expect the Paymaster General to give a substantive response this evening.
  The hon. Member for Northavon commented in detail on the way in which awards are made in the first place. Mr. A and his partner supplied information to support their claim. On 16 April, they received an award from the Inland Revenue. They were told that, in relation to the information that they had given—they had two qualifying children and an annual income of
  844
  £22,316—they would receive a child tax credit of £3,436.74 and a working tax credit of £3,649.02. On 17 April, the first two payments of £139 arrived in their accounts. They thought that that was prompt. A further payment of £51 arrived a fortnight later and they were a little less sanguine about that. They did not know what would happen next because the figure did not appear to fit the pattern of payments that had been disclosed to them in relation to Mr. A's employers. Then everything went quiet.
  At the end of May, after what they described as hundreds of attempts to get through to the helpline, they succeeded. They spoke to a helpful person who said that he would check the figures and send out a revised award because, in his view and on the information that he was given, the figures were clearly wrong. My constituents raised the matter with me and when I contacted the helpline, I was told that their award was £701.50. Hon. Members can imagine their dismay. If they had known more about the system, they would have realised that the original figure was untenable. It was clearly based on the assumption that Mr. A's partner had no income. She had an income, which had been disclosed and included in the figure that was cited in the original award letter to Mr. A. However, the computer did not take account of Mr. A's partner's income.
  That example encapsulates some of the issues that hon. Members have raised in the debate. My constituents relied, perhaps unwisely, on large payments that they were anticipating on the basis of the award that they had received. They now find that they will not receive those payments.
  More as a point of principle than in relation to that particular case, I want to know what will happen and what will be the structure for dealing with those people who have relied on information from the Inland Revenue. They have not received a large sum of money that will be clawed back, but they have incurred costs and in repaying them they will incur additional bank costs as they try to recover their position. They may have incurred debts on the basis of what they anticipated to be the case.
  I do not want to delay the House any longer. I have raised the point of principle as I see it and a particular practicality on behalf of my constituents. The Secretary of State talked about administrative inconveniences and the like, while the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) talked about administrative hiccups. In practice, as Members of Parliament we all know that things have been worse than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant set that out clearly.
  The point is that there are things that the Government could do today to remedy the situation and there are issues that they must resolve now, which will help some of our constituents who are in difficulties. If the Paymaster General can tell us how she will help to resolve those issues, I will be interested to hear it.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate because the fight against poverty—the need to fight against it—was for me, as well as for many people of my generation, one of the primary motives for joining the Labour party 20 years ago. I am sure that that is the case for many of my colleagues.

  845
  When I found myself in the pleasant situation of becoming a father 11 and a half years ago, I suddenly realised that the fight against child poverty was probably the most important factor within a general fight against poverty. I am sure that other Members found that to be the case when they became parents and I feel very strongly about it, as do Members on both sides of the House.
  Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman mentions the important issue of child poverty. Is he satisfied with his party's record over the past six years? We have had a Labour Government, but still one child in three in Scotland are brought up in poverty.
  Mr. Harris: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has mentioned that. During the 2001 general election, there was some controversy, which she will remember, about the Government's claims for the number of children who had been lifted out of poverty. Opponents also made claims about that number. Last year, the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that even if the lower estimate of 750,000 children lifted out of poverty as a direct result of Government policies is accurate—I am prepared to believe the Government's view that the figure is significantly more, but let us give our detractors the benefit of the doubt—that is a record high for any Government.
  People have previously been lifted out of poverty simply because of economic growth, but that has never happened on such a scale as a direct result of anti-poverty policies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) asked me a direct question, so I will give her a direct answer: I am extremely proud not only that this Government have done so much for poorer families, while she and some of her colleagues simply snipe from the sidelines, but that we have established an ambitious target for abolishing child poverty.
  To the Opposition, that target is simply a hostage to fortune, as many Government targets seem to be. To me, it is not a hostage to fortune, but a constant reminder that we as elected politicians have a responsibility to deliver for the people we represent. If we still have some way to go 20 years on from the target being set or if we have not quite made it, I will still be proud of the fact that we made a bold statement and set a bold ambition to reduce and remove one of the most terrible blights on our society. The Labour party is the only party ever to have made that commitment.
  Miss Begg: It is not just a question of the work that the Government have done in raising children out of poverty. Under the working families tax credit, one category of person—the single person—was left out, so that when in work, they were sometimes not any better off than if they had been on benefit. Does my right hon. Friend—my hon. Friend, rather—accept that the working tax credit closes that gap, so that work will now always pay for everyone?
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to me as her right hon. Friend, but I am also
  846
  grateful to her for making that entirely accurate point. That is the exact point of this Government's tax credit strategy: to make work pay.
  I am disappointed by the Opposition motion because, like the previous motion that we discussed, it is all about process: it is a way to enable the Conservatives to attack the underlying principle without actually saying as much. For example, they attack the policy of targets in the NHS when what they actually want to do, but cannot do, is to attack the NHS itself. On this occasion, what they really want to do is to undermine the whole principle of the tax credit system, but they do not want to do so overtly, so they attack the administrative errors and delays that have occurred since the child tax credit was introduced. That is a dishonest way to approach this policy.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: I should like to correct the record: our concern is more than just process, as the hon. Gentleman describes it. Does he accept that 1 million people not being paid is a question of more than just process?
  Mr. Harris: I am more than willing to point out to Ministers that I am of course unhappy with any delays that affect my constituents, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that the debate as presented by Conservative Members does not look like wholehearted support for the tax credit strategy; it looks far more like an attempt to undermine the principle of tax credits and of trying to fight child poverty, which should be—and is—a priority on the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman may not know that those of us who are sad enough to have been brought up on "Yesterday in Parliament", rather than on "Listen With Mother", can remember that it was in fact Anthony Barber, a former Tory Minister, who first mooted the possibility of negative income tax, which is in fact what this initiative amounts to. The Conservative Government of the day did not introduce it because the computer did not exist that could handle it. Since then, nothing much seems to have changed.
  Mr. Harris: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—quite a lot has changed, and I should also point out that I never listened to "Listen With Mother"; being of a slightly younger generation, I watched "Watch With Mother". What has changed is the nature of the Conservative party. I see very little support for the progressive tax policy that the hon. Gentleman refers to among today's members of the Conservative party.
  I mentioned earlier that I share the concern of my constituents at delays in the payment of their child tax credit. I shall give the example of Mrs. A—I doubt whether she is the wife of Mr. A, the constituent to whom the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred—who contacted me only two weeks ago. She gave a long explanation of when she applied for the tax credit and what her circumstances were, including that she was a working single mother. I rang the helpline for MPs and I discovered that she was about to be paid—a cheque was literally in the post—more than £1,000, and that she would receive £90 a week thereafter.

  847
  It is very rare that, as a Member of this House, one gets the chance to contact a constituent with good news. I did indeed ring my constituent, and it was interesting to note her reaction. She did not say, "Well, that's ridiculous. Why have I had to wait this length of time? The system is a mess." She was extremely happy that I had phoned to tell her the news, and she was delighted that the payment had finally been cleared. I apologised to her on the Government's behalf for the delay and for the inconvenience to which she had been put, and it was only right that I should do so. But as a recipient of this tax credit—she is extremely glad to be a recipient—she has every right to claim the money. It should have been paid much earlier, and I hope that we do get the system sorted out so that no more of my constituents have to suffer such delays.
  Every hon. Member must surely recognise that one of the biggest problems that elected politicians must face is the benefits trap. That was especially true in the 1980s and early 1990s, but it continues to a certain extent. Politicians, think-tanks and Governments have tried for many years to figure out a way around that trap and how to make work pay. The combination of the new tax credits and the working families tax credit is the first realistic and serious attempt to find that way. I shall come later to the Conservative record in Government, but there certainly were not many attempts to circumvent the problem between 1979 and 1997.
  Paul Farrelly: Before my hon. Friend gets round to the Conservative record, does he agree that they did not seem to give a damn whether people were trapped in benefits so long as they were kept out of the unemployment figures?
  Mr. Harris: Whether or not "damn" is parliamentary language, I have no idea, but that is absolutely true. We have to ask about value for money. Is it value for money to spend billions of pounds to prop up the unemployment figures, as the Conservatives did in the dreadful 18 years between 1979 and 1997 when social security spending increased by 90 per cent. in real terms—that is, after inflation? The Conservatives are always telling us that we should search for value for money. Is spending that kind of money on propping up economic failure a good use of money?
  Mr. Andrew Turner: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman, and some of his hon. Friends, use these debates to attribute the worst of motives to people on the other side of the House. We are prepared to attribute the best of motives to those who sit on the Government Front Bench. It would be nice if the hon. Gentleman reciprocated. I remind him that one key objective of the social security reforms introduced in the mid-1980s was to ensure the abolition of what we called the poverty trap. If he regards an increase in social security spending as a failure, what does he call the increase in spending through the tax credit system?
  Mr. Harris: I disagree absolutely. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into a debate about whether the Conservative party—in the past and perhaps not now, although that remains to be seen—was genuinely concerned about child poverty, I have to say that if something looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and
  848
  walks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Under the Conservative party, one in three children lived in abject poverty and one in five households had nobody in full-time employment. In 18 years, the Conservatives did not come up with a single policy initiative. The reason, I must suggest, is that they thought poverty a price worth paying for the prosperity that a minority in the country were enjoying.
  Before the intervention, I was asking about value for money and whether it was better value to spend billions on propping up unemployment or to use the same money to invest and encourage those on benefits to go into work. I should have hoped that the Conservatives would support that principle, and I should be happy if they prove me wrong to think otherwise.
  We do not want the debate to go wider than the Opposition motion, but an anti-poverty strategy can include all sorts of measures. For example, the Conservative party, until a few years ago, opposed the national minimum wage. I find it fascinating to see the Conservatives trying, as we speak, to work out whether they support the tax credit agenda. I hope that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) will say categorically whether they do. He might add to the list of, I think, three policies that the Conservative party has. He could make it four by saying unambiguously whether or not they will support the child tax credit, even though I am sure that they would want to make all sorts of modifications. It is very important, if we are to take the Opposition motion seriously, that we know exactly where they stand on the child tax credit. I am sure that the hon. Member for Havant will be able to elucidate.
  Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hard to ascribe the best of motives to the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) suggests we should, when they opposed the minimum wage, which is a necessary guarantor of a decent income for families?
  Mr. Harris: Absolutely. With 5.5 million families claiming and benefiting from the child tax credit, it is outrageous that there is any ambivalence at all about it on the Conservative Benches. Shortly before the last general election, the hon. Member for Havant said that a Conservative Government would scrap the tax credit system. The House needs to know whether that promise still holds.
  9.10 pm
  Andrew Selous: Like many others tonight, I have constituents who have had difficulty in accessing tax credits, but rather than dwelling on that point I want to consider some other aspects of this subject. It is the function of an Opposition to point out what has gone wrong in the implementation of a Government policy, and we have heard about some completely unacceptable situations in relation both to individual claimants and to staff in Inland Revenue offices. In Luton recently, where the main Inland Revenue office that serves my constituency is, there was a queue of about 600 people outside the building, because the staff were so frustrated at being unable to process claims that they had literally given up.

  849
  I raise this matter not merely to carp about the Government having got something wrong—we can all recognise that the implementation was not good—but because there is a huge and genuine issue about the implementation of vast new Government schemes involving complex information technology. Sitting on the Work and Pensions Committee, I heard with absolute horror last week about the new computer system for the Child Support Agency, which is going horribly wrong for the second time. Committee members of all parties would have preferred to hear that everything was going well, that the new system was in place and that the reforms could be implemented immediately, but that is very far from the case.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) spoke about what it will be like when he pension credit is introduced later this year, and he was right to do so, because our experience with tax credits, and now for the second time with the Child Support Agency, has been lamentable. He was absolutely right to mention the computer company EDS, which is a massive contractor to the Government. I believe that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury are among its largest clients worldwide.
  There are serious questions to be raised right across Government about the competence of Departments to handle such contracts. For example, do they employ senior members of the IT profession who have been involved on the other side of the fence in providing such contracts, who could spot what was really going on within these large computer firms as they pitch for projects to the Government? I hope that we will learn the lessons and that the Department for Work and Pensions will closely examine the role of EDS in particular.
  We have also heard a lot from hon. Members of all parties about the additional costs incurred by our constituents when tax credit payments have not been received on time, but we have not had an adequate response. Several constituents have shown me their bank statements and the additional charges that they have incurred. Some have had to face penalty charges from their mortgage companies as a result of tax credits not being paid on time. Those are highly serious problems, which have put people significantly into debt, and it may take them considerable time to recover.
  Miss Begg: If compensation is such an important issue, why have the Opposition not included it in their list of requests for the Government? Similarly, the motion does not refer to the deadline, which the hon. Gentleman raised in an earlier intervention on my speech. If those issues are so important, why come up with a silly motion on the social fund, which nobody believes is credible? Why do the Opposition not make their own suggestions?
  Andrew Selous: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. One of the luxuries of being on the Back Benches is that I am not personally involved with the drawing up of Opposition motions. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) dwelt at considerable length in his excellent opening speech on
  850
  the problem of the deadline and on the question of compensation for those who are out of pocket as a result of additional charges incurred after the introduction of tax credits. It is highly relevant that we are conducting our debate today—and it is one of the reasons why my hon. Friend called for it today—because it enables us to highlight the fact that the deadline occurs at midnight tonight and that many people will lose out on months of tax credit claims by failing to submit their forms by that time.
  I want us to think more about the philosophy underlying tax credits. I would certainly describe myself as a one nation Tory, and many of my hon. Friends are genuinely concerned to deal with the issue of poverty and low-income families. It is a common cause across the Chamber that those issues are important. However, speaking for myself rather than for Front Benchers, I want to raise a few questions about the philosophy behind tax credits. My worry is that the measure will be widely welcomed this year and in the immediate future as a result of the extra income that it puts into our constituents' and families' pockets, without taking account of a couple of difficult philosophical issues that relate to the question.
  What, for example, will be the effect on the incentives of people in work, once they realise that there is virtually nothing that they can do by their own efforts to improve their financial position? That is a huge issue, which has not been touched on tonight and does not appear in the motion. People interviewed just after the announcement of the introduction of tax credits were understandably pleased about the boost to their incomes, but they were honest enough to say that they realised that there was nothing that they could do by the result of their own efforts to improve their family's position. I worry about that, because it amounts to an additional form of dependency, which will have a great effect on incentives and the working of our economy.
  I also worry about the possibilities for fraud under the scheme. When family credit was introduced—under my Government—some firms set their salaries at a low level and in some cases employers drew out considerable amounts of cash. There was good evidence of collusion between the employer and the employee to ensure that the employer paid the minimum level of wages to staff: because of the payment of tax credits, the employer could then give a cash backhander to employees. There is a genuine worry that the system will be abused on a significant scale, but we have not heard anything from the Government about the plans that they have to prevent fraud.
  Miss Begg: The difference between the introduction of family credit and today is that we now have the minimum wage, which acts as a floor. One of the ways of checking whether employers are paying the minimum wage is when the Inland Revenue calculates whether the figures add up. That is how it worked for the working families tax credit. Before the minimum wage, employers could pay any amount—and often paid very low wages.
  Andrew Selous: The points that I am making relate to tax credits in general and are not specific to family credit, the working families tax credit or the working tax

  851
  credit. The possibility is that unscrupulous employers, in collusion with their employees, will be able to work the system.
  We need only look back at the introduction of housing benefit for an example. Members on both sides of the House widely and rightly welcomed the introduction of housing benefit. No one foresaw some of the unintended results of its introduction, which are now universally recognised. They included rising rents, increased corruption and hugely escalating housing benefit bills. Unintended consequences often occur. An innovation looks good from a short-term point of view and may be done for the best of motives—unlike some Labour Members, we at least impute good motives to the Government's actions—but it may run into the same problem as housing benefit did.
  Perhaps we need a more universal system that is applied regardless of savings. We should consider a universal child allowance, and there are other ways to cope with poverty in low-income families. It is good that we have considered the issues tonight. A proposal may look good now, but we may have to revisit it in a few years' time because it has not been fully thought through.
  9.23 pm
  Roger Casale: I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record my support for an important and substantial measure that the Government have introduced, which has already benefited many thousands of my constituents. In particular, it has helped to lift my poorest constituents, especially those with families, out of poverty. Although my constituency also has many people from the professional and managerial classes, I have been struck by the wide consensus that I have found, even among the small portion of the population who are not eligible for tax credits, that they are the right thing to do.
  It is true that we have had some initial teething problems in introducing the new system, but in some ways that is to be expected when a major restructuring of the welfare state is undertaken. Those problems are being, and will be, resolved. While we must never lose sight of the human dimension of the early difficulties with the administrative system and the bureaucracy—behind the statistics are real people facing real difficulties—the system, even in its early stages, is delivering enormous and substantial benefits to many millions of people. We should remember that this Government introduced the system in the teeth of widespread opposition from the Conservatives, not when the Bill was introduced but at the last election.
  Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman said that teething difficulties were to be expected. If that was the case, why was the system introduced in such a way that benefits were stopped on time yet top-up payments were not received on time?
  Roger Casale: I do not know whether hon. Lady made that point in an earlier contribution to the debate. I am sorry that, owing to another commitment, I have been unable to hear all the speeches. I was making the point that we should not lose sight of the enormous benefit that tax credits are already bringing to millions of people.
  852
  We are all concerned with the welfare of our constituents and we all take up, daily or weekly, the difficulties that they may face in accessing their rights and entitlements. That is something on which we can agree in a cross-party spirit, as has been said. However, we must not forget that there are grave and deep policy differences. Whereas my point of view, and that of many Labour Members, is that administrative difficulties—inasmuch as they exist—should be ironed out as quickly as possible so that everybody benefits from the new tax credit, some Opposition Members would quite like those difficulties to remain unresolved. Their agenda is to undermine support for the tax credit system and to take us back to the old ways.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us who those Opposition Members are?
  Roger Casale: Let us start with the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who led for the Opposition. As I pointed out earlier, in the Financial Times weekend magazine of 12 May, the hon. Gentleman commented:
  "But most of all I want an end to the ludicrous tax credit system Gordon Brown has introduced, which was a failed idea from the 1970s."
  Mr. Willetts: I think that that remark was made before the election of 2001. May I explain it to the hon. Gentleman, as that may help him? It was about our proposal that the working families tax credit should be delivered as a benefit to families rather than being delivered via the employer. That policy was in our last manifesto and, if I may so, that proposal, under the structure that existed then, would have ensured that no working family lost out and that the benefit was delivered better. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to make that point.
  Roger Casale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his support for tax credits.
  Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made an interesting clarification, but when the current Leader of the Opposition was the shadow Social Security spokesman he was much clearer. He said:
  "We would cut the working families tax credit."—[Official Report, 19 October 1998 Vol. 317, c. 951.]
  The right hon. Gentleman did not say that they would pay it in another way; he said that they would cut it.
  Roger Casale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that she, like me, will need much more convincing about the sincerity of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Havant, in their new-found support for such measures. What I remember, and what my constituents remember—
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me for a second time, so I am grateful to him for giving way again. We introduced the family credit in 1988. If I may say so, I played a modest role in its creation—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was not modest."] Okay, it was a very important role—it was central. The family credit of 1988 was a device precisely aimed to boost the incomes of families in low-paid work. It was the great Keith Joseph

  853
  who introduced the original family income supplement, which was the first example of such a scheme, so I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so baffled that Conservatives believe in it. We have a solid track record of proposing such arrangements.
  Roger Casale: It is very clear to me that, however many times I mention the hon. Member for Havant, it will never top the number of times that he mentions himself.
  At least one other hon. Member is waiting to speak, so I shall conclude by saying that the Conservatives would be a lot more credible if they told the House how they see their support for tax credits as part of the wider vision, which the Government have, for improving the condition of people in this country, alongside the national minimum wage and many other measures that have been opposed by the Conservatives. If the Conservatives want to be more credible in their support for tax credits, which they say that they would continue if they were ever returned to power, they also have to explain to the House how they would pay for them. That has not been mentioned in the debate. The tax credits involve a major redistribution of wealth and income, but the cost to the Exchequer is £13 billion, and the Conservative party has to explain where it would find the money to continue with the current tax credits, given that it aims to cut expenditure on public services by 20 per cent.
  Tim Loughton: The hon. Gentleman said that there was a teething problem with the child tax credit. What does he have to say to one of my constituents, who has had to give up her part-time job working for a local authority, because there was a complete Horlicks over the payment of her child tax credit, which had an impact on her child minder, who also did not receive her child tax credit and did not get paid by the original person, so there was a double whammy? That does not sound like a teething problem to me; it sounds like serious root canal damage, courtesy of the Government. Will he apologise for it?
  Roger CasaleIf the hon. Gentleman's constituent is in receipt of tax credits, I would invite her to consider whether her tax credit would be safe if the Conservative party were ever returned to power.
  In the brief time remaining to me in the debate, let me explain why I support tax credits. First and foremost, tax credits are already transforming people's lives; lifting families, especially those with children, out of poverty; and lifting the stigma of benefits by integrating credits with the tax system, thus rewarding and incentivising work. Secondly, as well as being better in principle, tax credits will represent a better way to deliver benefits in practice. More money will go to more families. The system will be more flexible and more likely to generate the kind of dynamic gains that we want in our economy, by rewarding work.
  When I was first elected in 1997, social security spending in this country had increased from £45 billion to £90 billion; child benefit had been frozen for three years, cutting it in real terms; and record numbers of families and children lived in poverty. The damage done
  854
  by that economic and social policy will take many years to repair, but I am proud to support the Government and the introduction of tax credits, under which, today—six years later—families with children are £1,200 per annum better off in real terms; households with children in the poorest fifth of the population are £2,500 a year better off in real terms; and a single-earner family on half average earnings, with two young children, is £3,400 better off.
  We will overcome the difficulties. There is always a human side to any administrative problem. We all want to fight for our constituents, but tax credits are already making an enormous difference to people in this country, and I am delighted to speak in the debate to show my support for them.
  9.34 pm
  Hywel Williams: We know that millions of people have been awarded tax credits and that it has been a great help to them. I have no problem with commending the Government for that, and nor do I have a problem with commending them for the operation of the Welsh language call centre, which has been a great boon to my constituents. But many people, through no fault of their own, are not getting the tax credits. Real hardship persists, which has been caused, let us be clear, by the botched introduction of the system. It was a botch foretold.
  Like all hon. Members, I have come across many tax credit cases, some of which I outlined in the debate in Westminster Hall on 4 June. I will be brief, but those cases concerned such familiar matters as simple mistakes as to material facts, mistakes in the level of awards and applications disappearing from the electronic records. When EDS was mentioned earlier, I wondered whether it might stand for "every decision a shambles," although that would be unkind and probably untrue. There have been difficulties with mechanical reading of forms, extreme difficulties in getting through on the helplines, and, interestingly to me, a claim held back because the address was "wrong"—in fact, the address was in Welsh.
  I will not elaborate further; rather, I refer hon. Members to the debates of 4 June—although perhaps you will indulge me, Mr. Speaker, if I repeat just one short anecdote. I wrote to a constituent about her problems with a straightforward claim for tax credits. That letter was in Welsh. When I printed it out, I pressed the spell checker by mistake—the English spell checker. The first correction suggested to me was to replace the Welsh word "credyd"—credit—with the English word "cruddy". That was indeed a flash of brilliant insight by an inanimate object, and an insight that sometimes seems to elude the Government.
  The proof of the tax credit system to my constituents is that it is got right for 4.2 million people but that it is got wrong for many others. We want to know what is the extent of getting it wrong. What is being done to get it right? Who is responsible for the mistakes? Are they being held to account? If they are external to the Revenue, are they making recompense for their mistakes? What lessons are being learned for the introduction of the pension credit?
  For some people at least, the tax credit system is not proving to be a means of getting back into work: it is proving to be yet another obstacle to getting back to

  855
  work and staying in work. Those people have not been getting the money on which they depend. In effect, they are having to subsidise the Government's failings, which they should not have to do. They cannot afford to subsidise the Government's failings. Children in lower-income families cannot afford to subsidise the Government's failings. I have asked the Paymaster General how many claims are still pending that were submitted before 4 April. I have had no answer.
  Briefly, on compensation, the Inland Revenue publishes a code of practice entitled, "Putting things right when we make mistakes"—fascinating reading.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In Welsh or English?
  Hywel Williams: Both. It states that it will pay back reasonable costs that a taxpayer or tax credit claimant incurs as a direct result of its mistake or unreasonable delay. The document also says that extra compensation will be paid for distress, and states:
  "If our actions have affected you particularly badly, please let us know"—
  if can get through. It continues:
  "We may be able to pay you an amount of compensation to acknowledge and apologise for the way we have treated you. These payments, which are not intended"—
  "not intended"—
  "to put a value on the distress you have suffered, will usually range from £25 to £500."
  An amount of £25 is not enough. We want the upper limit extended, and my party and my hon. Friends are also calling for a fast-track system to handle such complaints.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: It is fair to say that after an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), we have had a useful and instructive debate. Despite what Labour Members have said, we have of course been trying to review the implementation of the tax credit system and consider how it works in the real world rather than in the minds of some Labour Members.
  Despite the entertaining though largely irrelevant rant from the Secretary of State at the beginning, we had a number of positive contributions. As usual, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) brought his forensic approach to complicated subject, and he was accurately supported by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made a typically positive speech, although it was disappointing that her colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), was untypically churlish.
  The way in which my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) tried to describe the problem from a constituent's point of view was especially accurate, and we heard a typically loyal speech from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart has finally joined us in the Chamber. We heard a strong and amusing yet important speech from the hon. Member for
  856
  Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). It is important to know about the way in which the system works on the ground—that is the real issue. The theory, statistics and the attempt to distract us from the real issue are not important because we need to know how the system affects real people.
  The Chancellor boasted in a speech last year how the new tax system would "modernise welfare". The Paymaster General promised us a "seamless system" that would "respond to people's needs" and provide "continuous support". Indeed, a fascinating tome from the Treasury, which I suspect that J.K. Rowling would regard as being as fictional as her own, says that the Government would
  "facilitate a smooth transition to the new system".
  Perhaps the most bizarre claim was that they would
  "minimise the disturbance caused to families".
  How bitter those words must sound to the millions of families who have been short-changed by the Government's incompetence.
  We have heard about the gap between the Government's words and actions and how the gap has become a chasm. Instead of a seamless system, the whole policy has unravelled causing heartache and distress to millions of families. Of the 6.5 million eligible families, more than 1 million have not claimed or been paid. According to Sir Nicholas Montagu, even eight weeks on, up to 250,000 families have applied yet are still waiting for the money that they are owed. Where is the seamless system for them? Where is their continuous support?
  Hon. Members will know of many constituents who have lost out and, indeed, several examples have been outlined in the debate. I have received letters from dozens of worried families who live in my constituency who found that the system and the Government failed them. One of my constituents, a working single mum from Bishop's Stortford, made a correct claim on 5 September 2002 but received an incorrect award notice on 18 February 2003—a nought had been added to her income. She wrote back and she wrote again. She started calling the hotline and had to call again. Two months later, she had still not received an answer. She wrote a letter to me on 17 April and explained her situation in this straightforward way:
  "As a working single parent … I have no financial cushion to see me through until my next Tax Credit claim is processed. I am unable to pay my childminder and have had to terminate the contract … Without child-care I am unable to work and continue my studies. I am therefore unable to pay my mortgage and maintain house and home for my two children and myself."
  That is only one story from one constituency but it is typical of many that hon. Members throughout the House have raised in this debate and previously.
  The roots of the fiasco lie not only in poor administration but bad Government policy. Motivated in part by a desire to massage away the welfare budget, the Chancellor forced the tax credits policy forward without thinking through how it would work in practice. The first set of credits failed, so they had to be replaced—not once but twice. Indeed, since October 1999, the Government have introduced five new tax credits, scrapped four and introduced two new ones. That is an average of one new tax credit for families

  857
  every six months. Given the appalling failure rate, did it never occur to the Paymaster General that there might be something wrong with the policy?
  The way in which the Government have failed on implementation has affected most people. It is increasingly clear that the Government have dumped the overly complex operation on to the Revenue with too little time and too little thought. Why did the Revenue fail to anticipate the scope or pattern of claims? What training was provided for staff? Why did the Paymaster General go ahead with a system when the computer software had not been fully tested?
  Paul Farrelly: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prisk: I will not because I want to ensure that the Paymaster General has plenty of time to answer the questions.
  What of the infamous telephone hotline? Four weeks before the credits were due to become available, no one could get through. Indeed, one man reportedly made 2,400 attempts, only to be put on hold and then told that the form he needed would take 15 days to arrive. When that hotline was clearly collapsing, why did the Paymaster General persist with an £11 million advertising campaign encouraging even more people to call?
  In a written answer on 12 March the Paymaster General advised me that the Treasury had spent a staggering £53 million just to set up the hotline. That is an enormous amount of money for a telecentre, far more than most large commercial centres. Yet with all that money, it could cope with only 500,000 calls a week. [Interruption.] Let me tell the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee, that 6.5 million families are eligible. Anyone, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Gentlemen, could have predicted that the majority would want to call in the last couple of weeks. Is it any wonder that the system broke down? Did the Minister think to ask why the capacity was so inadequate?
  What makes things worse is that Ministers were warned of the risks right from the beginning. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said as far back as 1998 that the whole tax credit system was "fraught with great dangers". At a practical level, even the Office of Government Commerce, the Government's IT procurement experts, cautioned that the project was very ambitious. Last December, it said that the project was of a large and complex nature and would require unprecedented co-operation between Departments, and we know that that does not happen in this Government. As such, it says that the new system ranks as
  "among the highest across Government for assessed risk".
  It was quite right, yet the Paymaster General turned a deaf ear to all the warnings.
  What did the Paymaster General do to satisfy herself that those risks were being addressed prior to 6 April this year? What steps did she take to ensure that the unprecedented departmental co-operation would be forthcoming? Now, after all the stories that our constituents have told us about the difficulties that they have encountered, what steps has she taken to ensure that it will not happen again?
  858
  For some people, insult has been added to the injury. Most people would expect that as they are out of pocket, the Revenue would pay them back in full, but that is not the case. Instead of a single cheque, people are paid in instalments. One family in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) is reportedly owed nearly £1,500. Instead of a single cheque, the Government are generously going to give them £37.66 a week until they get the money back in total. Given that the family had to borrow to make up the shortfall, they are, not surprisingly, less than happy. Apparently, that is possible because of a little rule, tucked away in the details. As the family claimed on 28 April, the procedure is in order, but when we check that information, we discover that it has not been provided to the public. According to a member of the Revenue staff, the reason for the staged payments is that the computers and the giro system cannot cope with paying out such a large amount at once. That is the truth of the matter.
  Did the Paymaster General sanction that rule? Will she now rescind it? Does she agree that bank charges and other penalties caused by the Revenue's incompetence are reasonable? Will she confirm that the Government will compensate such claims? Given the confusion over the deadline for making claims, will she scrap that arbitrary hurdle and let people continue to claim their money throughout the tax year?
  In its manifesto for the 2001 general election, the Labour party said that the welfare state would help people but that Labour "demands responsibility in return." Well, that works both ways. We and those we represent demand that Ministers take responsibility for their policies and for the running of their Departments. Denying knowledge is not good enough, as the Chairman of the Treasury Committee told the Paymaster General only last week. Ministers have responsibility and Conservative Members intend to hold them to it.
  The Paymaster General is responsible. She is responsible for the failure of a policy that clearly is not working, for the failure to listen when others warned, for the failure to act on those warnings and for the failure to lead on this issue rather than just follow. Above all, the Paymaster General is responsible to the millions of families who trusted this Government and who have been so badly let down. She has failed them; she has failed in her ministerial responsibilities; and it is now time that she answered for that failure.
  9.50 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Until the last contribution, the debate, including the remarks of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), had been a thoughtful one. As my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said, the tone of the debate needs to be carefully balanced. Until the last contribution, the tone in the Chamber was one of support for the tax credits scheme. There was an acknowledgement of the need for an anti-poverty strategy, and Opposition Members expressed their support for such a strategy. Suddenly, however, we had the synthetic anger of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk),

  859
  who simply confirms the thoughts of my right hon. and hon. Friends that the true intent of some Opposition Members is to undermine, and eventually destroy, tax credits.
  Tax credits are being claimed by families in their millions, contrary to the predictions of Opposition Members before the system came into effect. We have about 4.5 million claims, in addition to the 1.3 million families who receive increased support for their children through income support and jobseeker's allowance. Each week, tens of thousands of claims are being made, and the number of claims in payment is steadily rising. We now have more than 4.2 million awards.
  The take-up of tax credits is a huge success, and in their first three months we put 4.2 million claims into payment. This is a major achievement in enhanced family support, which reaches far more people than the old tax credit or the other systems did. The point of these reforms is to raise children out of poverty—a proposition that Opposition Members, or at least some of them, claimed to support. However, we can see that when they were in power, Britain had the fastest rising levels of child poverty in the European Union.
  I come now to the points made during the debate. First, I want to say where we stand as of 7 July. So far, 4.5 million claims have been received. More than 4.25 million are in payment, and 186,000, awaiting further information, are still being worked on. Sixty per cent. of those claims have arrived since 1 June, and almost 50 per cent. arrived in the past two weeks. The hon. Member for Havant continues to make the accusation about the missing million. He knows full well that nine out of 10 families are eligible, which means that 5.7 million families can receive the child tax credit in 2003–04. That is no secret. The rest will receive the working tax credit, which gives us a figure of 6 million. There is no secret about the figure; it was in the Budget book—5.75 million families eligible for child tax credit and 250,000 for working tax credit only. Even if we accept the hon. Gentleman's figure of 6.5 million claims, 84 per cent. are in payment in three months.
  The hon. Member for Havant said that he had played a modest part in the introduction of the family credit. It had a 57 per cent. take-up in its first 12 months. Let us be clear—on 28 April I said that more than 4 million claims had been received and 3.2 million claims were in payment. Today, there have been over 4.5 million claims and 4.25 million are in payment.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the most vulnerable groups. Let us be clear about that, too. The most vulnerable of those on income support and jobseeker's allowance are already receiving the benefit of the tax credit increases in their child premiums, and they will not be transferred to the new system until next year. There is no question of delay. Families previously claiming working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit were all contacted to encourage them to apply. When they applied, their claims were given priority. Almost nine out of 10 of those receiving working families tax credit in March have already claimed and are being paid. Many others are among the more recent claims on which the Inland Revenue is working as fast as possible.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and the hon. Member for Havant referred to the new framework. Tax credits are an entirely new framework,
  860
  building on tax and social security rules to create an integrated system of tax and benefit. Three months' backdating strikes the right balance between allowing time to claim and not requiring people to build their history over a longer period. That is the system that will remain in place. It is better than the working families tax credit, which allowed no backdating, and it is better because the new tax credits are more generous. They strike the right balance with child benefit and in the time allowed for people to claim.
  The issue of compensation has repeatedly been raised, and rightly so. I have told the House the position. For those who have not received the service to which they were entitled on commitments from the Inland Revenue, the Inland Revenue has a process for dealing with the appropriate compensation.
  The hon. Member for Northavon asked about families without children. We expect 250,000 families without children to claim during 2002–03, in addition to the 1.1 million families with children whom we expect to receive the working tax credit as well as the child tax credit. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a breakdown of the 4.25 million claims in payment, but the figures will be available in late August or early September, as we start to publish the figures for claims and who receives them.
  Andrew Selous: Will the Paymaster General give way?
  Dawn Primarolo: I should like to answer the questions that have already been asked.
  The hon. Member for Northavon asked about passporting. The Inland Revenue has been in discussion with all Departments for several months, and has published a leaflet on passported benefits covering all the main passports and giving contact details for the Departments. I heard what he said with regard to the Department of Health website and I will look into that.
  On the hon. Gentleman's question about overpayment, we discussed the matter at length in Committee. Where over-payment is known now and the claimant identifies that to the Inland Revenue, we should be able to adjust payments in-year and recover it in-year. Where over-payment is identified at the end of the year, there are several ways of recouping it—through continuing payment with safeguards, or through the PAYE code from 2005—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 329.

  Division No. 276]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bacon, Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Barker, Gregory

  Amess, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Barrett, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  861

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hughes Simon (Southwark N)

  Bercow, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Blunt Crispin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Boswell, Tim

  Keetch, Paul

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Key, Ropert (Salisbury)

  Brady, Graham

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Breed, Colin

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lamb, Norman

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Lansley, Andrew

  Burns, Simon

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Burstow, Paul

  Leigh, Edward

  Burt, Alistair

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cameron, David

  Lidington, David

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cash, William

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Loughton, Tim

  Barnet)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Chope, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clappison, James

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclean, rh David

  Collins, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Cotter, Brian

  Atcham)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mates, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Howden)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Coldfield)

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Moore, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Murriso, Dr. Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Öpik, Lembit

  Westminster)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, rh Eric

  Page, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Gidley, Sandra

  Dinefwr)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Grayling, Chris

  Redwood, rh John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rendel, David

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gummer, rh John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hague, rh William

  M-Kent)

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Abingdon)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Harvey, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Selous, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hermon, Lady

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Holmes, Paul

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

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Kincardine)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  862

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Spring, Richard

  Weir, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Syms, Robert

  Willetts, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Thurso, John

  (Macclesfield)

  Tredinnick, David

  Wishart, Pete

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Walter, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. John Randall and

  Watkinson, Angela

  Mr. Mark Francois

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Pentlands)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Chryston)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Clelland, David

  Darwen)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Colman, Tony

  Bailey, Adrian

  Connarty, Michael

  Baird, Vera

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Jean

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Hilary

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Bennett, Andrew

  (Copeland)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Best, Harold

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blackman, Liz

  David, Wayne

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Wallsend)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bryant Chris

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burden, Richard

  Edwards, Huw

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Cairns, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Caton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Challen, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Chaytor, David

  & Rye)

  Clapham, Michael

  Foulkes, rh George

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  863

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lepper, David

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Linton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hanson, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McDonnell, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  MacDougall, John

  Rhymney)

  McFall, John

  Healey, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hendrick, Mark

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  MacShane, Denis

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heyes, David

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Shettleston)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sefton E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Michael, rh Alun

  Urmston)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mole, Chris

  Hutton, rh John

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Morley, Elliot

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jamieson, David

  Mudie, George

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Owen, Albert

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kidney, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Bow)

  E)

  Knight Jim (S Dorset)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lammy, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purnell, James

  864

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Bellshill)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Anniesland)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Truswell, Paul

  NW)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Rooney, Terry

  Kemptown)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Chester)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Salter, Martin

  Ward, Claire

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Watts, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  White, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Winnick, David

  Finsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  C)

  Lunesdale)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Woolas, Phil

  Soley, Clive

  Worthington, Tony

  Southworth, Helen

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Spellar, rh John

  Baillieston)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Stringer, Graham

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Vernon Coaker

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 179.

  Division No. 277]

  [10:17 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Benn, Hilary

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Best, Harold

  Darwen)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Blackman, Liz

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Austin, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Bailey, Adrian

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Baird, Vera

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Banks, Tony

  Brennan, Kevin

  Barnes, Harry

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Wallsend)

  Battle, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Beard, Nigel

  Bryant, Chris

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  865

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burnham, Andy

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hain, rh Peter

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hanson, David

  Challen, Colin

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Chaytor, David

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clapham, Michael

  Rhymney)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chryston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heyes, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Corston, Jean

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Sefton E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  (Copeland)

  Humble Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hutton, rh John

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  David, Wayne

  Irranca- Davies, Huw

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bow)

  Flint, Caroline

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Foster, rh Derek

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  & Rye)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lepper, David

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  866

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Love, Andrew

  Bellshill)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McCabe, Stephen

  NW)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  MacDougall, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McFall, John

  Chester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Finsbury)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Lunesdale)

  Shettleston)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Southworth, Helen

  Martlew, Eric

  Spellar, rh John

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stevenson, George

  Miliband, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Mole, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moran, Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Owen, Albert

  Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Linda

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Picking, Anne

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Claire

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Watts, David

  E)

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wilson, Brian

  Purnell, James

  Winnick, David

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Quinn, Lawrie

  C)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Woolas, Phil

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Worthington, Tony

  867

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Baillieston)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yarmouth)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Allan, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Amess, David

  Hague, rh William

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Hammond, Philip

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Abingdon)

  Bacon, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Barker, Gregory

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Barrett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Hermon, Lady

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bercow, John

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Holmes, Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Boswell, Tim

  Howard, rh Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brady, Graham

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Breed, Colin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Keetch, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Burstow, Paul

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Butterfill, John

  Lamb, Norman

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cameron, David

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Leigh, Edward

  Cash, William

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Barnet)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Clappison, James

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Conway, Derek

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Cotter, Brian

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Mackay, rah Andrew

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Maclean, rh David

  Howden)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Atcham)

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Maude, rh Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Mercer, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Fallon, Michael

  Coldfield)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Moore, Michael

  Westminster)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Paice, James

  Gidley, Sandra

  Paterson, Owen

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Grayling, Chris

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Dinefwr)

  Greenway, John

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  868

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Redwood, rh John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  M-Kent)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Weir, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Selous, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Willetts, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Kincardine)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  (Macclesfield)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Wishart, Pete

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, rh Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Mark Francois and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. John Randall

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes that the introduction of the Child Tax Credit is the biggest single change in support for families since the Beveridge reforms of the 1940s, and a more radical change than the introduction of Child Benefit 25 years ago; notes that the new tax credits represent the biggest ever investment in families with children, with no government ever having spent so much on children and families; welcomes the fact that 90 per cent. of families with children are eligible for the Child Tax Credit; further welcomes the fact that tax credits are now being paid to 4.2 million families; notes that in addition 1.3 million families with children on Income Support and Jobseekers' Allowance are already benefiting from the increased level of support through their benefits; welcomes the fact that 5.5 million families are therefore now benefiting from tax credits, with more and more being paid every week; and believes that these figures belie the persistent criticism that people would not claim, and that those who said that families would not apply for the new tax credits, and that take up would be low, have been proved wrong.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and your colleagues have frequently deprecated the practice by Ministers of making policy announcements outwith this House. I understand from her published agenda that the Minister for Children is due to make a speech tomorrow to the Local Government Association on the specific subject of the Green Paper on children at risk. The Prime Minister's office announced last week that this Green Paper will not be presented to the House before the autumn. Can you use your influence to require the Minister for Children to bring her Green Paper proposals here, to be discussed by Members of Parliament, before she takes them to any outside body?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I was unfamiliar with this case until the hon. Lady raised it. She is aware, as is the whole House, that Mr. Speaker would expect policy announcements by Government to be made in the House. Whether a Green Paper, which

  869
  presumably initiates a period of consultation, is to be seen in quite the same way, is a matter of judgment, but, generally speaking, Mr. Speaker has made it clear that he expects, as far as possible, announcements to be made in this House rather than elsewhere.

  Tax Credits

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I propose to put together motions 2 to 6.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      ELECTRICITY
      That the draft Electricity and Gas (Modification of Standard Conditions of Licences) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
      CONTRACTING OUT
      That the draft Contracting Out (Function in relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.
      VALUE ADDED TAX
      That the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1568), dated 16th June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
      REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
      That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvas) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

      COMMUNITY CARE
      That the draft Community Care Plans (Disapplication) (England) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

      ADDITIVES IN ANIMAL NUTRITION
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7505/02, draft Regulation on additives for use in animal nutrition; and supports the Government's view that the measure will enhance the protection of consumers of livestock products and rationalise authorisation procedures.— [Mr. Jim Murphy.]
      Question agreed to.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) at the sittings on Monday 14th, Tuesday 15th, Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and

    (2) at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, at its rising on Thursday 17th July, do adjourn till Monday 8th September 2003.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
    Ordered,
    That Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Peter Hain and Martin Linton be added.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
    Motion made,
    That—

    (1) the matter of the Draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

    (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Tuesday 15th July at five minutes to Nine o'clock to consider the matter of the Draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

    PETITION

      "Popetown"
      10.33 pm
      Bob Spink: I have a massive petition to present. Many Roman Catholics are opposed to the screening of the BBC sitcom "Popetown" and petition Parliament as the only available option, in view of the BBC's intransigent attitude. The BBC is required in the agreement associated with its charter not to broadcast programmes that include anything that offends against good taste or decency or may be offensive to public feelings. The petitioners believe that "Popetown" is in poor taste, lacks decency and will offend public feelings.
      The petition, signed by 15,378 people, states:
      To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of Mrs. Stella Lilley, Mr. Edward McCabe, Mr. Francis McFadyen and others of like disposition sheweth:
      If the BBC allows the screening on Television of the animated sit-com series entitled "Popetown", it will offend many practising members of the Roman Catholic faith.

      871
      We consider that to have Ruby Wax providing the voice of a senile Pope, albeit as a cartoon character, is in extremely poor taste and offends against a code of propriety that the BBC ought to follow.
      We believe that it is inappropriate at any time, to portray the Pope, revered as the Spiritual Leader and Head of the Catholic Church on Earth, as a cartoon character.
      Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall request the Government to encourage the BBC to abandon the "Popetown" sit-com.
      And your Petititioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.35 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I originally began to apply for this Adjournment debate when the position was somewhat different from the one that we face now. I had hoped that I might be able to withdraw my application for the debate on the ground that all the issues I wanted to raise had been resolved by a magnificent success in the common agricultural policy negotiations. I hoped that all the concerns expressed by farmers in West Dorset would have been dispensed with. It is indeed the case that some of those concerns have been resolved, but I am afraid that some remain, and in one respect this Adjournment debate has become more useful, and I shall deal with that first.
  The Minister will undoubtedly have heard a similar tale from other Members with rural constituencies, but he may be only remotely aware of what has become abundantly clear to me. Some of the farmers in my constituency acquired their farms only recently. They did so in good faith on the basis of the assumption that, whatever the general grant regime and its application to the specific form of agriculture in which they engaged—some are mixed farming enterprises, some pure dairy farms—they would receive the grant or subsidy that attached to the farm that they had bought. Indeed, they bought the farms in the expectation that that would be the case.
  The Minister will be aware of the frenzied concern among some of my constituents—and, I suspect, those of other hon. Members—when they believed that the seller of the land, depending on the date of sale, would receive the continuing subsidy under the new CAP regime and that they would not. If that were the case, some of my constituents would have been effectively pauperised, while others would have been quite uncovenantedly enriched. It is not my purpose to deprive any of my constituents of uncovenanted bonuses, but that seemed to me—and to my constituents who would be pauperised by the arrangements—to be very unfair.
  I admit that I found the results of the negotiations complex, even by the standards of the CAP, and the Minister will of course have a much deeper understanding of the results than I or, I regret to say, even the most learned of my constituents could expect to acquire. The Minister will correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe that one of the outcomes of the negotiations has been that the national reserve is now available to the Minister and that he also has scope for discretion to resolve the problem equitably within the new structure. In other words, as a result of the negotiations, the Minister is able, on a national and domestic basis, to resolve the concerns of my constituents who might find themselves in the unenviable position of acquiring a farm without acquiring the grants that one would have expected to go with it.
  I say that this debate is more apposite even than I had imagined, because I believe that the Minister now has the discretion. In that case I am addressing the right person rather than addressing indirectly an unseen Commission. I believe that the Minister can now resolve the problem and that, in appealing to him, I am appealing to the very man in all of England who can help my farmers to achieve an equitable resolution if they

  873
  have bought their farms late in the day. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will reassure me that in the course of the next few weeks and months he will propose a clear scheme that will ensure equitable treatment for those farmers.
  I want to turn from that particular issue to a wider question about the effect of the CAP on my farms and, in particular, on my dairy farms. I say, grandly, "my dairy farms". I do not own one personally and there are times when I am profoundly grateful not to be the owner of a dairy farm in West Dorset. The Minister will be well aware from our previous encounters in Adjournment debates, and from the record of my encounters with his predecessors, that the great preponderance of farming in my constituency is dairy farming. Indeed, the preponderance of dairy farming increased as a result of the virtual disappearance of the pig industry from my constituency. I would not be surprised if the present scheme saw a reduction in arable farming in my constituency, so dairy farming may soon be the only kind of farming left in the area. In any event, many of my farmers are dairy farmers.
  Of all the people currently residing in this country, my dairy farmers—and, I fear, those in other constituencies—are the people who are least able to understand their predicament, and whose predicament is least comprehensible. They live in an Alice in Wonderland world, in which all the normal rules of economics are reversed. Instead of being allowed to make up for lack of revenue by increasing production, they are prohibited from so doing. Instead of being allowed to price into a market, they are effectively capped, and instead of being able to exert a counterbalancing pressure against the pressures of their customers, they are picked off one by one by much larger intermediaries and supermarkets. In short, they are as cogs in a machine whose working they cannot understand, rather than normal producers in a normal marketplace.
  Those points will be familiar to the Minister. Indeed, it was with those points in mind—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the Government rightly went to the negotiating table and sought a decoupling of subsidy from production and an early end to the system of quotas. My dairy farmers would have welcomed with open arms a genuine system of decoupling of payments for the dairy industry and an early end to quotas. They wanted a level playing field and economics that resembled the real world. Such an arrangement would have offered a new lease of life to some of my dairy farmers who are precariously poised on the edge of survival. However, many of my dairy farmers are very disappointed by the prolonged schedule for changes to the quotas; the slow process by which the quotas will be enlarged in the early years; the fact that the later enlargements of the quota have been abandoned, at least for the time being; and the fact that the payments will still not be decoupled during the period in which quotas remain.
  On that note, I do not believe that I can be the only Member who is unable to explain to some of my dairy farmers exactly what the solution on decoupling for dairy payments is to be. I say that because, in this case, the NFU, which provides an admirable service in
  874
  explaining such matters to their members, of whom I am one, says something that no ordinary human being can easily understand. For the sake of my dairy farmers, I hope that the Minister can cast some light on the matter. The NFU report tells us:
  "There will be no decoupling of dairy direct payments until the reform is fully implemented"
  which I can understand—
  "except where a Member State opts for the regional implementation of decoupling where an earlier integration of dairy direct payments is possible. We are currently exploring whether this option will allow the UK to implement decoupling of dairy premia earlier in the UK."
  The NFU may be exploring that; my farmers would love to explore it, but neither I nor they are capable of doing so. I hope that the Minister will help the House, help me and, more important, help my dairy farmers by explaining whether the UK is actually going to be able to decouple those payments and, if so, at what date, and how that will relate to the phasing out of quotas and/or the enlargement of quotas in the UK.
  To return to the point that I was making about farmers who were unlucky enough to buy late in the process, no one in West Dorset who is currently planning investment in the dairy industry, whether it be replacement or new investment, can, given the confusion that reigns in the industry, possibly make a rational investment decision. Early information about what is going to happen is obviously critical if rational investment decisions are to be made.
  Finally, will the Minister tell us his understanding of what has been settled for the long term? Farmers in West Dorset are, if anything, long-termists. I suspect that they are by no means unique in that. Were they interested in short-term profit, they would not be in farming today. They look to the long term. Many of them are in farming because many members of their family before them were in farming. Many of them remain in farming in the hope that their children might be persuaded to go into farming. Many of them are willing, as they have been for the past several years, to take what are, in effect, wages that are way below the national minimum wage, or returns that are way below the cost of capital. They live what is almost a subsistence existence in the hope of long-term salvation.
  It is thus of great importance that farmers should see clearly where the Minister thinks the future lies. Are they to assume that the current semi-settlement, in relation not only to the decoupling, lack of decoupling or partial decoupling of dairy payments but also to the similar questions on arable and single farm payments and on the whole range of agricultural production, is the first step on the way to a genuine decoupling and genuinely open markets; or are they to assume that this is broadly as good as they will get for the next decade or two? It will be important to my farmers to know, in general, and to the extent that the Minister can tell us, the answer.
  If the answer to that question is genuinely uncertain, many farmers will be bound to take a pessimistic view and disinvest. If the answer is that there is cause for optimism in the long term, many of them may sustain for a period what may be difficult times ahead, in the hope of realising that better future. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance and that, in the light of that guidance, my farmers will be able to make rational decisions.
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): It is always a pleasure to respond to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) because he always raises issues that relate directly to his constituents' interests, and the House is always at its best when hon. Members relate policies to their constituents. He raises such issues in a questioning and challenging way, not in a confrontational way. I hope that I can help him with some of the issues that he raises, but he needs to wait a little longer on others because, of course, it is only 10 days since we achieved a hard-won decision after long negotiations late into the night over several days.
  I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's point about such issues being complicated, but there is complication not so much in the settlement reached in the CAP discussions, but in the CAP on which those negotiations were based, so expecting a clear and simple statement of where the settlement leaves individual farmers is a little way down the road. He rightly acknowledged that a great deal has changed since he originally sought to initiate the debate. Indeed, just 10 days ago, we had considerable success in the negotiations, but I accept the point that these are complex issues.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to farmers taking a long-term view, and I acknowledge that that is the case. Those who have spent several generations in the industry are looking at a period of major change. Indeed, it is fair to say that the farming industry can look forward, with more hope than has been the case for many years, both to the opportunity of being truly competitive and to having its competitiveness and efficiency recognised, and CAP reform is a part of the move in the right direction.
  One of the most important contributions in recent years was, of course, the report by Sir Don Curry and the commission on a sustainable future for farming and food, which looked at how to make farming competitive and recommended ways in which individual farmers can take decisions that will increase their returns—the farm-gate prices, as they are described—for the work that they undertake. I point to the seminal importance of that report and the way in which it prepared the ground for the CAP reform.
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, some farmers have recently acquired farms, but they could have been in no doubt about the way in which this country wanted to reform the CAP. I believe that I am right in saying that he wants the way in which the regulations result from the reform to be considered. There will be consultation on those regulations, when the issue that he raises can be considered, but the rule of caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—applies, and any purchaser in recent months, or even the last couple of years, must have made a purchase in the knowledge that attempts were being made to reform the CAP. If the results are complex, they are hardly more complex than the situation in which farmers have had to operate for a number of years.
  Mr. Letwin: I may not have made myself clear. I do not at all ask the Minister to protect the successor from the effects of the change in the grant regime. I wholly subscribe to his view that purchasers should have been aware that the grant regime would change. The question is whether the new grant will be paid to the new owner, or whether, as has been feared, the grant may in some
  876
  cases accrue to the old owner, who would thereby be serendipitously enriched, pauperising the new owner, who would have expected to receive the new grant.
  Alun Michael: I am not sure that I can give the right hon. Gentleman a complete answer, but let me try. Certainly, some flexibility exists on a national basis to deal with some issues, as we will do once we have examined fully all the options open to us. I believe that the situation is that once farmers have claimed at least 80 per cent. of their entitlement, they are free to transfer some or all of it to another farmer within the same member state, with or without land. However, entitlements may only be leased along with the equivalent number of hectares. Details need to be consulted on, but in principle a capacity exists to respond to some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised.
  A national reserve will provide additional means of obtaining entitlements. Those eligible to apply will be defined in Commission implementing rules, so, clearly, we need to examine the detail to know how to respond to them. But they will include new entrants, those who inherited or bought land from 31 May 2003 which was leased during the reference period, those who took on a lease during the reference period and could not adjust the terms of the lease—who could not negotiate a lower rent—and developers who bought land or otherwise made investments to increase production during the reference period. Entitlements received from the national reserve cannot be transferred for five years. I am not sure that that general framework necessarily answers the question in relation to the situation of an individual farmer, but I hope that it does something to illustrate the sort of issues that we will have to consider and responds to some degree to the concerns raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  It is worth looking at the situation in Dorset, and West Dorset in particular. It is an area of mixed farming containing predominantly medium-sized livestock and dairy farms. The right hon. Gentleman rightly expressed concerns that those sectors would be affected. The area will be affected in particular by the introduction of the new single farm payment and further reform of the dairy regime. The detailed impact on farms will depend on how the package is implemented, which will be the subject of consultation. That will be the point at which some of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns, and the concerns of farmers in his constituency, can be raised. Much will also depend on how farmers respond to the new challenges and opportunities that present themselves.
  In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about people wanting to continue in the farming industry for many years to come, I am struck by the commitment of many farmers, including young farmers, to the industry, and the imaginative way in which many are finding methods of marketing their product, finding niche markets or banding together through co-operative marketing to make sure that they get a better return. I am also impressed that the predictions are that the reforms through the CAP negotiations are likely to help to increase average farm incomes by some 12 per cent. in this country and possibly by more over a longer period.

  877
  That, of course, will depend on the details of the implementation. It will also depend on the way in which farmers seek to drive forward their businesses.
  For the milk sector, lower intervention prices are likely to feed through to lower farm gate milk prices. Compared with the Agenda 2000 agreement, however, the rate of compensation for price cuts has been improved. Furthermore, those payments are now being phased in faster than the support price cuts—over three years compared with four years of price cuts. That will provide dairy farmers with aid during the important transition period. It is likely, however, that overall the income of the typical dairy farmer will be reduced. Concerns existed about the ways of dealing with dairy reform, particularly the failure to cut prices and end quotas sooner. We would have liked more progress on milk, and particularly an end to quotas. As we have warned, the EU may be forced to return to the matter sooner because of the failure to be more radical. Useful further steps are being taken along the reform path, however, and welcome flexibility exists for member states to take early action on decoupling in the milk sector. We will consult shortly on using that option once we have had further clarification from the Commission on the implications. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that we need to be clear about the working through of the decisions taken by the Commission to make sure that we do not introduce unintended consequences in the way that we implement the decisions, especially in relation to early decoupling. The dairy industry has certainly faced immense difficulties during recent years. The right hon. Gentleman explained the situation so courteously that I shall not spend time taking him back through the history of decisions taken by the past Conservative Administration.
  The new arrangements on the decoupled single payment will have several advantages. Farmers will be freed from the need to grow specific crops or keep specific numbers of animals because they will instead be allowed to gear their production to the market. There is no doubt that there are examples of farmers who have broken though the system of subsidy and support to engage with their market, sometimes very productively. The arrangements will reduce the negative impact of the CAP on the world's poorest farmers by cutting overproduction of subsidised food, and the incentive to intensify production and damage the market will be removed. The EU will be allowed to engage positively in World Trade Organisation discussions with a significant offer on agricultural trade.
  It is hard to overstate the importance of the agreement, which transfers the core elements of the CAP and sets a new direction for its future evolution. In the short term, an increase in farm incomes is predicted. Liberalising the market will reward the efficiency of British farmers and offer them an opportunity to gain benefit from the efficiencies that they have demonstrated for several years—in some ways, they have perhaps been penalised for that due to the way in which the system has operated.
  878
  I sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman when he mentioned complexity. Simplifying the CAP will reduce the burden on farmers and will lead to a substantial shift of support from production to a wider range of rural and environmental activities. It is worth making the point that the fact that Britain has taken the lead on modulation has brought forward rural development that is the envy of many other countries in many ways. There is a need for diversification of the wider rural economy but enabling farmers to diversify and allowing their families to move into other areas has had many benefits. I could cite a long list of examples of farmers and farm families in Dorset who have taken advantage of such opportunities.
  Breaking the link between farm subsidies and production to reconnect farmers with their markets and reducing damaging environmental impacts and bureaucracy are at the heart of our approach on sustainable food and farming. The CAP has moved in the direction that the Government and the Curry report flagged up. Cross-compliance so that subsidies are dependent on meeting standards for key areas such as the environment and animal health and welfare is also important, as is the reduction of support prices for butter and rice to bring them closer to world prices, which will benefit consumers.
  It is fair to say that the deal includes elements that go beyond the Commission's initial proposals, such as the national envelopes enabling schemes that will promote sustainable farming. There will be a further switch of resources to the second pillar and an earlier start for modulation. The second pillar package is more than a third larger than that in the January proposals. We have succeeded in protecting UK farmers from the immediate threat of an unfair settlement as part of the financial discipline process by varying the terms of modulation.
  The new single farm payment may be used to replace the plethora of existing bureaucratic direct payment schemes and to free farmers to produce the safe, high-quality food that the market wants. Many of the approaches on marketing in this country are starting to produce results, and it is probably fair to say that that has been more successful in the south-west than in any other part of the country. A clear profile of food from the west country has been developed and the profile of individual counties—Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset—has been maintained within that. That can only be good for the link between agricultural production and benefits through tourism such as the use of local products by restaurants and the hotel trade, and it will lead to an increasing virtuous circle among the products of the farm economy and a variety of other aspects, such as the wider economy of rural tourism.
  As I said, the new single farm payment will be a major step forward. Overall, the proposals are estimated to give rise to net economic—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal Sanctuaries
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what steps she plans to take to ensure high standards in animal sanctuaries; [122652]

  (2) if she will make it a requirement for animal sanctuaries to be licensed. [122653]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Department is currently working on an Animal Welfare Bill. Under the new legislation it is proposed to licence animal sanctuaries and to apply a statutory code of practice that will set a minimum standard of welfare for animals in sanctuaries.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will reply to the letter of 6 May from the hon. Member for Billericay regarding Pitsea Tip; [119460]

  (2) when her Department will reply to the letter of 6 May from the hon. Member for Billericay regarding Pitsea Tip. [122730]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The hon. Member's letter was received in the Department on 20 May. I responded on 4 July.

  Crop Spraying
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place requiring farmers and growers spraying crops to inform the public about the type of chemicals being used. [123002]

  Alun Michael
  The Statutory Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings provides advice for farmers on best practice, including notifying the public of impending spray operations. There is also a legal obligation to notify others in the case of aerial spraying of pesticides and for the use of sulphuric acid as a pesticide. In addition to these safeguards Ministers are considering if further measures could be taken to make more information available to the public on pesticide spray operations.

  Greyhounds
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many greyhounds have retired from British greyhound racing in each year since 1997; and how many were re-homed each year. [122266]
  560W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government do not hold records on the numbers of greyhounds that retire each year from racing.

  Each racing greyhound is the property of an individual owner and so it is not possible to record what happens to dogs once they retire.

  The racing industry and welfare organisations estimate that some 9,000 racing greyhounds retire each year. The Retired Greyhound Trust claims to re-home 1,400 per year. An undisclosed number will remain with their owners as pets.

  Sharks
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of shark(a) fishing and (b) finning on the world's population of sharks. [122658]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Current scientific knowledge indicates that many of the world's populations of sharks are under threat from fishing activities. The targeting of sharks for their fins alone adds to this threat. In view of concern over this threat to shark populations, this Department has been working to protect sharks at a national and international level. In addition to putting in place measures to protect the basking shark under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, we have secured strengthened protection for this species at an international level under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) produced in 1999 an International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks, to which the European Commission signed up on behalf of the European Union. We have been pressing the Commission for action to follow this up and are pleased that work will begin shortly on the development and implementation of a Community Plan of Action.

  Discussions on a Commission regulation to restrict the practice of shark finning have recently concluded. While it was not possible to achieve the complete ban on this practice that we would have preferred, we were able to secure some important concessions, including additional control clauses and a commitment to a complete review of the regulation in the light of the development of the Community Plan of Action.

  Waste Incineration
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to make available additional funding to the Environment Agency for the regulation of on-farm drum incinerators when the Agricultural Waste Regulations are introduced. [122754]

  Mr. Morley
  A draft of the Agricultural Waste Regulations will be issued for public consultation in the autumn with a view to their coming into force in early 2004. The main purpose of the Regulations is to apply the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive to agricultural waste. Incineration is subject to control under the Directive as a waste disposal operation. Provision has been made within the Corporate Planning
  561W
  process to meet the Environment Agency's costs, through charges and Grant-in-Aid, as a "competent authority" for the control of agricultural waste under the Directive. My Department has received no specific request from the Agency for funding for the regulation of on-farm drum incinerators.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Noise
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary a State for Transport what plans he has to change the measurement criteria for aircraft noise in the UK to correspond to those of the World Health Organisation. [123437]

  Mr. McNulty
  WHO noise guideline figures are given in terms of equivalent continuous sound level (dBA Leq) and of the sound event peak (dBA Lmax). Leq is already the established metric for averaging aircraft noise, as recommended in the planning guidance note PPG 24. Lmax and SEL (which takes account of event duration as well as peak level) are also extensively used in describing individual noise events.

  In due course, noise contours will also be produced for aircraft noise and for other sources in accordance with the metrics, again based on Leq, prescribed by EU Directive 2002/49/EC.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) published in the last two years on the impact of different aircraft noise levels on those affected. [123438]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport commissioned a study into attitudes to noise from civil aircraft sources in England in November 2001; it is expected to report towards the end of next year.

  This major study was commissioned following three earlier, smaller-scale studies commissioned by DETR into the effects of noise specifically at night: "Adverse Effects of Night-Time Aircraft Noise" (CAA R&D 9964); "Aircraft noise and sleep—1999 UK Trial Methodology Study" (Flindell et al.) and "Perceptions of Aircraft Noise, Sleep and Health" (Diamond et al.) all published during 2000.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the progress of Crossrail. [123056]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Transport to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 149.

  Disabled Parking Permits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, columns 736–37W, on disabled parking permits, when he will take forward the recommendations received on the Blue Badge Scheme; and what enforcement measures he proposes to take. [123818]
  562W
  Mr. McNulty
  We are committed to introducing a specific power for the police, traffic wardens and local authority parking enforcement officers to inspect badges. We are also looking at the feasibility of establishing a national database of badge holders; the introduction of smartcard technology; increasing penalties for abuse and misuse of the Scheme.

  The power to inspect, and a number of other measures, will need to be introduced through primary legislation and we are looking for a suitable legislative opportunity to do so. Meanwhile, we are already working on the changes that require secondary legislation, taking forward a number of research projects and drafting new guidance for local authorities to accompany the changes. We aim to implement the changes at the earliest opportunity.

  Liverpool Airport
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the passenger numbers to Liverpool John Lennon airport have changed in the past five years. [124212]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of passengers arriving at or departing from Liverpool John Lennon airport has increased from 680,000 in 1997 to 2,835,000 in 2002.

  London Mayor
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [122142]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers meet the Mayor of London from time to time to discuss a range of issues.

  London Underground
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent changes have been made in the risk profile of the London Underground PPP. [124038]

  Mr. McNulty
  As there has been no changes to the PPP contract terms, which may alter the allocation of risk, there have been no changes in the risk profile.

  Network Rail (Tree Felling)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances Network Rail carries out routine tree felling; and if he will make a statement. [123845]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail. However, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated in responding to the adjournment debate of 3 June 2003 called by my hon. Friend, Network Rail's first priority is to operate a safe, reliable railway. Tree clearance plays an important part in achieving that objective and in addressing the significant impact upon train performance arising from leaf fall in the autumn. Network Rail must strike a balance between providing a safe, efficient, reliable and affordable rail network and meeting environmental and community concerns.

  Offshore Windfarms
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of his recent letter to Mr. John Home Robertson MSP, referred to in column 1209 of the Scottish Parliament Official Report of 26 June 2003 regarding his plans to introduce legislation to allow the establishment of safety zones around UK offshore windfarms. [123761]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A copy has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Oil Spill Contingency Plans
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coastal local authorities(a) do not have and (b) have oil spill contingency plans that have not been updated since the publication of the National Contingency Plan for dealing with pollution incidents. [123613]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are 164 coastal local authorities in the UK. Of these, only one does not have an oil spill contingency plan as yet. Of the 53 coastal local authorities who published contingency plans prior to the National Contingency Plan, all but one has either rewritten, or begun the process of reviewing/rewriting their plans.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to give coastal local authorities a statutory responsibility to prepare and maintain oil spill contingency plans. [123614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The question of whether coastal local authorities should have a statutory duty to prepare contingency plans for shoreline pollution incidents was raised in the context of the Emergency Planning Review, and my Department will be commenting on the resulting draft Civil Contingencies Bill, which has recently been published.

  Redhill Aerodrome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the development of a commercial runway at Redhill Aerodrome with a rail line to Gatwick Station would fall within the vicinity of Gatwick as defined in the 1979 agreement between BAA and West Sussex county council; and if he will make a statement. [123846]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport has made no assessment of the type referred to by the hon. Member. We will consider this as part of our appraisal of the proposals submitted by Redhill Aerodrome Ltd.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2003,Official Report, column 192W, on Redhill Aerodrome, what future meetings are planned with Redhill Aerodrome Ltd. and associated companies and individuals. [123851]

  Mr. McNulty
  No further meetings are currently planned with Redhill Aerodrome Ltd. (RAL) or representatives thereof. Their second response to "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)" was submitted on 30 June 2002.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122255]

  Mr. McNulty
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service are collected from the department and its agencies twice-yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003.

  A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in 'Civil Service Statistics'. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002. The next edition, based on April 2002 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2003.

  Data on staff in non-departmental public bodies are published by Cabinet Office in its annual publication. The latest edition 'Public Bodies 2002', was published in January 2003.

  Staff costs for the Department for Transport can be found in our Annual Report 2003.

  Copies of both the Civil Service Statistics and Public Bodies 2002 are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Unmanned Level Crossings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many unmanned level crossings have been closed to public access in each of the last five years; [121005]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with Network Rail since its formation on public access across unmanned level crossings over the rail network. [121006]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail. Network Rail advises that information on the number of public unmanned level crossing closures in each of the last five years is not readily available. Departmental officials have a number of discussions with Network Rail on a number of matters, which include level crossings. More generally, the Health and Safety Executive has on-going discussions with Network Rail at both local and national level about safety and access arrangements at level crossings.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects the Arts Council of England to transfer funds to the Film Council to fund the accessibility to films initiative announced on 9 December 2002; and if she will make a statement. [123328]
  565W
  Estelle Morris
  As part of the £176 million Arts Capital Programme, Arts Council England earmarked £15 million for cinema exhibition. Part of that £15 million was the sum of £500,000 to improve accessibility to films for people with sensory disabilities.

  In 2002, the Arts Council made the further decision to delegate the earmarked £15 million to the Film Council once their film exhibition strategy was in place. They have recently received details of the scheme from the Film Council and are now in a position to complete delegation.

  Tourism (Wales)
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what VisitBritain is doing to promote overseas tourism in Wales. [123338]

  Mr. Caborn
  VisitBritain works closely in partnership with the Wales Tourist Board in Wales's priority markets abroad, especially US, Germany and the Netherlands, to promote Wales by means of a wide range of marketing activities. In addition, since June last year, VisitBritain has organized some 46 familiarisation visits to Wales for journalists from 10 key markets world-wide. Wales is also featured extensively in a number of VisitBritain's campaigns, both on the web and in print. These include, for example, the Hidden Britain and Royal Heritage campaigns, which highlight Caernarfon Castle.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within her Department bearing the titles of advocate, Tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if she will make a statement. [112469]

  Ms Hewitt
  At 11 June, my Department had the following special advisers: Jim Godfrey, Deborah Lincoln, Roger Sharp and Kitty Ussher. With the exception of one adviser, all of the above are paid appointments. Under exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, details of individual salaries are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Audit/Company Law
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to publish draft legislation on audit and company law reforms. [123569]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: We have just completed consultation on proposals for taking forward changes to the regulatory regime for the accountancy profession following last year's review, and
  566W
  on community interest companies. We hope to set out some further elements of company law reform by the end of the year.

  Bank Accounts
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the percentage of the UK population was without any form of bank account in each of the last five years; and what she estimates it will be in April 2004. [118328]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not available for the time period requested or for UK coverage. The Family Resources Survey can provide estimates up to 2001–02 for Great Britain. This information is in the table.

  Percentage of adults without any form of bank account

  1997–98

  11

  1998–99

  10

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  11

  2001–02

  9

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). 2001–02 is the latest year for which data is available. Figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  2. Adults are defined as all those aged 16 and over, except for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time non-advanced education; all adults in the household are interviewed as part of the FRS.

  3. Any type of bank account includes Current account, National Savings Ordinary and National Savings Investment or any other bank/building society accounts.

  4. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure type, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and remaining response bias.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (Great Britain)

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether BNFL requires authorisation to provide donations to the United States Nuclear Energy Institute. [116800]

  Mr. Timms
  No. This is a matter for the BNFL Board.

  Broadband
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding will be made available for the provision of broadband infrastructure for rural villages. [123482]

  Mr. Timms
  My aim is for every community across the UK, irrespective of location, to be able to access affordable broadband from a competitive market.

  Government will be spending £1 billion over the next few years on public sector connectivity. This will enable broadband access in every primary and secondary school, GP's surgeries and other public sector services. DTI, with Regional Development Agencies are aggregating this public sector demand and this

  567W
  investment will have a significant positive impact on industry investment and availability of broadband. I believe this will make a significant contribution to extending broadband to village communities.

  Business Statistics
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) start ups of new businesses and (b) businesses going into receivership there were in each of the last three years in (i) England and Wales and (ii) North Yorkshire. [123483]

  Nigel Griffiths
  New business start-ups are measured officially by VAT registrations. The latest data is available for 2001.

  VAT registrations 1999–2001

  Number

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England and Wales

  163,485

  168,455

  160,280

  Former Country of North Yorkshire1

  2,240

  2,30

  2,210

  1Includes York UA

  Source:

  Business start-ups and closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1980–2001, Small Business Service

  Receivership data is published by DTI. No regional or local area data is available.

  Receivership appointments1 2000–02

  England and Wales

  Number

  2000

  1,595

  2001

  1,914

  2002

  1,541

  1 Includes administrative receiverships and others, for example under the Law of Property Act 1925

  Source:

  DTI.

  Company Directors
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many adverse reports required under the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 have been received by her Department concerning the conduct of directors in each year since 1997. [122903]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information is as follows:

  Calendar Year

  IP Adverse Reports

  OR Adverse Reports

  Total

  1997

  3,280

  2,576

  5,856

  1998

  3,314

  2,229

  5,543

  1999

  3,422

  2,140

  5,562

  2000

  3,396

  2,153

  5,549

  2001

  3,186

  2,074

  5,260

  2002

  3,552

  2,500

  6,052

  The above figures are the number of unfitted reports submitted by both Insolvency Practitioners (IP) and Official Receivers (OR).

  Dr.Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many disqualification orders have been made against directors under the Company Directors'568W
  Disqualification Act 1986 for a period of (a) two years and (b) more than two years in each year since 1997. [122904]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The figures for the number of disqualification orders and undertakings obtained by The Insolvency Service under section 6 of the Company Directors' Disqualification Act 1986 are:

  2002

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  Two Years

  74

  100

  122

  122

  114

  128

  More than Two Years

  1,520

  1,589

  1,380

  1,367

  1,236

  1,091

  Total

  1,594

  1,689

  1,502

  1,489

  1,350

  1,219

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many disqualification undertakings have been received by her Department from company directors since 1 April 2001. [122909]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The information is as follows:

  Undertakings

  Period April 2001 to March 2002

  1,213

  Period April 2002 to March 2003

  197

  Total

  2,685

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the Tyson Report on the Recruitment and Development of Non-Executive Directors; and if she will implement its recommendations. [122996]

  Jacqui Smith
  I am grateful to Laura Tyson and her group for her thought-provoking report. It shows the clear benefits for business of diversity at board level. It is vital for UK business that they look more widely for the best candidates. I also agree that it is important to monitor change and highlight best practice examples of building diverse and meritocratic boards.

  I welcome the report's three recommendations:

  1. Rigorous and transparent Non-Executive Director Selection Processes—This is being taken forward as part of the Financial Reporting Council's work on amending the Combined Code, following Derek Higgs' Review.

  2. An initiative to bring together companies and training providers to establish guidelines to ensure that training programmes for directors are providing what is needed, and that useful information about such programmes is easily accessible on a timely basis.

  3. An initiative to monitor both progress on achieving rigorous and transparent processes for NED appointments and progress on building more diverse boardrooms. I agree that it would be useful to monitor progress and disseminate best practice and we will be considering how best this should be done. But it is clear this is not the end of the story. We must see real results in broadening the talent pool of directors appointed to our boardrooms and we are also looking at what further work the government can do to help business achieve this.

  Employment Legislation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the items of employment legislation, including delegated legislation, introduced by her Department since 1997. [122906]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  In its first term (1997–2001), the Government introduced a foundation of minimum standards in the workplace. Every employee now has, for example, the right to a minimum wage, paid holidays, rest breaks, time off for family emergencies, and a cap on the working week. Trade unions have the right to recognition by the employer where a majority of the workforce want it. Part-time workers have the same rights as their full-time colleagues.

  In its second term, the Government are building on all these measures in their drive to raise productivity, including a range of changes to support families and to make work pay. The Government have improved existing maternity rights and introduced paid paternity and adoption leave for the first time. For example, the payment period of Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance has been extended to 26 weeks. They have also introduced a right for working parents with children under six, or disabled children under 18, to request flexible working. This new right builds on existing best practice and further enforces our aim to promote greater dialogue in the workplace to find flexible solutions which suit both employers and employees.

  Recently both Houses have passed regulations to tackle discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation and religion or belief, which will take effect in December 2003.

  Energy Saving Services
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is planning to stimulate and develop new and effective markets in energy saving services. [123681]

  Mr. Timms
  Following a commitment made in the Energy White Paper, the Energy Services Working Group has been set up, under the joint chair of my Department, Defra and Ofgem, to look at ways of promoting an effective market in energy services. The Working Group will make recommendations to Ministers in December.

  Membership of the Working Group includes energy suppliers, Energywatch and the Energy Saving Trust.

  Entertainment, Theatrical and Modelling Agents
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what legislative changes she proposes to ensure that(a) models, (b) actors and (c) entertainers are not at risk from rogue (i) entertainment, (ii) theatrical and (iii) modelling agents. [123588]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Our proposed changes to the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations will provide that model, theatrical and entertainment agents should only deduct sums from workers' earnings from work the agent has found for them. We are seeking to outlaw the practice of 570W
  unscrupulous agencies that take money from workers in the modelling and entertainment sectors but offer little or no work.

  We also propose to tighten up controls on client accounts so that the earnings of models, actors and entertainers are properly protected.

  Grafitti
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with representatives of the statutory undertakers about graffiti on their street furniture or other property; and if she will make a statement. [118087]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety on 1 July 2003,Official Report, columns 248–49.

  Home Safety
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are for alternative campaigns and materials following the decision to withdraw free literature on home safety. [122534]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not true to say that DTI is withdrawing all free literature or from home safety campaigns. What we have done is to focus our limited resources onto areas where we believe DTI can make an impact and that are line with the DTI's aim of promoting prosperity for all.

  The Department continues to provide information to support work undertaken by practitioners in a number of areas including, falls prevention and firework safety. In addition we continue to support RoSPA and others in their work to reduce home accidents.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the funding used to maintain the Home and Leisure Surveillance System will be transferred to the Department of Health to support the development of their injury data system. [122535]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As the decision to stop funding HASS was the result of resource constraints within the DTI, I have no plans to transfer funding to the Department of Health. However, I have offered to support initiatives that the Department of Health might launch to strengthen the surveillance of accidental injury at regional and local levels in the NHS.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the decisions(a) to scrap the Home and Leisure Surveillance Systems and (b) to withdraw free literature on home and home safety campaigns. [122556]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  On 2 May 2003, my hon. Friend the then Minister for consumer affairs, announced that the DTI will no longer collect statistics on the causes and nature of home and leisure accidents. Following increased pressure on resources and the need to focus on the Department's core priorities, hard decisions had to be made on what to stop. The collection of accident statistics did not fit with these priorities.
  571W
  It is not true to say that DTI is withdrawing all free literature or from home safety campaigns. What we have done is to focus our limited resources onto areas where we believe DTI can make an impact and that are in line with the DTI's aim of promoting prosperity for all. The Department continues to provide information to support work undertaken by practitioners in areas such as falls prevention and fireworks safety.

  Ink Cartridges
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason used ink cartridges are classed by her Department as consumables rather than recyclable waste; and what assessment she has made of the impact of that classification on(a) the amount of waste going to landfill, (b) the cartridge recycling industry and (c) the cost of cartridges. [123001]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 10 June 2003,Official Report, columns 762–63.

  Insolvency Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Qualified Insolvency Practitioners are employed by the Insolvency Service. [122905]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  None.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees there were in the Insolvency Service in each year since 1997; and how many, in each year, have been on contracts of 12 months or less. [122908]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The numbers of staff employed in the Insolvency Service is published in the agency's Annual Report and Accounts. Due to an upgrade of IT systems information about staff employed on contracts of 12 months or less will not be available until August 2003.

  Iraq
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what loans were made by the Government to the Government of Iraq since 1979; how much has been repaid; how much is still owed; and if she will make a statement. [122671]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The DTI has not been party to any Government to Government loans between the UK and Iraq. However, unrecovered claims resulting from ECGD insuring UK exports or guaranteeing related commercial loans prior to 1991 on Iraq currently amount to £623million.

  Motor Vehicle Prices
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to reduce the price of new motor vehicles. [123970]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The supply of New Car Order 2000 came into force on 1 September 2000 following a Competition Commission monopoly inquiry. One of the main provisions of the order is designed to ensure that manufacturers do not discriminate unfairly between discounts for fleet customers and dealers. The Office of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring compliance with the order.
  572W
  The Alliance and Leicester, in conjunction with What Car?, publishes a monthly survey of new car prices. The survey published in May 2003 showed that prices of new cars had fallen by 9.47 per cent between April 2000 and April 2003.

  Many factors affect relative car prices such as the exchange rate and the degree of competition in the market.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to employers of introducing the minimum wage to(a) 17-year-olds and (b) 16 and 17-year-olds at (i) the youth rate and (ii) the adult rate; and if she will make a statement. [122875]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: In forming its minimum wage policy, the Government takes into account the recommendations of the independent Low Pay Commission. The Commission presented their fourth report to the Government in March 2003.

  In that report, the Commission recommended that they should be asked to consider the possible introduction of a minimum wage rate for 16 to 17-year-olds. The Government accepted this recommendation and has invited the Commission to look at this issue in parallel with a wider government review looking at education and training policy and the system of financial support for young people. The cost to employers will be one factor the Commission will wish to consider. The Commission have been asked to report by the end of February 2004 and we will of course consider their report very carefully.

  Office for Civil Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the second annual report from the Director of the Office of Civil Nuclear Security was published; and what steps have been taken to publicise its release. [123665]

  Mr. Timms
  The second annual report from the Director of Civil Nuclear Security was published on Wednesday 26 June 2003. The publication was posted on the Department of Trade and Industry's website. A press release was issued on 27 June regarding the publication, and this is also available on the DTIs website.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the two security breaches at nuclear sites referred to at paragraph 53 of the annual report of the Director of Civil Nuclear Security on the State of Security in the Civil Nuclear Industry and the Effectiveness of Security Regulation, April 2002–March 2003. [123760]

  Mr. Timms
  The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) investigations into security breaches are confidential, and I am therefore unable to comment upon them.

  Overseas Relocation
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives her Department has in place to discourage UK companies and businesses from locating facilities and services overseas. [115048]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We believe that the most effective way to discourage firms from moving abroad is to create the best environment for business success in the UK.

  We assist firms in a variety of ways.

  We provide practical advice and support to enable every company to be the best it can be. For example the Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS), launched last year, provides expert advice and consultancy to help companies drive up their value added. On average companies who have participated in MAS in-depth consultancy projects have seen added value of nearly £90,000 per year.

  We support firms in the research and development activities that will keep them ahead of the competition. For example, an R&D tax credit for large and middle-sized companies was introduced this year to complement the tax credit for small and medium-sized companies introduced in budget 2000. In 2001–02, the first year for which figures are available, somewhere in the region of 3,000 small and medium-sized companies made claims under the tax credit scheme.

  Each year we invest around £1 billion in support for the businesses that create Britain's wealth. We support the investment work of the regional development agencies for example through regional selective assistance through which we offer selective grants to firms investing in the assisted areas and creating or safeguarding jobs. In England in 2002–03, £934 million of business investment was secured as a result of 192 RSA grants totalling £108 million. This is expected to create over 10,000 new jobs and safeguard a further 9,000. Financial assistance to companies in Wales is a devolved matter for the National Assembly for Wales. Data on financial assistance given under the Industrial Development Act 1982, including regional selective assistance, is contained in the Annual Report to Parliament for 2002–03 which was laid on 26 June.

  Public Utilities (Pensions)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to prevent public utilities companies from passing on costs arising from their pension fund deficits to their customers; and if she will make a statement. [123199]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As with all other economic matters, the issue of cost pass-through to customers is for the independent economic regulators to determine.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Regional Selective Assistance. [122901]

  Jaqui Smith
  The Government is committed to ensuring that its resources are directed effectively to support viable investments in our poorest regions and Regional Selective Assistance forms part of that 574W
  commitment. Regional Selective Assistance projects were last evaluated in 1998–2000, and the results of that evaluation are available on www.dti.gov.uk/support/rsajf2512001.htm

  We expect to announce in the Autumn the DTF's new portfolio of Business Support products, including regional investment support.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to develop regulatory arrangements to exploit the potential for renewable energy developments in Scotland consistent with(a) Ofgem's statutory objectives and (b) Transmission System Owners' licence obligations. [122574]

  Mr. Timms
  The British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA) are currently under development and the Government is committed to bringing forward legislation in time to implement BETTA in April 2005. BETTA will give all renewable generators in Scotland access to a GB wide market and will ensure that the costs of investment in the infrastructure in Scotland needed to meet our renewables targets can be spread across all GB users.

  Ofgem have asked the Government to bring forward the legislation necessary to bring in BETTA because the new arrangements are in line with Ofgem's duties to protect the interests of customers by promoting competition where possible. BETTA will require changes to the licence obligations placed on the Transmission System Owners. All changes to these licences are being consulted on as part of the consultation process on BETTA.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on improvements to the National Grid as set out in the Transmission Issues Working Group Final Report; what discussions she has had with(a) Ofgem and (b) electricity transmission companies on (i) improvements to the National Grid and (ii) the delivery of renewable energy targets; and if she will make a statement. [122577]

  Mr. Timms
  It is clear that the transmission grid has to be modified and strengthened in order to accommodate the Government's renewable energy targets. The Transmission Issues Working Group final report has led to work commencing on the planning studies for measures required to increase the export of renewable energy from Scotland by upgrading the existing network infrastructure.

  The Transmission Issues Working Group is still in existence and meets again shortly. It comprises of representatives from the DTI, Ofgem, National Grid Transco, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern. Its key areas of interest are the upgrade of the transmission grid to accommodate new renewable energy generation located in Scotland and off the coasts of England and Wales.

  Trading Standards Officers (Under-age Sales)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the work Trading Standards officers do to enforce regulations relating to the
  575W
  under-age sales of (a) alcohol, (b) fireworks, (c) spray paint, (d) air guns, (e) solvents, (f) cigarettes and (g) unclassified videos. [123615]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Within the terms of relevant legislation, Trading Standards Officers enforce the regulations in ways suited to local circumstances and priorities, working with other enforcement authorities, such as the police, where appropriate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what provision has been made by United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and the Afghan Transitional Authority to register returning refugees, internally displaced peoples and nomads for democratic elections scheduled to take place in 2004. [123028]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) is working closely with the Afghan Transitional Administration to develop a programme of voter registration. Plans are still being finalised but we understand from UNAMA that the national registration process will encompass Internally Displaced Peoples, returning refugees and nomads. The actual process of registration is scheduled to begin in August and run through the winter until March 2004. Subject to security constraints, rural areas, which are less accessible in winter, will be registered first followed then by urban areas.

  British Overseas Territories
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British overseas territories have not complied with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on criminalisation of sexual activity between men; and what action he will take to ensure compliance. [123500]

  Mr. Rammell
  None. Legislation decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults in private is in force in all British Overseas Territories.

  Burma
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether EU sanctions against the Burmese junta will be linked to the atrocities committed by the regime against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people. [123346]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When the EU Common Position on Burma was strengthened and updated in April 2003, the plight of the ethnic minorities were specifically mentioned in the EU Council Conclusions. Should the EU agree more sanctions against Burma, the Government would ensure that the plight of Burma's ethnic minority groups was fully taken into account.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of human rights abuses committed by the Burmese military junta against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people. [123730]
  576W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: Regrettably, we have not seen any substantive improvement in the overall human rights situation in Burma. The Karen, Karenni and Shan have suffered disproportionately. While the military authorities have allowed a delegation from Amnesty International to visit Burma, this has not led to an improvement in the human rights situation. I am especially concerned about the situation in light of recent arrests and detentions in Burma. We will continue to press bilaterally with the Burmese regime and in international fora for a rapid improvement in the situation.

  Cyprus
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on British(a) forces and (b) employees from the Sovereign Base Areas visiting the occupied areas of Cyprus. [R] [123411]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  British Forces Cyprus Service Personnel, United Kingdom Based Civilians, authorised UK Officials and their dependants and specified close relatives are permitted to visit northern Cyprus. The procedure for application for a pass to visit northern Cyprus is under review because of recent events arising from the relaxation of the regulations by the Republic of Cyprus and the northern Cyprus authorities concerning cross border travel.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to promote contact and co-operation between(a) employers, (b) trade and employers' organisations and (c) trades unions in the government-controlled and occupied areas of Cyprus. [R] [123421]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our High Commission in Nicosia encourages contact and cooperation, and free discussion of issues relating to the Cyprus Problem, within and between civil organisations on both sides of the Green Line in Cyprus.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any Government has failed in its obligations to provide information it holds to the International Atomic Energy Agency about Saddam Hussein's regime's attempts to obtain uranium for Africa in the last five years. [123451]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: We encouraged all states to share any information that they had with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

  There is no requirement for the IAEA to inform us of who has, and who has not, provided information to them.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many mass grave sites have been discovered in Iraq since the start of the recent conflict; and what steps are being taken by the occupying powers to(a) protect and secure the sites, (b) identify the victims and (c) bring criminal charges against the perpetrators. [123689]
  577W
  Mr. Rammell
  To date 86 mass graves have been reported. Approximately 50 have been, or are currently, under investigation by coalition forces, who have been tasked with securing and protecting evidence of legacy crimes.

  We have sent a team of nine UK forensic experts to Iraq to investigate legacy crimes and mass graves. We are currently studying their recommendations for a long-term strategy for dealing with forensically important sites in Iraq and for further UK assistance in this area.

  We have always believed that those who have been responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be brought to justice. We believe it should be for the Iraqi people to decide how to bring those responsible to justice, with suitable international help.

  North Korea
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreement was reached in the recent discussions in Madrid between the UK and 10 other countries regarding the possible interdiction of ships and planes from North Korea and other countries; whether the agreement has been published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [123677]

  Mr. Rammell
  The discussion, which took place on 12 June 2003, was an initial meeting of allies to establish the group and to share ideas for taking forward measures for interdiction. No formal agreements were concluded, except that the group would continue to meet regularly.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of constructive engagement with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that led to the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Korea. [123836]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK established diplomatic relations with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in December 2000 and opened an Embassy in Pyongyang in July 2001. Our contacts with the DPRK government in the period leading up to these decisions convinced us that it made sense to encourage the DPRK's integration into the international community, rather than see it remain isolated. Our diplomatic relationship has allowed us to keep open channels of communication which enable us to address the DPRK authorities frequently and directly on issues of international concern, pre-eminently non-proliferation and human rights. But we have told North Korea that there can be no normal relationship until the nuclear issue has been resolved.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  FCO (staff)

  5,930

  5,594

  5,523

  5,620

  5,737

  6,054

  £000,000

  161.4

  162.9

  170.7

  185.3

  192.5

  212.8

  Agency—Wilton Park

  41

  44

  47

  47

  53

  55

  £000

  981

  1,035

  1,095

  1,305

  1,478

  1,652

  NDPBs:

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  6

  6

  7

  9

  9

  11

  £000

  196

  214.3

  260.6

  315.1

  331.1

  437.1

  578W
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Ministers from(a) North Korea and (b) China with respect to human rights in North Korea; and if he will make a statement. [123976]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our establishment of diplomatic relations and an embassy in North Korea enable us to use official channels to raise human rights issues, including religious persecution, at regular intervals. Most recently, I discussed the human rights situation in North Korea with DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Choe Su Hon during his visit to London in May. The UK also supported a resolution at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights. The resolution, which was adopted by a wide margin on 16 April, urges North Korea to co-operate with the UN human rights mechanisms.

  We regularly raise the issue of North Korean refugees with the Chinese, including at the biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue. At the last round of the Dialogue, on 21 November 2002, we urged China to allow the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) access to the border areas and to observe its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention. We will continue to encourage greater co-operation between China and UNHCR on this issue.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with colleagues in the European Union concerning the imposition of sanctions on Israel if Phase I of the road map for Peace is not adhered to. [121668]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is no formal proposal for the EU to consider sanctions. The idea of sanctions has been discussed before but there has not been a consensus in favour. Israel and the Palestinian Authority should build on the recent ceasefire and withdrawal from Gaza and Bethlehem and meet their obligations under Phase I of the roadmap. We are devoting our efforts to encouraging them to do so.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122252]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of staff and the cost of those staff for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and each agency and non-departmental body it is responsible for in each year since 1997 are as follows:
  579W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  British Association for Central/Eastern Europe

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  £000

  125.1

  124.4

  124.2

  137.5

  140.1

  149.2

  British Council

  6,594

  6,961

  7,352

  7,316

  7,379

  7,298

  £000,000

  120.2

  125.5

  134.4

  141.3

  143.8

  148.2

  Great Britain—China Centre

  4

  4

  5

  5

  5

  5

  £000

  108.6

  120

  133.7

  137.7

  144.5

  141

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 815W, on Zimbabwe, if the British Government will assume responsibility for paying the pensions while the situation exists; what help is available to those pensioners in the UK who are not in receipt of their pensions; and if he will make a statement. [123096]

  Mr. Mullin
  Responsibility for the payment of Zimbabwe Government pensions rests firmly with the Government of Zimbabwe. That has always been the case. We will continue to remind the Zimbabwe Government of its obligations to make these pension payments in full and on time. Zimbabwe pensioners in the UK whose incomes have fallen below a certain level and have few savings may qualify for income related entitlements, such as the minimum income guarantee. They should contact the minimum income guarantee scheme hotline on 0800 028 1111.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether his Department has provided funding to the provincial reconstruction teams for Afghanistan. [123640]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has allocated £2 million as its contribution towards the UK Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) currently deploying to Mazar-e-Sharif. This funding is initially for a two-year period. It includes the cost of seconding a development advisor to the team and a budget for development projects in the local area.

  DFID is ready to make a similar contribution to another PRT, probably led by the US.

  Botswana
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the(a) humanitarian, (b) economic and (c) cultural impact of forced removals of tribal groups from their tribal homelands in Botswana; and if he will make a statement. [123810]

  Hilary Benn
  Last year DFID commissioned a study on the situation of the San in Botswana and options for responses by the international community. The study, which has been placed in the House of Commons Library, sought to address the situation of the San in the context of broader poverty reduction issues in
  580W
  Botswana. We have shared it with the Government of Botswana and are now discussing with them how the conclusions of the study relate to their overall approach to poverty reduction.

  Performance Targets
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much the Department for International Development spent in each year since 2001 on the(a) Performance Reporting Information System for Management, (b) Multilateral Organisations' Performance Assessment Initiative and (c) Performance Assessment Network; if she will list the titles of their documents concerning the Department for International Development; and if he will place the documents in the Library. [122568]

  Hilary Benn
  The following amounts were spent on the Performance Reporting Information System for Management (PRISM):

  Financial year

  £

  2001–02

  482,000

  2002–03

  306,000

  As both the Multilateral Organisations' Performance Assessment Initiative and the Performance Assessment Network are discussion groups it is not possible to identify a specific allocation of funding for these activities. There are no official documents relating to either PRISM or these two discussion groups.

  Russia
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many street children there are in Russia; in which Russian republics they are; and how many street children there are in each republic. [123738]

  Hilary Benn
  There are no official statistics on street children in Russia and therefore no regional breakdown. The Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Development estimates that in 2002 there were approximately 10,100 street children in Russia. This is derived from records of the number of children admitted to state social care institutions in 2002.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much aid his Department gives to tackle the problem of street children in Russia; who this money is given to; and what the money is spent on. [123739]
  581W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID has two projects at regional level which support families and children at risk, including street children. These are:"Children at Risk in Sverdlovsk Oblast". The project is being implemented by Everychild at a cost of £784,000. The project's duration is three and a half years, ending in September 2003; and
  "Families and Children at Risk". This is a new project in Leningrad Oblast, with an expected value of £1,500,000 from autumn 2003 to the end of 2005. The implementing agency is yet to be determined.

  Both projects provide technical assistance in the form of consultancy advice, training and study tours. The main beneficiaries are regional and local government administrations, and state and non-governmental organisations providing social services.

TREASURY

  Budget Surplus
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) actual and (b) projected surplus is on the current budget; what the average surplus has been since 1999–2000; what the cyclically adjusted surplus is on the current budget; and what the public sector net debt is as a percentage of GDP from 2001 to 2008 (estimated). [124207]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to Table 2.7 of Budget 2003 (HC 500, Session 2002–03).

  Child Care Tax Credits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much fraudulent claims for child care tax credit cost the Exchequer in each year since it was introduced. [86663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's compliance strategy for new tax credits, which has been informed by the Department's experience with WFTC & DPTC including the study of a sample of WFTC and DPTC awards, will be placed in the House of Commons Library later this year.

  Equitable Life
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to publish the Penrose report on Equitable Life in full as soon as it is received. [123808]

  Mr. Boateng
  Lord Penrose's report will be published as soon as practicable after it is received.

  It is the Government's intention to publish Lord Penrose's report in full if it is at all possible to do so. However, parts of the report may be subject to legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions. For example, it is a criminal offence for confidential information received by regulators in the course of their duties to be disclosed to a third party except under certain, narrowly specified, conditions.

  Financial Services Authority
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines his Department has issued regarding the appointment of directors to the Board of Directors of the Financial Services Authority. [123625]

  Mr. Boateng
  Schedule 1 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 states that the Treasury must appoint members to the FSA board. Treasury Ministers volunteered to follow The Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice and adhere to these rules in making non-executive board appointments.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the directors of the Financial Services Authority and their occupations. [123629]

  Mr. Boateng
  A list of the directors of the FSA board and their occupations can be found on pages 120 and 121 of the 2002/03 FSA annual report.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the total amount of money lost through fraud in the system of tax credits for the latest year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [96609]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's compliance strategy for new tax credits, which has been informed by the Department's experience with WFTC and DPTC including the study of a sample of WFTC and DPTC awards, will be placed in the House of Commons Library later this year.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls have been fielded by the working tax credit and child tax credit helpline in each month since April 2002. [111381]

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 616W, on the tax credit helpline, if he will estimate the number of (a) calls received and (b) calls handled by the helpline in (i) February, (ii) March and (iii) April. [112724]

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls to the Inland Revenue's children's tax credit helpline have been abandoned(a) in total and (b) in each week since 1 April 2003. [118036]

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average number of calls to the public helpline from those applying for or querying tax credits was each week in the past two months. [119513]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 12 may 2003]: The following table shows the number of calls to the child and working tax credits helpline for Great Britain that were (i) received, (ii) handled and (iii) abandoned in each month since January 2003. These figures are based on a common set of definitions and are the final figures for these.
  583W

  Calls to the GB child and working tax credit helpline received, handled and abandoned, January to May 2003

  (i) Received1

  (ii) Handled2

  (iii) Abandoned3

  January 2003

  851,851

  771,464

  80,387

  February 2003

  1,168,131

  956,817

  211,314

  March 2003

  2,486,846

  1,701,266

  785,580

  April 2003

  2,509,486

  1,767,710

  741,776

  May 2003

  1,999,973

  1,679,627

  320,346

  1 Where the caller selected an option from the call steering menu and was put in a queue to speak to an adviser.

  2 Where the caller spoke to an adviser.

  3 That is, received but not handled.

  University Funding
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect he estimates the proposed funding system for universities in England will have on the funding criteria for assessing payments under the Barnett Formula. [124132]

  Mr. Boateng
  The student funding system for Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive within the overall funding announced for Scotland in the 2002 Spending Review.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Diocesan Financial Performance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what data is(a) collected and (b) published by the Church Commissioners concerning the financial performance of each diocese. [123298]

  Mr. Bell
  None. However, the Archbishops' Council receives copies of the published financial statements of each diocese. The council, in line with its responsibility to monitor the overall financial needs and resources of the Church, is in regular dialogue with dioceses about a wide range of financial issues and the Commissioners take part in this dialogue as appropriate.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Supreme Court
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General what plans she has to meet with(a) Scottish Law Lords, (b) the judiciary in Scotland, (c) the Law Society of Scotland and (d) the Faculty of Advocates to discuss the proposals for a Supreme Court. [122717]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  The policy responsibility for a Supreme Court rests with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. He has stated that he intends to publish a consultation paper on 14 July 2003 containing proposals for a Supreme Court. The consultation period will run into November 2003 and the Government will be consulting very widely. I routinely meet many lawyers qualified in Scots law as well as English law in the course of my work and discuss current issues.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British special force troops remain in Afghanistan. [123594]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is Government policy not to comment on the United Kingdom Special Forces, therefore I am withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which covers defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Afghan heroin production levels(a) before and (b) since the invasion by coalition forces; what steps are being taken by British forces to reduce heroin production; and how effective these steps have been. [123198]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, which conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy production in Afghanistan, has reported levels of production as follows:

  Tonnes

  2000

  3,300

  2001

  185

  2002

  3,400

  We are engaged in helping to train the Afghan Transitional Administration's security forces. By doing so, we help to create the structures by which the Afghans themselves can implement more effectively President Karzai's commitment to deal with the drugs trade in his country.

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 649W, on armed forces personnel, what percentage of (a) Naval Service, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force personnel are immediately available for operational duties. [123659]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: "Immediate availability" for operational duties is subject to the same factors that I set out in my answer to the hon. Gentleman of 9 June 2003, Official Report, columns 648–49W, including particularly the nature of the operation and the severity of the threat. It is, therefore, impractical to refer to a specific percentage.

  Civilian Aircraft
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times each month in the past three financial years civilian aircraft have been chartered by the MOD; what types of aircraft were involved on each occasion; from which companies they were chartered; and what the cost of each of these charters was. [117189]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 May 2003.Official Report, column 442W, the answer I gave on 20 May 2003, Official Report, columns 673–74W to the hon. Member

  585W
  for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), the answers I gave on 2 June 2003, Official Report, columns 285–86W and 1 July 2003, Official Report, columns 198–99W to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) regarding commercial air charter. The further details now sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121403]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 June 2003,Official Report, columns 458–59W by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Defence Logistics Organisation spent on preparations for the war in(a) Kosovo and (b) Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [122044]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) was launched in April 2000. Therefore, figures for preparations for the war in Kosovo are not available in the format requested. The figures for DLO expenditure for continuing operations in Afghanistan are as follows:

  £ million

  2001–02

  83

  2002–031

  135

  1 These figures reflect resource accounting principles and comprise mainly running costs. Figures for Financial Year 2002–03 are provisional pending finalisation of the Departmental Resource Accounts.

  Emergency Airlift Capacity
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has in place with civilian airlines to provide emergency airlift. [123550]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has no standing arrangements for the use of civilian airlines to provide emergency airlift. In the event of an emergency, Royal Air Force military aircraft would be considered first. There could also be occasions where other nations' military aircraft could be used. Where civilian aircraft were required, they would be acquired from the commercial market place.

  34 Field Hospital
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests were made during the recent conflict in Iraq by 34 Field Hospital for(a) paediatric modules and (b) pralidoxime for use against chemical poisoning; when the requests were made; what the response was to the requests; and if he will make a statement. [115551]

  Mr. Caplin
  34 Field Hospital made a request for pralidoxime on 23 March 2003, which was turned down as the drug was already available in Chemical Warfare Treatment Modules issued on 22 March 2003. 34 Field 586W
  Hospital made in the region of 11 requests for paediatric modules during the recent conflict, of which only one was denied because the module requested did not exist.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the coalition's estimate is of the number of deaths of Iraqi military personnel as a consequence of the war. [123428]

  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 estimate.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been paid to UK forces personnel who have served on Operation Telic in respect of Local Overseas Allowance and Longer Separated Service Allowance payments. [123548]

  Mr. Ingram
  The majority of personnel deployed on Operation Telic benefited from the Operational Welfare Package (OWP), as opposed to LOA, and were also paid either the Longer Service Separated Allowance (LSSA) or in the case of Royal Navy personnel the Longer Service at Sea Bonus (LSSB). The current tiered rates of LSSA, are Basic rate £5.39, Middle rate £8.43 and Higher rate £11.49 per qualified person per day, taxable. The current tiered rates of LSSB are £4.05, £7.74 and £10.32 per qualified person per day, taxable. LSSB has different qualifying criteria and hence the different tiered rates.

  Full rates of LOA are not paid when personnel are in receipt of the OWP. However, those individuals deployed from permanent overseas bases which attract LOA (such as Germany) retained residual rates of LOA for their permanent duty station throughout the operational deployment. The specific rates of residual LOA paid to each entitled Serviceman or woman are based on his/her rank, marital status and permanent overseas duty station.

  Accurate total cost data is not held centrally in a readily available format and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the contraction, spread and treatment of(a) severe diarrhoea and (b) cholera among the troops in Iraq. [123595]

  Mr. Caplin
  There have been no cases of cholera among United Kingdom personnel in Iraq. Diarrhoeal diseases have occurred at a level commensurate with a large-scale deployment to a country such as Iraq. Most incidents have been viral and caused by a number of factors such as flies, personnel living in close proximity to each other and lapses in individual personal hygiene. Systems are in place to ensure food safety and to promote personal hygiene.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to ensure that evidence of human rights abuses in Iraq during Saddam's regime is(a) protected and (b) collected. [114319]
  587W
  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom Government continue to believe that those who have been responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq should be brought to justice.

  UK forces have been tasked with securing and protecting evidence of legacy crimes as they encounter it; to hand over to the relevant prosecuting authority at the appropriate time. The forum for these prosecutions has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) provisional budget in September 2002, (b) the finalised budget and (c) final expenditure of the Defence Logistics Organisation for Operation Telic was; and if he will make a statement. [122043]

  Mr. Ingram
  There was no budget set for the Defence Logistic Organisation for operations in Iraq.

  It will be some time before we are able to assess fully the condition of all the equipment used and the consequent need for repair and overhaul, and so ascertain the full logistic expenditure.

  Military Posts (Civilian Recruitment)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilians have been recruited to Ministry of Defence posts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [124140]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of civilian personnel recruited from outside the Department into Ministry of Defence posts in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  Number

  1997

  327

  1998

  269

  1999

  259

  2000

  250

  2001

  225

  2002

  279

  2003

  126

  1 As at 31 May

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops are stationed in Northern Ireland; and what plans there are to change the number of troops stationed in Northern Ireland. [123703]

  Mr. Ingram
  There were some 14,400 regular armed forces personnel (Army, Navy and RAF) deployed in Northern Ireland under the Command of the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland (GOC NI) on 3 July 2003. This figure includes those troops normally under the command of the GOC NI and rear based in Great Britain as well as additional troops made available from Land Command in preparation for this year's marching season. The armed forces operate in Northern Ireland in support of the police who have primacy for security. The level of military support is kept under regular review. Troop numbers may be adjusted to meet the changing security environment as and when it is deemed appropriate and after consultation with the Chief Constable.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 450W, what the UK Government's policy is on the intention of the US Government to repeal the 1993 legislation banning the research, development and production of nuclear weapons. [123094]

  Mr. Caplin
  This is a matter for the United States Government.

  Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of(a) arms and (b) munitions have been sold to interests in the Republic of the Congo in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [123417]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Information on licences granted and statistics of exports of strategically controlled equipment are provided in the Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. The reports for the three years 2000–02 are available on the Foreign Office website and the Report for 2002 may be purchased from The Stationery Office. An EU arms embargo was declared in respect of that country in 1993 and remains in place.

  Sapper Philip Eden
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Sapper Philip Eden was found dead at Carver Barracks, Wimbish on 22 June 2003; when the gun log records that a rifle was issued to him; at what time he went on duty; when the scene of the incident was secured; when he was pronounced dead; when the police were called to investigate; how many shots were fired; what steps were taken to conduct forensic examination of the weapon; when the next of kin were notified; and if he will make a statement. [123902]

  Mr. Caplin
  The circumstances surrounding Sapper Philip Eden's death are still the subject of a police investigation and it would, therefore, be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

  Sigma Aerospace Ltd.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts Sigma Aerospace Ltd. has with the RAF to service Hercules engines; and what plans there are to move this work(a) to and (b) from RAF Lyneham. [123650]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF has a contract with Sigma Aerospace Ltd. for the repair and overhaul of T56 engine modules for the Hercules C130K aircraft. This work is carried out at the Company's site in Croydon, Surrey. Sigma Aerospace Ltd. is also sub-contracted by Lockheed Martin to provide 2nd line servicing at RAF Lyneham for the Allison engines fitted on the Hercules C130J aircraft. There are no plans to change the arrangements during the life of these contracts.

  Suez Medal
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he will take to expedite the issue of the Suez Medal 1951–1954. [123983]
  589W
  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 23 June 2003,Official Report, columns 616–17W, to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell).

  UK Forces Gulf Trust Fund
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been raised by the UK Gulf Forces Trust Fund. [112082]

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total value is of the donations made to the UK Gulf Forces Trust Fund. [123061]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 25 June 2003 the total amount raised by the United Kingdom Forces Gulf Trust Fund was approximately £290,000.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical problems were experienced by(a) HMS Ocean and (b) HMS Cardiff during their deployment to the Gulf region. [123840]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Ocean had no significant technical problems during her recent deployment to the Gulf. During her deployment, HMS Cardiff had a temporary loss of satellite connectivity. This defect was rectified during a programmed port visit. At all times, both ships were fully capable of meeting the challenges of this deployment.

  Watchkeeper
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to ensure that the operation of Watchkeeper unmanned aerial vehicles in UK airspace complies with Civil Aviation Authority requirements. [123605]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom military unmanned air vehicles including Watchkeeper are regulated in accordance with the Joint Service Publication 550 "Military Aviation Policy, Regulations and Directives". These regulations ensure compliance with CAA requirements for military aircraft operations.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel have been members of the Watchkeeper Integrated Project Team, and in what capacities. [123606]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been no RAF personnel serving as core members within the Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (TUAV) IPT, which incorporates the Watchkeeper programme. As required, the IPT draws on the advice and expertise of RAF personnel within other stakeholder communities and is also able to draw on the knowledge and experience of an Army pilot within the team.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans that(a) manned and (b) unmanned aircraft will be part of the Watchkeeper programme; what the Civil Aviation Authority's requirements are in terms of the qualifications required for the operation of these vehicles in UK (i) controlled and (ii) uncontrolled airspace; and what the flying qualifications are, including total flying hours, aircraft
  590W
  type ratings and instrument ratings of each member of the Integrated Project Team managing this project. [123607]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current proposals by industry to meet the Watchkeeper capability requirement are based on a mix of unmanned air vehicle (UAV) systems.

  The Civil Aviation Authority has issued UAV guidance in Civil Air Publication 722 "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operations in UK, Airspace Guidance". Which, at Chapter 9, identifies the criteria required for the operation of UAVs in United Kingdom airspace. The Department continues to work closely with the CAA on this issue. The IPT includes key staff with both military and civilian flying qualifications with a total of 102 hours on fixed wing aircraft and 1,397 hours on rotary wing aircraft. For one of the IPT staff this has included 1,000 hours operational flying which qualified for a 'GREEN' instrument rating.

SCOTLAND

  Hepatitis C
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scotland's First Minister since 13 June 2003 concerning the compensation of hepatitis C victims in Scotland. [124130]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has discussed this matter, along with a number of other current issues, with the First Minister since 13 June 2003.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many requests for ambulances have been made in the last 12 months outside the hours of 9.00 am to 5.00 pm for patients from Kircubbin and points further south on the Ards Peninsula. [119517]

  Angela Smith
  Between 12 June 2002 and 11 June 2003 there has been a total of 189 requests for ambulances outside the hours of 9 am to 5 pm in Kircubbin and points further south on the Ards Peninsula.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to establish the review of the Belfast Agreement scheduled to take place shortly. [124000]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Agreement provides for a conference four years after its coming into effect to review and report on its operation. The form and content of such a review will require careful consideration. We hope to make further proposals about the review in due course.

  Ceasefire Monitoring Body
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to introduce legislation establishing the independent Ceasefire Monitoring Body; and if he will make a statement. [123458]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Work is in progress on the proposal for an Independent Monitoring Body. We hope to reach decisions on a legislative timetable shortly.

  Civic Forum
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the Civic Forum have taken place in each year since its formation. [122353]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following table sets out the number of meetings held by the Civic Forum until 14 October 2002 on a calendar year basis.

  Meeting

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Plenary

  2

  6

  4

  General Purposes Committee

  1

  14

  8

  Communications Committee

  0

  9

  7

  Government (renamed Key Issues) Committee

  0

  7

  7

  Life Long Learning Project

  0

  13

  8

  Anti-Poverty Project

  0

  11

  4

  Towards a plural society Project

  0

  3

  7

  Creating a sustainable NI Project

  0

  4

  6

  Total

  3

  67

  51

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding was allocated to each education and library board for special needs(a) units and (b) schools for the financial year 2002–03. [123708]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education gives education and library boards a block grant each year from which they are expected to pay for the various services they provide. Within their block grant boards establish their own spending priorities.

  The funding allocated by the ELBs over the 2002–03 financial year was as follows.

  £000

  Education board

  SEN unit costs

  Special schools costs

  SELB

  5,382

  19,743

  SEELB

  2,752

  13,708

  WELB

  2726

  8,350

  BELB

  31,459

  416,928

  NEELB

  3,51,7601

  510,003

  1 Does not include costs for special school admin/educational psychology/behaviour support or the Kinnego Centre.

  2 Does not include premises related costs.

  3 ncludes AWPU unit costs

  4 Includes costs for specialist outreach services based at the Special schools.

  11 + Examinations
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans the Government has to introduce an alternative to the 11 + examinations. [123716]
  592W
  Jane Kennedy
  I have established a Working Group to provide advice and recommendations on options for future arrangements for post-primary education, including the development of alternative transfer arrangements.

  The group has been asked to report by 31 October 2003. Decisions on future transfer procedures will not be taken until the group's advice has been considered.

  Equality/Human Rights Commissions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs have been incurred by the(a) Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and (b) Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in each of the last five years. [120971]

  Mr. Spellar
  The figures available are given in the tables. It is worth noting that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission superseded the Standing Advisory Committee for Human Rights (SACHR) in 1999 so there are only full-year figures from 2000–01.

  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

  £

  Costs incurred

  2000–01

  923,942

  2001–02

  1,304,000

  2002–03

  1,217,250

  The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland

  £

  Costs incurred

  1999–20001

  5,024,000

  2000–01

  6,116,000

  2001–02

  7,359,000

  2002–03

  7,512,000

  1 Includes six months costs for previous equality bodies

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116083]

  Mr. Pearson
  21 officials from Northern Ireland Departments serve on EU committees or working parties. The breakdown as regards Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development—13 officials

  Department of the Environment—4 officials

  Department for Employment and Learning—4 officials

  External Reports
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the title and subject, (b) the total cost to his Department and (c) the commissioned author or organisation of each external report commissioned by his Department in each year since 1997. [103721]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested in relation to the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland administration has been placed in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have contacted the GP out-of-hours service based at Bangor in the last 12 months; and how many of these calls involved patients from Kircubbin and other points further south on the Ards Peninsula. [119518]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Care
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was invested in health care in North Belfast in each year since 1997. [119464]

  Angela Smith
  Expenditure in relation to health and social services is collated centrally on a trust basis, and is therefore not available in the format requested. Expenditure for trusts that are located within, or cover part of, the North Belfast parliamentary constituency is provided in the table for each year since 1997. It should be noted that the population of North Belfast would also use services in other trusts outside their geographical area, and similarly persons from outside the North Belfast area would have access to services provided by trusts in the area.

  Total expenditure in trusts in North Belfast area 1997–98 to 2001–02

  £ million

  North and west Belfast community trust

  Mater hospital trust

  Homefirst community trust

  United hospital trust

  1997–98

  83.0

  18.5

  97.6

  73.1

  1998–99

  88.7

  18.9

  99.0

  70.9

  1999–2000

  94.0

  22.1

  108.9

  75.2

  2000–01

  99.0

  24.2

  118.2

  80.9

  2001–02

  110.7

  28.0

  130.7

  93.7

  Home Accidents
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) home accident injuries and (b) home accident deaths there were in Northern Ireland in 2002. [119764]

  Angela Smith
  (a) There were 10,119 people admitted to hospital in 2002 as a result of an accident in the home1. This figure does not include people treated at an accident and emergency department or at an out-patient department.

  (b) In 2001 (the latest year for which data is available) 39 people in Northern Ireland died as a result of accidents in the home2.

  £000

  Body

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

  199

  431

  497

  1005

  The North/South Language Body

  342

  2305

  2986

  3353

  Waterways Ireland

  0

  1237

  1931

  2330

  The Trade and Business Development Body

  200

  494

  1899

  1088

  Food Safety Promotion Board

  0

  0

  1505

  1252

  Special EU Programmes Body

  50

  591

  1262

  850

  594W
  Sources:

  1 Departmental information Return KP22.

  2General Register Office for Northern Ireland.

  Joint Declaration
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the proposals contained in the Joint Declaration published in May(a) have been implemented and (b) are in the process of being implemented; and if he will list them. [121157]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  We are committed to the implementation of those parts of the joint declaration that are not conditional upon acts of completion. Following the meeting of the British-Irish Governmental Conference on 2 July, the two Governments issued a joint communique which set out in an annex a list of commitments to be delivered in the near term. I have placed a copy of this communique in the Library of the House.

  North/South Bodies
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent in the implementation of the north/south bodies since October 2002. [122379]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Northern element of expenditure in respect of each North/South Implementation Body for the financial year 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 is set out as follows: The figures are provisional, as the accounts for that year have not yet been finalised. Details of expenditure in the current financial year are not yet available.

  Body

  2002–03

  Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

  1,005

  The North/South Language Body

  3,353

  Waterways Ireland

  2,330

  The Trade and Business Development Body

  1,088

  Food Safety Promotion Board

  1,252

  Special EU Programmes Body

  850

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent on the operation of the North/South Implementation bodies by the British Government in each of the financial years since their establishment. [122555]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The British Government's expenditure on the operation of each of the North/South Implementation Bodies since their establishment is set out in the table below. The figures for 2002–03 are provisional, as the accounts for that year have not yet been finalised.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the financial cost of cancelling elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly has been. [123721]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 307W.

  Opinion Polls
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) opinion polls and (b) other attitudinal research surveys have been carried out by the Northern Ireland Office since March. [115986]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No opinion polls or other attitudinal research surveys have been carried out by the Northern Ireland Office since March.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by each Northern Ireland Department on opinion polls and attitudinal research in each year since 1997. [115987]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 206W. A further breakdown by Department could be prepared only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations were contracted to carry out(a) opinion polling and (b) research into the attitudes of voters in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997; and how much they were paid in each case. [115988]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Organisations which carried out attitudinal research for the Northern Ireland Office are Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, the Northern Ireland Information Service, Ulster Marketing Services and Milward Brown Ulster.

  In relation to the costs for each year since 1997, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, on 13 May 2003, Official Report, column 206W. To breakdown the costs in greater detail would involve disproportionate cost.

  As stated by my hon. Friend, research respondents are classified as "adults" rather than "voters".

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on attitudinal research in each year between 1990 and 1997 by the Northern Ireland Office. [115989]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Within the Northern Ireland Office in each year between 1992 and 1997 the following was spent on attitudinal research. Information on costs prior to financial year 1992–93 is not available.
  596W

  £

  Cost

  1992–93

  13,212

  1993–94

  6,667

  1994–95

  6,933

  1995–96

  11,750

  1996–97

  17,377

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the material relating to attitudinal research paid for by the Northern Ireland Office in each year since 1997. [115990]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Attitudinal research carried out by the Northern Ireland Office Statistics and Research Branch is routinely published in report or bulletin format. Publication is via the Northern Ireland Office Information Service and reports are also made available on the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency websites. This includes all research carried out by the Northern Ireland Office Statistics and Research Branch on behalf of the Criminal Justice Review. This approach is in keeping with National Statistics guidelines.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which(a) political parties, (b) organisations, (c) individuals and (d) other Governments have been given access to the results of the attitudinal research carried out by the Northern Ireland Office in each year since 1997. [115991]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Attitudinal research carried out by the Northern Ireland Office Statistics and Research Branch is routinely published via the Northern Ireland Office Information Service and is also made available on the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency websites. Access is therefore not restricted in any way. Pre-publication access is granted only for internal briefing purposes and in accordance with strict National Statistics guidelines. These guidelines promote equality of access but recognise the policy of having some privileged early access to support good Government and management. The Northern Ireland Office Statistics and Research Branch also widely disseminates hard copies of its research and statistical findings to groups and individuals with policy and professional interests. Each report is publicised as widely as possible through the media and routinely circulated to political parties, academics and libraries, including the Northern Ireland Assembly and House of Common Libraries. Free copies are available on request.

  Planning Appeals (Castlereagh)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals relating to planning applications in the Castlereagh borough council area were received by the Planning Appeals Commission in the past three years; and of these how many were(a) successful and (b) refused. [123711]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As the Planning Appeals Commission is a tribunal non-departmental public body, I have asked the Chief Commissioner to write to the hon. Gentleman directly in connection with the information requested.

  Public Transport (Personal Safety)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to protect staff and passengers from physical attack on public transport. [123784]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink advises that it has created dedicated working groups to improve security on buses and trains. It has a widely promoted scheme under which it offers a £1,000 reward for information on attacks which leads to a prosecution and proactively, Translink staff liaise closely with local community representatives and the police in an attempt to reduce attacks and general anti-social behaviour.

  Translink also advises that security features within the Translink fleet include CCTV, driver protection screens, specially strengthened windows in the driver's cab area and double glazing over the rest of the vehicle. Communication systems also enable bus and train drivers to liaise with Central Control staff regarding potential and actual incidents.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis (Benefits)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people received disability living allowance and related benefits as a result of rheumatoid arthritis in the last three financial years. [123785]

  Mr. Spellar
  The exact information sought is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The numbers of persons in receipt of disability related benefits, where the main disability recorded was arthritis, whether rheumatoid or osteo-arthritis at February in each of the last three financial years is listed in the following table.

  Financial year

  Disability living allowance

  Attendance allowance

  2000–01

  2,478

  3,217

  2001–02

  2,395

  2,938

  2002–03

  2,210

  2,713

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals have been seconded to his Department from NGOs, in each case listing(a) from which organisation and (b) dates of secondments, in each year since 1997–98. [108075]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Within the Northern Ireland Office one civilian was on secondment from the Metropolitan police service during 1999 and up to 31 March 2000. Within the Northern Ireland administration there have been a total of seven individuals seconded from NGOs since 1997–98. An analysis of this by year, organisation and dates of secondment is set out in the following table.
  598W

  Secondments from NGOs to the 11 departments within the Northern Ireland administration in the period 1997–98 TO 2002–03

  Number of secondees

  Organisation

  Dates of secondment

  1997–98

  2

  NI Voluntary Trust

  1/2/97–31/1/98

  NI Citizen's Advice Bureau

  12/5/97-current

  1998–99

  1

  NI Audit Office

  1/2/99–1/2/02

  1999–2000

  Nil

  2000–01

  2

  NI Audit Office

  1/2/01–31/1/03

  NI Audit Office

  1/2/01-current

  2001–02

  Nil

  2002–03

  2

  Omagh Independent Advice Centre

  30/09/02-current

  NI Citizen's Advice Bureau

  3/10/02-current

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants have been seconded from his Department to(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, broken down by (i) grade of civil servants seconded, (ii) location and (iii) dates of secondments, in each year since 1997–98. [108076]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1997–98, 82 Northern Ireland Office staff and 378 Northern Ireland administration staff have been seconded to the private sector, NGOs or other organisations.

  A copy of the analysis of the individual secondments will be placed in the Library.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preventive action has been taken in Northern Ireland to counter an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome. [119519]

  Angela Smith
  Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a serious public health issue and the Department has acted quickly to strengthen its public health surveillance systems and ensure that the health service is prepared should a case occur in Northern Ireland.

  The Department is represented on the National SARS Taskforce which itself works closely with the World Health Organisation. The taskforce agrees all relevant control measures and these are then implemented locally. The Chief Medical Officer contacted all relevant health care professionals on 14 March with detailed information on the symptoms of SARS, and what to do if they encountered a case. Updated guidance based on advice from WHO has been issued at regular intervals since both to professionals and people travelling abroad. The Department has established a SARS section on its website which is regularly updated. It has also provided and made arrangements for posters to be displayed at appropriate points in airports and seaports. There have been no SARS cases so far in Northern Ireland.

  In conjunction with the Centre for Communicable Disease Control (CDSC) (NI), the Department is urgently developing a contingency plan for SARS or other emerging infection. A Northern Ireland taskforce

  599W
  is being established to monitor the situation and to implement the contingency plan. It will meet for the first time on Friday 20 June.

  Transport
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring he undertakes on the usage of existing cycle lanes and routes. [122538]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have asked the Chief Executive of Roads Service to write to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Works and Pensions what recent steps the Government has taken to ensure that pensioners are fully informed about the Post Office Card Account method of direct payment of benefits. [123531]

  Mr. Pond
  Pensioners are being provided with straightforward information about all of their account options so they can choose the account which is right for them.

  Pensioners who want to continue to collect their money from the Post Office can choose a current account which offers Post Office access, a basic bank account or the new Post Office card account.

  The letters and leaflets being sent to pensioners set out the procedures for opening a Post Office card account. So far over 74,000 pensioner—half of those who have responded—have chosen a card account.

  I am today placing in the Library details of the latest key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements will be put in place for benefit and pension claimants who do not choose to take out either a bank account or a post office card account. [123853]

  Mr. Pond
  Around 87 per cent. of customers already have bank accounts. And for those who do not, new easy to operate accounts, which are accessible at the Post Office, are widely available. Our aim is to have an exceptions service available for those very few remaining customers who are genuinely unable to open or operate any type of bank account.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact that the increase in fee-charging ATMs will have on pensioners and those who receive benefits as the benefit system migrates to electronic transfer. [117080]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers are being provided with information that clearly sets out their account options as part of the move to direct payment. They will have more choice and flexibility about when, where and how much money they collect.
  600W
  Customers have a number of options as to how they access their money including the Post Office, over the counter at banks and building societies, ATMs and via the cashback facilities offered by retailers.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether there will be a formal consultation process on the details of the proposed Exceptions Service for people who are unable or unwilling to have their benefits paid directly into a bank account. [121223]

  Mr. Pond
  There are no plans for a formal consultation process.

  The Department will continue to informally consult with a broad range of customer groups on payment options.

  State Pension (Overseas Citizens)
  Mr. Luff
  If he will make a statement on the index-linking of the state retirement pension payable to British citizens living overseas. [123535]

  Malcolm Wicks
  State Pensions paid to people living abroad are index linked if there is a legal requirement to do so or where there is a reciprocal arrangement in place.

  Housing Benefit
  Bob Spink
  If he will make a statement about the prevalence of housing benefit fraud. [123537]

  Mr. Pond
  We have introduced the first ever ongoing review of fraud and error in Housing Benefit. The first results will be available later this year. And we have set a firm target to reduce the level of fraud and error in Housing Benefit by 25 per cent. by 2006.

  We are already seeing major successes from our work with local authorities to drive out fraud. Latest figures show that, in the last three years, local authorities have increased the number of prosecutions and sanctions for benefit fraud by more than 500 per cent.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  What guidance he gives to local authority housing departments on the speed of payment of housing benefit. [123540]

  Mr. Pond
  Around four million households depend on Housing Benefit for help with their housing costs. It affects work incentives, choice, mobility and personal responsibility. That is why it is so important that all local authorities deliver Housing Benefit to the highest possible standards.

  In March 2002 we introduced national Performance Standards setting out clearly for the first time, the standards of service local authorities should aim to deliver, including targets for speed and accuracy in claims processing.

  To help authorities meet these standards, we offer financial and direct practical support such as the Help Team.

  Where we have concerns about an authority's performance we can arrange for them to be inspected by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. Furthermore, where a

  601W
  local authority persistently fails to deliver, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can direct them to improve.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to improve the administration of housing benefit by local authorities. [123536]

  Mr. Pond
  We are committed to driving up standards of Housing Benefit administration across all local authorities. We have already taken significant steps by giving authorities practical and financial help with initiatives like the new Performance Standards and the Help Team, and we are continuing to build on the measures already in place. Furthermore, we will shortly be announcing the first awards from the Performance Standards Fund.

  We are now starting to see improvement in the performance of many authorities.

  This improvement was reflected in the report of the Local Government Ombudsman for England published last week which showed that the number of complaints about Housing Benefit administration has halved over the last two years.

  Poverty Definition
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his new definition of poverty will be announced. [123538]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his new definition of poverty will be announced. [123542]

  Mr. Pond
  The well-received consultation on measuring child poverty we launched last year has engaged a wide range of organisations, academics and young people themselves. We published preliminary conclusions in May and we will announce our definition of child poverty by the end of the year.

  Benefit Claimants (Records)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  What consultations he has had with the relevant trade unions over the decision to privatise the management and storage of sensitive records on citizens claiming benefits. [123541]

  Mr. Browne
  Officials from the Department have met with representatives from the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) on several occasions over the past

  Percentage of men and women who receive a basic state pension but who do not receive the full basic state pension

  Thousands

  All

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80 and over

  All male basic state pension recipients

  3,833.4

  1—

  1,204.2

  1,040.4

  784.6

  804.2

  Men with less than 100 per cent. full basic state pension

  362.3

  1—

  173.2

  109.2

  47.0

  32.8

  Percentage of all men in receipt of a basic state pension

  9.5

  1—

  14.4

  10.5

  6.0

  4.1

  All female basic state pension recipients

  6,400.1

  1,215.8

  1,264.2

  1,212.2

  1,061.8

  1,646.1

  Women with less than 100 per cent. full basic state pension

  3,197.5

  902.2

  860.3

  670.7

  432.5

  331.8

  Percentage of all women in receipt of a basic state pension

  50.0

  74.2

  68.1

  55.3

  40.7

  20.2

  1 Not applicable

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures are shown in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. The figures do not include any people who receive additional pension or graduated retirement benefit only.
  602W
  year and have also provided documents to them. PCS put forward their views and these were taken into account as part of the decision making process. I have been kept aware of these deliberations at all stages.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on take-up of stakeholder pensions. [123543]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Almost 1.4 million have been sold in their first two years on the market.

  Stakeholder pensions impact on pension provision goes wider than its take-up. Charges on personal pensions have fallen by around a quarter since 1999 to around stakeholder pensions' 1 per cent. a year level. In addition, as an alternative to offering their staff access to a stakeholder pension scheme, some employers have widened access to their occupational pension schemes and others have set up group personal pension plans with an employer contribution. We recognise that more needs to be done to improve take-up of private pensions in general, including stakeholder pensions.

  That is why we have set up an employer task force to develop and promote the employers' role in pension provision; established an independent pensions commission to report regularly to the Secretary of State on how the current voluntary approach to private pension provision is working; are developing an information pack for employers to make it clearer and easier for them to promote the benefits of their pension schemes; are framing initiatives to test the provision of advice and information at the workplace on saving for retirement; and have provided that members of money-purchase pension schemes receive annual illustrations, in today's prices, of what pension they might receive when they retire.

  Research by the Association of British Insurers shows that where an employer contributes to a stakeholder pension scheme take-up by employees is greatly increased.

  Basic State Pension
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of men and women do not receive the full basic state pension, broken down by age. [123995]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.
  603W
  4. Those on less than 100 per cent. basic state pension include people who are in receipt of 60 per cent. of the basic state pension based on their spouse's contributions. However, widows and widowers receiving a full basic state pension on their spouse's contributions are counted as receiving a full basic state pension.

  Source:

  1.5 per cent. sample of Pensions Strategy Computer System—November 2002

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of raising the basic state pension to(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 25 per cent. of average earning on a (i) gross and (ii) net basis after tax and means-tested benefits. [124041]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  £ billion

  1Estimated cost

  2Estimated cost

  Gross Cost

  2.3

  12.2

  Net Cost

  1

  5.7

  1 Of increasing the maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension to 20 per cent. of average earning in 2004–05.

  2 Of increasing the maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension to 25 per cent. of average earnings in 2004–05.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are for Great Britain only and are in cash terms rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. The maximum rate payable of the basic State Pension is assumed to increase to 20 per cent. and 25 per cent., of average earning, this corresponds to £84.55 per week and £105.70 per week in 2004–05. All other payments are assumed to increase proportionately.

  3. Estimates of the value of the basic State Pension are based on the April 2002 New Earnings Survey projected forward to April 2004.

  4. The estimates of the gross cost are based on September 2002 State Pension administrative data, projected forward to 2004–05.

  5. Estimates of saving in income-related benefits are based on the DWP Policy Simulation model for 2004–05. The calculations assume that the start of the Savings Credit is increased in line with the new value of the basic State Pension.

  6. Estimates of tax yield are provided by the Inland Revenue and are based upon the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01 projected forward to 2004–05.

  7. To estimate the net cost, it is assumed that additional tax yield and savings in income related benefits and are channelled back into the basic State Pension.

  Post Office Banking Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with(a) HSBC, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) the Halifax Bank of Scotland and (d) Abbey National concerning the provision of banking services in the Post Office; and if he will make a statement. [119841]

  Mr. Pond
  None. The provision of banking services at the Post Office is a matter for Post Office Ltd. However, the Government are keen that as many accounts as possible should be accessible at Post Office branches.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidance he has issued to programmes financed by the European Social Fund which are seeking funding for 2006 and subsequent years. [122876]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Current Structural Fund programmes, including those funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), have been agreed
  604W
  until the end of 2006. The European Commission is expected to make proposals on the future of the Structural Funds beyond 2006 in its Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, which it is due to publish at the end of 2003. It is expected that the Commission will then table draft legislation during 2004. The Department will publish guidance on any funding that may become available after 2006, when legislation is agreed by the relevant European Union institutions.

  ESF partners have been informed of the reform of the Structural Funds after 2006 through the Government's current consultation exercise, which ended on 4 July 2003, and through the ESF website and newsletter published by the Department.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to be informed of a decision from the European Union on the timescale for release of the Performance Reserve of the European Social Fund; how much he expects will be released; and if he will make a statement. [122877]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The European Commission is required by European Union legislation to allocate by 31 March 2004 the 4 per cent. performance reserve for Structural Fund Objectives 1, 2 and 3. The Department is responsible for managing the England Objective 3 programme, which is funded by the European Social Fund and which has a performance reserve of £105 million. The performance reserve will be released if the programme is judged to be successful on the basis of indicators that will be assessed as part of its mid-term evaluation. The Department will submit the mid-term evaluation report to the Commission at the end of 2003. The Department will agree the timing of the distribution of the performance reserve with the Commission in early 2004.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the benefits to the UK of the European Social Fund in terms of(a) GDP, (b) employment, (c) skill development, (d) the employment of women and (e) information and communications technologies over the current programme period; and if he will make a statement. [122878]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: All Structural Fund programmes, including those funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), are currently being evaluated in all European Union countries. The Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for evaluating the England Objective 3 and Great Britain Equal programmes. It also co-ordinates the evaluation of the Objective 3 Community Support Framework for Great Britain.

  These programmes are part of a system of active labour market policies that, together with steady economic growth, has contributed to 1.5 million more people into work since 1997, of which 850,000 are additional women in employment.
  605W
  The evaluation of England Objective 3 will include the issues of employment, skill development, the employment of women and information and communications technologies (ICT). It will be informed by monitoring data, surveys of former participants and companies, and specially commissioned research projects. The latter will include, for example, research into the programme's effectiveness in promoting equal opportunities and ICT training. The evaluation will not examine the benefits of ESF in terms of GDP. While there have been positive results, it is unlikely that the programme is large enough to have a measurable effect on GDP. The evaluation will, however, examine how the programme adds value to domestic programmes, for example, by looking at how it interacts with the New Deal. There is a separate evaluation of Equal, which is testing new ways of combating discrimination and inequality in the labour market.

  The Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government are undertaking similar evaluations of Objective 3 in Scotland and Wales respectively. The Department will bring together the England, Scotland and Wales Objective 3 evaluations, in an evaluation of the overarching Great Britain Community Support Framework.

  The Department will send its evaluation reports to the European Commission at the end of 2003 and place copies in the House of Commons Library.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of paying the full minimum income guarantee to all people over the age of 75 years. [123994]

  Mr. Pond
  The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) is available to all pensioners over the age of 75 and is currently worth at least £102.10 for a single pensioner and £155.80 for a couple. The cost of paying MIG to those over the age of 75 in 2002–03 was £2.1 billion.

  Notes:

  Expenditure figures are consistent with Budget 2003 forecasts.

  Expenditure figures are rounded to nearest £50 million.

  Couples are classified by the age of the older partner.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2003 to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts),Official Report, column 629W, on national insurance, how many women have registered the view that they received wrong information which led them to make a decision that did not benefit them; how many cases (a) have been found in favour of the appellant, (b) have been found not in favour of the appellant and (c) are ongoing; and of the cases found in favour of the appellant, how many women have elected to pay full rate contributions for the affected years. [123321]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Occupational Pension Funds
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to compensate people 606W
  who have had their occupational pensions placed into administration; how many occupational pension funds are in administration; and how many occupational pension funds have been wound up since 1997. [123996]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, explained to my hon. Friend when they met on 12 June, we are concerned about instances when the employer sponsoring a pension scheme becomes insolvent and the pension scheme winds up underfunded.

  We are very much aware of the serious impact this has on workers and their families. Indeed, it is because of cases like this that we are strengthening member protection and introducing a Pension Protection Fund to protect the long term security of occupational pension scheme members. However, as we have also made clear, while we will listen to constructive proposals we do not want to give false hope.

  Information on pension schemes is held by the Pension Schemes Registry (PSR) that is maintained by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA). The PSR does not collect information about the number of pension schemes where the employer sponsoring the pension scheme is insolvent. Data on the number of occupational pension schemes recorded by the Registry as wound up since 1997 is provided in the table. The figures relate to the position as at 19 March 2003.

  Number of schemes that completed winding up

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  24,974

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  7,427

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  8,185

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  6,119

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  4,731

  1 April 2002 to 19 March 2003

  3,599

  Notes:

  1. The PSR is not designed or intended to provide a comprehensive or continuous statistical record of the status of schemes. The PSR registers schemes for tracing purposes and collects the levy from pension schemes, including those in the process of winding up. New scheme data is being reported to the PSR on a continuous basis. Therefore, the figures are subject to continuous revision. Schemes have up to 12 months to notify of any change.

  2. A wound up scheme is one which has notified OPRA that it has completed winding up procedures.

  3. The data in the table relate to defined benefit and defined contribution private sector occupational pension schemes. In addition to data on occupational schemes, the Registry also collects data on personal pension and public sector schemes. These schemes, however, are not included in the table.

  4. The reason the figures for 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 are so much larger than for other years is that from 1997, the rules governing which schemes had a levy liability were changed—all schemes with two or more members became liable whereas previously, only schemes with two or more active members were liable. So, in 1997, the Pension Schemes Registry issued levy requests to a large number of schemes, only to discover that a number of them had already wound up. All these schemes were recorded as having completed wind up in 1997–98 even if, in fact, they had wound up earlier. Therefore, we know these figures are inflated, but not by how much. This is because the figures were not collected for the purpose of recording the numbers of scheme wind ups.

  Source:

  OPRA

  Pension Books
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners use a pension book. [123070]

  Mr. Pond
  The table shows the breakdown of pensioners claiming Retirement Pension (RP) and/or Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) using an order book.

  Number of pensioners paid by order book

  Number

  RP and MIG

  163,581

  MIG only

  1,201,570

  RP only

  4,279,911

  Total

  5,645,062

  Notes:

  1. The figures are current up to 13 June 2003.

  2. Claimants in the RP and MIG category receive both benefits, paid separately by order book.

  3. If a claimant is receiving one combined payment through the income support system for both MIG and RP they will only be shown on MIG and not on RP.

  4. Claimants in the 'MIG only' and 'RP only' categories may also be claiming RP or MIG respectively but do not use an order book for these claims.

  5. Figures quoted are for GB only.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, Information and Analysis Directorate (100 per cent. data).

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension credit personal direct mail packs have so far been distributed; and of that number how many (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful claims have been made. [122693]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 9 June 2003,Official Report, columns 394–95. The first of the quarterly progress reports on pension credit will be published later in July. A copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he has put in place to ensure that pension credit will function effectively when it is introduced in October. [123980]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Preparations for the implementation of pension credit from October 2003 are well advanced. We have recruited extra staff and invested in new infrastructure to meet the additional demands of the new entitlement and we are making best use of the phased take-on period leading up to October to prove our systems and learn from experience before the main take-on begins. An existing tried and tested computer system will be used to make payments from October. The freephone application line is already fully operational and taking advance applications. We are also working with our partner organisations at national and local level to encourage eligible people to take up their entitlement. Our phased approach to take-on will 608W
  ensure that the Pension Service is able to deliver pension credit successfully while continuing to deliver its existing range of services.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  How many pensioners in Blackpool he expects to benefit from the introduction of the pension credit. [123533]

  Mr. Pond
  We cannot estimate how many pensioners in Blackpool will be eligible for Pension Credit, but her 7,400 pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee in October 2003 will automatically receive Pension Credit.

  Pensions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners have been means-tested for income entitlements in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [121741]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available for the minimum income guarantee (MIG) is shown in the table.

  Income support MIG claimants in Shrewsbury and Atcham parliamentary constituency and Shropshire county, as at February 1997–2003

  Shrewsbury and Atcham parliamentary constituency

  Shropshire county

  1997

  3,000

  12,300

  1998

  2,800

  11,800

  1999

  2,900

  7,600

  2000

  2,700

  7,400

  2001

  2,800

  7,600

  2002

  2,800

  8,000

  2003

  2,600

  8,100

  Notes:

  1. Shropshire county figures prior to February 1999 include 'The Wrekin'. Figures from February 1999 to February 2003 exclude 'The Wrekin' as it is now part of a Unitary Authority, 'Telford and Wrekin'.

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

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  4. MIG claimants are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or their parliamentary constituency/county is assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS Postcode Directory and are based on May 1997 parliamentary boundaries.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, February 1997 to February 2003.

  Pensions Payment
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many recipients of state pensions who used a pension book to collect their pension have been written to by his Department to inform them that they must change to a direct payment method; and how many have chosen to have their payments made into(a) a bank or building society account and (b) a post office card account; [124081]

  (2) pursuant to the statement of 11 June 2003 by the Minister for Pensions, Official Report, column 773, when the first report will be placed in the Library. [124133]
  609W
  Mr. Pond
  Pensioners are being provided with straightforward information about all of their account options so they can choose the account which is right for them.

  Pensioners who want to continue to collect their money from the Post Office can choose a current account which offers post office access, a basic bank account or the new Post Office card account.

  The letters and leaflets being sent to pensioners set out the procedures for opening a Post Office card account. So far over 74,000 pensioners—half of those who have responded—have chosen a card account.

  The first report, containing figures up to the 27 June 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire on 20 May 2003,Official Report, column 753W, on Post Office card accounts, if he has made an estimate of the number of customers to whom he referred who are unable to open or manage an account; if he will list the alternative payment methods which are being considered; and if he will make a statement. [117742]

  Mr. Pond
  Around 87 per cent. of our customers already have access to an account suitable for Direct Payment and there is now a wide range of easy to operate bank and building society accounts available. The availability of these accounts at the Post Office, and the Post Office card account will mean that there should only be a small number of people for whom direct payment will not be suitable.

  We will gain better information on specific numbers as customers respond to their invitation letters.

  We are looking to develop an alternative method to pay this group. We have analysed a range of options. However, further research with specific interest groups and customers will inform the final decision. This service will be accessible at Post Office branches.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the statement of 11 June 2003, of the Minister for Pensions.Official Report, column 773, if he will list the client groups that his Department has contacted early on; and if he will make a statement on the order in which client groups will be written to inform them that they must specify a bank or a Post Office card account into which their benefits and pensions will be paid. [124134]

  Mr. Pond
  The mailing exercise for direct payment began in October 2002 with four weekly paid child benefit customers and people in receipt of a war pension.

  Since then we have continued to issue mailings to recipients of these benefits and begun to issue mailings to people in receipt of weekly paid child benefit and those in receipt of pensions and some Jobcentre Plus benefits. These include income support, incapacity benefit, industrial injuries scheme benefits, severe disablement allowance, bereavement benefit and widows benefit.
  610W
  Jobseeker's allowance customers will be dealt with as part of their usual contact with the Department and will not receive a mailing.

  We will begin mailing customers in receipt of disability and carer benefits, including carer's allowance, disability living allowance and attendance allowance, from August 2003.

  The huge numbers of customers involved in the conversion process mean the changes will be phased over a two-year period. Customers do not need to do anything until they receive a letter from the Department.

  Progress2work Scheme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effect of the Progress2work scheme on the number of ex-heroin users in employment. [123534]

  Mr. Browne
  We have introduced our Progress2work programme to provide specialist support to former drug misusers in their search for work. Many of these clients were previously users of class-A drugs, and most report that they have used heroin.

  In the Progress2work Pathfinder locations 364 people have already been helped into work. And we will continue to build on this success with the national roll out of the programme next year.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on his Department's regulatory impact assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120748]

  Malcolm Wicks
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is completed for all DWP regulatory proposals that have more than a negligible impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. These RIAs follow the guidance, "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment" (revised January 2003), and include details of arrangements for monitoring and reviewing policy proposals and their impact.

  Information on the number of RIAs that have been reviewed by the Department over the last year is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  From this year, the National Audit Office (NAO) has a new role in independently evaluating a selection of RIAs. The Better Regulation Task Force put forward in its annual report (published in February 2003), suggestions of RIAs for the NAO to review.

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to Departments. This will play a valuable part in improving the standard of RIAs.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [120746]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The revised RIA guidance, "Better Policy Making: A Guide to Regulatory Impact Assessment", was published on 28 January 2003. 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 Department for Work and Pensions actively promotes the better regulation agenda and the use of sunsetting where appropriate.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Isle of Man
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Isle of Man; and when he next plans to visit the Isle of Man. [123371]

  Mr. Lammy
  My noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I have yet to have discussions with the Government of the Isle of Man, but we look forward to doing so. My noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State is presently in the Isle of Man, accompanying Her Majesty The Queen at the Tynwald Day ceremony. I intend to visit the island soon.

  Appointments
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, how many appointments he has made since Thursday 12 June; and how many are pending. [120829]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Lord Chancellor has made 67 appointments since 12 June 2003 (two of which were signatures of the Instrument of Appointment), recommended one appointment to HM the Queen (approved) and has sworn in seven Judges. There are 28 appointments pending for the Lord Chancellor to make recommendations to the Queen; five awaiting swearing in by the Lord Chancellor and 348 for the Lord Chancellor to make the appointments (of these 13 are for signature of the Instrument of Appointment).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, when he intends to reply to the letter to the Lord Chancellor dated 15 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Sheila Burns. [121434]

  Mr. Leslie
  My noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor replied to the letter on 25 June 2003.
  612W
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, when he intends to reply to the letter to the Lord Chancellor dated 12 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. Ali. [121435]

  Mr. Leslie
  My noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor replied to the letter on 27 June 2003.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will bring forward proposals to remove from membership of the House of Lords those Members convicted of an offence of dishonesty. [122112]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 124W.

  Sexual Dysfunction
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of sexual dysfunction on marital breakdown; and if he will make a statement. [123434]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information is not collected centrally about the impact of sexual dysfunction on marital breakdown.

  Relate, a major provider of relationship support services, provides psychosexual therapy to approximately 900 clients per week in England and Wales.

  Feedback from clients of the British Association of Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT) suggests that those who petition for divorce rarely wish to have this aspect of the breakdown made public. Thus, little authoritative information is available from any source.

  Vexatious Litigants
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications have been made by vexatious litigants for permission to bring actions since 1997; and how many were successful. [123291]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Department keeps no statistical data on the number of applications made by vexatious litigants for permission to bring actions.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will propose amendments to the law so that applications for declaration as a vexatious litigant are heard in open court. [123292]

  Mr. Leslie
  No amendment to the law is required. Under Civil Procedure Rule sc94.15, such applications are heard and determined by a Divisional Court in open court.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications have been made for vexatious litigant declarations since 1997; and how many were successful. [123293]
  613W
  Mr. Leslie
  58 applications have been made since 1 January 1997, of which 45 have been successful and four are still pending determination.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many applications have been made for the lifting of vexatious litigant declarations since 1997. [123294]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Department keeps no statistical data in relation to applications concerning orders which have been made under s.42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

  Young Voters
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent representations he has received on votes for 16-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [123283]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department has received a number of representations from MPs and members of the public about lowering the voting age to 16 years. Voting age was one of the issues considered in the Children and Young People's Unit's "Yvote/Ynot?" initiative. At the launch in July 2002 of the report following this exercise, the independent Electoral Commission undertook to conduct a review of both voting age and the age of candidacy. The Electoral Commission's review commenced on 27 February 2003, and I understand that the Commission, as part of its review, will issue a public consultation paper very soon.

PRIME MINISTER

  Colombia
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will use the occasion of the meeting he has convened for 10 July 2003 on the subject of Colombia to raise the human rights record of that country. [123854]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on 3 July 2003,Official Report, column 459W.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed with the US Administration the force levels required(a) to provide internal security in Iraq and (b) to allow British and American forces to provide for their own protection; and if he will make a statement. [123682]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular contact with President Bush on all aspects of the reconstruction of Iraq. We will maintain an appropriate military presence for as long as necessary, providing both internal security and for force protection of our personnel. As far as British forces are concerned, we keep our requirements under review, but we judge that our current force levels in Iraq are sufficient.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last discussed with the US Administration the duration of the mission of British and US forces in the occupation of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [123683]
  614W
  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular contact with President Bush on all aspects of the reconstruction of Iraq. As we have made clear before, we have committed ourselves to the long-term humanitarian, political and economic welfare of the Iraqi people. We will help them to restore effective representative Government for all their people, to regain economic stability, and to reintegrate into the international community. Our Military Campaign Objectives contain a commitment to the withdrawal of British military forces from Iraq when the job is done.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has made proposals to the US Administration for the United Nations to assume greater responsibilities for the reconstruction and internal security of Iraq and for the creation of a new Iraqi Government and representative political institutions. [123751]

  The Prime Minister
  President Bush and I made clear our support for a vital role for the United Nations at Hillsborough on 8 April 2003.

  We co-sponsored Security Council resolution 1483, which appointed the UN Special Representative for Iraq and set out the vital role the UN should play in humanitarian relief, the reconstruction of Iraq, and the restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance.

  The Special Representative, Sergio Vieira de Mello, is now playing a full part in discussions in Iraq on the implementation of UNSCR 1483 and is working closely with US Ambassador Bremer CPA, other senior coalition representatives (e.g. UK Special Representative, John Sawers) and emerging Iraqi leaders.

  In addition to the UN's humanitarian and reconstruction work in Iraq, UK, US and UN officials are exploring possibilities for UN involvement in policing, law and order, legal reform, human rights, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of military forces (DDR), and support for an Iraqi Interim Administration when formed, including help in drafting a new constitution and preparing for elections. We very much welcome the expertise the UN can bring to the reconstruction of Iraq.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to trace the members of the security services who leaked information to the BBC in connection with dossiers on Iraq. [123843]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answer to the hon. Member on 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 616W.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 18 March 2003,Official Report, column 764, if he will publish the translation which he used of the remarks by President Chirac on which he based his statement that France said that it would veto a second resolution, whatever the circumstances. [123820]

  The Prime Minister
  The original French text of the television interview given by the President of France on 10 March 2003 and the English translation are available on the official Elysee Palace website:www.elysee.fr

  615W
  The translation of the French President's statement is:
  "My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote "no" because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, i.e. to disarm Iraq".

  President Chirac repeated in a private conversation with me that France would block, by veto, any resolution that contained an ultimatum.

  Lord Levy
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates of official visits undertaken at his request by Lord Levy since 20 February 2003; and which country was visited and what the purpose of the visit was. [123005]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy has not travelled overseas in his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy since 20 February 2003.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister who Lord Levy met during his visits to(a) Washington on 19 February 2003 and (b) Ramallah on 23 January 2003 at his request to update and exchange views of the Middle East peace process. [123006]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy undertook both visits in his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy. On 23 January 2003, Lord Levy met Yasser Abed Rabbo, Nabil Qassis, Sa'eb Erekat and Akram Haniyeh (in their respective roles as Chairman of the Ministerial Reform Committee, Ministerial Reform Committee Coordinator, Chief Negotiator and adviser to Yasser Arafat) in Ramallah. Lord Levy met Richard Armitage (Deputy Secretary, State Department) and Elliott Abrams (Senior Director, National Security Council) in Washington on 19 February 2003.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when Lord Levy has met Richard Armitage, the US Deputy Secretary of State, while acting as his envoy; and where each of these meetings took place. [123007]

  The Prime Minister
  In his capacity as the Prime Minister's envoy, Lord Levy met Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of the State Department, on 30 April 2001 and 19 February 2003. Both meetings took place in Washington.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister what have been the costs of the administrative functions of 10 Downing Street in each year since 1997. [123102]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 25 March 2003,Official Report, columns 125–27W.

  Final figures of total costs of the Prime Minister's Office for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that political opinion in Northern Ireland is proportionately represented in the House of Lords. [123997]
  616W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on 15 January 2003,Official Report, column 632W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department in each year since 1997. [104219]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. The cost of chauffeur-driven cars for the Office from 1 June 2002 to 31 March 2003 was £320,666.24

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to use the building regulations to raise the standard required for new and replacement boilers to the level of the most efficient boilers; and if he will set a target of installing five million condensing boilers by 2010. [123747]

  Phil Hope
  The Energy White Paper published on 24 February 2003 made clear the Government's intention to use the building regulations to raise the standard required for new and replacement boilers to the level of the most efficient boiler types—A and B rated condensing boilers. The White Paper illustrated how the installation of five million such boilers by 2010 could achieve savings of 0.6 million tonnes of carbon per year. This is not a specific target however, and nor is it the upper limit that could be practical as part of the next major revision of the building regulations which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aim to bring into effect in 2005.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what revisions to the building regulations are planned by his Department to achieve the energy efficiency savings by 2010, as outlined in the Energy White Paper. [124080]

  Phil Hope
  The Energy White Paper, published on 24 February 2003, announced that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would start work immediately on the next major revision of the building regulations with the aim of bringing it into effect in 2005. The revision work will, for instance, examine what improvements can be made to the performance standards for building fabric and heating, cooling and lighting systems, and what further work on existing buildings could be brought under control, whilst ensuring the regulations remain technically sound, proportionate, cost-effective and sufficiently flexible for designers.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list by region levels of European Regional Development Fund expenditure for this financial year. [124037]
  617W
  Yvette Cooper
  The European Regional Development Fund expenditure for English regions from 1 April 2003 to 3 July 2003 is tabled as follows:

  European Regional Development Fund expenditure

  Region

  £

  North-west (Merseyside)

  8,034,395

  North-west

  22,301,269

  Yorkshire and Humber

  15,278,343

  London

  8,441,250

  South-west

  10,292,826

  North-east

  11,725,525

  East Midlands

  7,470,892

  West Midlands

  14,896,772

  East of England

  2,115,548

  South-east

  1,258,234

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since its inception. [113678]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established on 29 May 2002, there have been three contracts awarded to KPMG.

  Regional Assemblies
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the number of local authority employees to be made redundant as a result of local authority restructuring, following the introduction of regional assemblies; and what plans he has to provide assistance to(a) such employees and (b) local authorities for which such employees worked. [123275]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The implications for local authority employees will depend on what boundary and structural changes are involved and on future decisions by the local authorities concerned. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to discuss with the Local Government Association, public sector unions and others, how best to handle transitional matters, including employee issues, in any future local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what methodology his Department used to calculate the figure of 50,000 people represented by replies to the soundings exercise into the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about whether to establish an elected regional assembly. [124176]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that 53,591 people were involved in the soundings exercise. This number comprises:7,132 responses were from individuals in their private capacities;
  28 opinion polls/surveys in which 37,243 people were consulted;
  nine petitions to which there were 1,411 signatories;
  focus groups, votes at meetings, responses to circulars and so on, in which at least 7,800 people were involved.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Government Department will have responsibility for any future elected regional assembly; and what his policy is on the accountability of future elected regional assemblies to Government Departments. [124178]
  618W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office for the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for regional and local government in England and taking forward the referendums that will give the English regions the choice of deciding whether they wish to have an elected regional assembly.

  The members of any future elected assembly will be accountable directly to voters in their region.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what level of turnout at a referendum on whether to create a regional assembly would constitute the derisorily low turnout, to which the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has referred; [124180]

  (2) what percentage of the electorate voting in favour of an elected regional assembly it is his policy to consider as sufficient to justify the creation of an elected regional assembly. [124184]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 does not set a turnout threshold for referendums about whether to establish an elected regional assembly.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will decide whether to establish an assembly in a region once we see the results of a referendum. We have no preconceptions about the results.

  Worthy Down
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will make an announcement regarding the site at Worthy Down in Winchester; and if he will make a statement. [123339]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement of 25 November 2002, Official Report, column 2WS. The Defence Training Review identified Worthy Down as a site that was likely to be surplus to Defence requirements. Our benchmark assumption is that the training currently delivered at Worthy Down would be moved to RAF Halton, but this is subject to the evaluation of the proposals that will be developed with Industry. We do not expect to make a final decision on the future of Worthy Down before 2005.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  After-school Clubs
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what type of(a) after school clubs, (b) youth clubs and (c) sports clubs initiatives have been started for (i) 8 to 13-year-olds and (ii) 13 to 17-year-olds in Redcar and Cleveland in each year since 1997. [122333]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not keep central figures on the number, nature and age range of after school and youth club activity by area. It is for local authorities and schools to determine what provision will best meet the needs of the young people in the area.

  We are aware, however, that the Youth Directorate at Redcar and Cleveland are engaged in a mapping exercise of youth activity provision that will be completed by the end of 2003.
  619W
  Redcar and Cleveland also receives funding from my Department to provide after school study support opportunities for young people in the area: £352,410 this year through the Standards Fund. Study support can range from homework and study clubs to other activities including sport, the creative arts and cultural activities. Redcar and Cleveland have also received a total of £886,000 from the New Opportunities Fund 'Out of School Hours Activities Programme' and a total of £716,880 from the New Opportunities Fund 'Out of School Childcare Programme'. Again, this can be used to provide a range of activities for young people.

  Earned Autonomy (Schools)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) when he expects to publish the guidance on earned autonomy for primary and secondary schools under the Education Act 2002; [122721]

  (2) whether the forthcoming guidance on earned autonomy will include freedom for schools to set pay rates for (a) teaching staff, (b) teaching support staff and (c) other staff; and if he will make a statement. [122722]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Government is considering how most appropriately to extend freedoms for schools beyond a limited focus on the two areas specified in the 2002 Act. In the meantime, all schools are free under the Power to Innovate to make proposals to set pay rates for their teaching staff. Pay rates for school support staff are already set at local level.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121389]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Government Ministers will be holding a series of meetings around the country setting out the benefits of our membership of the European Union.

  Excluded Pupils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 93W, on school standards, what progress has been made on the survey of the extent to which targets for educating excluded pupils are met; and when the results will be published. [123281]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: In October 2002, we wrote to local education authorities (LEAs) asking them to confirm that they had made arrangements to provide full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils. All local education authorities confirmed that they were able to achieve the target of providing full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils by September 2002 and all but two currently report that they are sustaining such provision.

  Fast Track Scheme
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many recruits there have been to the Fast Track scheme over the last year, broken down by(a) subject, (b) phase of training and (c) previous occupation. [122983]

  Mr. Miliband
  Over 2,000 applications to join the Fast Track teaching programme were received this year, and final selection is still in progress. To date, 298 people have been offered places on Fast Track this year, almost double the number of places taken up last year (161).

  Number of applications to join the Fast Track teaching programme

  Subject

  1Number of places offered

  Art

  4

  Business and Economics

  13

  Design and Technology

  4

  English

  55

  Geography

  13

  History

  29

  Information Technology

  3

  Maths

  17

  Modern Foreign Languages

  24

  Music

  2

  Physical Education

  1

  Religious Education

  2

  Science

  53

  Subtotal—Secondary

  220

  Subtotal—Primary

  78

  Total

  298

  1As of 30 June 2003.

  It is estimated that the final number of places offered this year will be between 320 and 350.

  Over half of all new entrants joining Fast Track this year have three or more years' work experience, with around 20 per cent. having had successful careers of 10 or more years in a different field. A wide variety of previous career experience is represented amongst Fast Track teachers, including law, NHS management, the City, academia, the civil service, the armed services and police, and a wide variety of industrial and commercial backgrounds, including electronics, pharmaceuticals and ICT.

  I will write to the hon. Member with detailed information on previous occupations and academic qualifications of new entrants in September, once recruitment for 2003 is complete.

  First Aid
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of teachers are trained in first aid. [122404]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect this information. The number of first aiders in a school will depend on an assessment made at the school concerned. The Department produced "Guidance on First Aid for Schools" that can be accessed via the website at www.teachernet.gov.uk/firstaid

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which he is responsible. [116392]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To date, two public authorities have purchased electronic systems for managing records and documents. These are the Higher Education Funding Council for England which has bought Tower Software's Trim system, and the Construction Industry Training Board which has purchased Opentext Livelink. My Department and its other Non-Departmental Public Bodies listed in the Act are in varying stages of procurement.

  Number of 15 year olds attempting GCSEs

  Region

  2002

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  North east

  31,424

  91,808

  30,158

  30,084

  29,685

  30,017

  North west

  85,821

  74,433

  81,789

  81,730

  79,867

  63,568

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16,407

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  60,458

  62,859

  57,581

  56,982

  55,898

  56,803

  East Midlands

  50,099

  56,450

  47,353

  47,448

  46,641

  47,744

  West Midlands

  64,860

  64,770

  62,067

  62,665

  61,146

  61,301

  East

  63,664

  49,296

  60,785

  59,822

  60,266

  61,545

  London

  74,967

  59,907

  71,503

  70,670

  70,018

  70,160

  South east

  92,002

  85,578

  87,849

  87,935

  86,895

  89,730

  South west

  57,281

  31,598

  54,430

  53,944

  53,848

  54,259

  England

  580,576

  576,699

  553,515

  551,280

  544,264

  551,534

  Number of 15 year olds attempting GNVQs

  Region

  2002

  2001

  2000

  1999

  1998

  1997

  North east

  4,804

  2,271

  1,162

  803

  660

  396

  North west

  9,085

  2,645

  1,658

  1,287

  745

  176

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  129

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,764

  2,029

  1,785

  1,541

  821

  553

  East Midlands

  6,538

  2,167

  1,587

  1,137

  615

  292

  West Midlands

  10,442

  3,733

  2,668

  2,023

  1,433

  757

  East

  5,933

  2,468

  1,140

  1,003

  682

  269

  London

  8,019

  2,237

  1,495

  818

  520

  264

  South east

  6,926

  3,076

  1,428

  1,478

  775

  469

  South west

  5,992

  1,824

  1,078

  1,225

  715

  429

  England

  64,503

  22,450

  14,001

  11,315

  6,966

  3,734

  Higher Education
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual change has been for each of the last 10 years in the proportions of students from different socio-economic backgrounds(a) entering higher education, (b) completing each year

  Age participation index (API)1 by social class 1991–2001

  Percentages

  Year of entry

  Social class

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  I

  55

  71

  73

  78

  80

  82

  79

  72

  73

  76

  79

  II

  36

  39

  42

  45

  46

  47

  48

  45

  45

  48

  50

  IIIn

  22

  27

  29

  31

  31

  32

  31

  29

  30

  33

  33

  IIIm

  11

  15

  17

  18

  18

  18

  19

  18

  18

  19

  21

  IV

  12

  14

  16

  17

  17

  17

  18

  17

  17

  19

  18

  622W
  Information about systems purchased by educational establishments listed in the Act is not held centrally.

  GCSE/GNVQ
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students took(a) GCSEs and (b) GNVQs in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region. [122848]

  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of students attempting GCSEs and GNVQs in each region since 1997 are as follows. The figures have not been provided for the year period, as there are no GNVQ data available prior to 1997.

  of study and (c) successfully completing a course of study. [121754]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information showing the proportion of young (under 21) people from each social class who enter higher education is shown in the following table.
  623W

  Age participation index (API)1 by social class 1991–2001

  Percentages

  Year of entry

  Social class

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  V

  6

  9

  11

  11

  12

  13

  14

  13

  13

  14

  15

  I-IIIn

  35

  40

  43

  46

  47

  48

  48

  45

  45

  48

  50

  IIIm-V

  11

  14

  16

  17

  17

  18

  18

  17

  17

  18

  19

  1The API is defined as the number of UK domiciled under 21 initial entrants to full-time and sandwich courses expressed as a proportion of averaged 18–19 year old GB population.

  Notes:

  where I Professional, II Intermediate, IIIn Skilled (non-manual), IIIm Skilled (manual), IV Partially skilled and V Unskilled.

  Information on completion and non-completion rates of HE students is published annually by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education (HE)", but these figures do not separately identify students by social class. The latest available data for students from all social classes are shown in the following table.

  Projected learning outcomesFull-time students starting first degree courses in UK HE Institutions

  Percentages

  Projected Outcomes1

  Students starting in:

  Obtained degree

  Obtained no qualification

  Other2

  1996/97

  80

  18

  2

  1997/98

  81

  17

  2

  1998/99

  81

  17

  2

  1999/2000

  81

  17

  2

  1 The projected outcomes are calculated on the assumption that the progression paths of new entrants will be the same as those for students currently in the system.

  2 Includes students who obtain undergraduate qualifications other than a degree (e.g. an HMD).

  Figures published in 2002 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK as a whole has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  The Government are committed to raising the participation rates for people from less affluent backgrounds, and has introduced the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportional change the Government expects in(a) the number of (i) foundation degrees and (ii) part-time study and work-based degrees and (b) the proportion of students choosing to live at home while studying on the basis of the proposals in the White Paper The Future of Higher Education. [121756]

  Alan Johnson
  In the academic year 2002/2003 around 12,000 students studied Foundation Degrees. There are plans to grow that number to 20,000 places by 2005/2006. Discussions are taking place with HEFCE about providing further student places for Foundation Degrees in 2004/2005 and 2005/2006, HEFCE will publish details about this in the autumn.

  Figures published in the DfES 2003 Departmental Report predict that the proportion of part-time students (undergraduate and postgraduate) will be 42.4 per cent.
  624W
  in 2004/05. Work based degrees and not clearly defined and we do not have separate statistics for work based degrees.

  In academic year 2001/02 (latest provisional data), the proportion of higher education students in England and Wales who are eligible for the home rate of loan under the student supportscheme funding arrangements is 21 per cent. This information is not available for future years.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what fee charging arrangements will be in place for higher education fees levied from Turkish Cypriots visiting the UK for higher education courses, after Cyprus joins the EU; and if he will make a statement.[R] [123189]

  Alan Johnson
  When Cyprus becomes a member of the EU, Turkish Cypriots who are nationals of the Republic of Cyprus and studying on full time first degree courses in Higher Education Institutions in England and Wales, will become eligible for support for their tuition fees.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what specific or direct grants have been made by his Department to local authorities for 2003–04(a) in England and (b) broken down by local authority, identifying whether the grant is (i) ring fenced, (ii) a specific formula grant, (iii) within aggregate external finance and (iv) outside aggregate external finance. [114915]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Local Education Authorities
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much extra money his Department has provided to each local education authority to help ameliorate the effects of this year's school funding problems. [123044]

  Mr. Miliband
  The funding of schools is a shared responsibility of central and local Government. In 2003–04, there have been a number of very significant pressures on LEA and school spending. Nationally, the additional resources provided for education more than match those pressures. However, changes to the distribution formula for Education Formula Spending, together with the ending of a substantial body of ring-fenced grants from my Department's Standards Fund,
  625W
  have meant that different LEAs and schools have received a wide range of year-on-year increases in overall support for education.

  The department has taken steps through an additional grant of £28 million to ensure that all LEAs have at least a minimum increase of 3.2 per cent. per pupil, in addition to taking account of the effect of the Standards Fund and teachers' pension changes. We have also provided a special grant costing £11 million to 18 London LEAs to help them fund this year's increases in London weighting. The allocations of these grants are shown in the following table. In addition, LEAs and schools will be given the additional flexibility to use their devolved formula capital funding from the Department to support revenue expenditure. The decision to use a school's capital funding in this way will need to be made jointly by the school and its LEA, and should only be taken in those circumstances where failure to do so would lead to excessive instability within that school.

  £ million

  Additional support grant

  London budget grant

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  1.128

  1.031

  2.159

  Barnet

  0.579

  0.579

  Bedfordshire

  0.135

  0.135

  Bexley

  1.492

  0.490

  1.982

  Bournemouth

  0.140

  0.140

  Brighton and Hove

  0.960

  0.960

  Bromley

  0.815

  0.594

  1.409

  Camden

  1.168

  0.698

  1.866

  Croydon

  1.302

  0.695

  1.997

  Dorset

  0.318

  0.318

  East Sussex

  0.110

  0.110

  Enfield

  1.147

  0.665

  1.812

  Essex

  1.162

  1.162

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  0.886

  0.739

  1.625

  Hampshire

  0.278

  0.278

  Haringey

  1.330

  1.292

  2.622

  Havering

  1.089

  0.475

  1.564

  Hertfordshire

  1.000

  1.000

  Isle of Wight

  0.110

  0.110

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0.288

  0.491

  0.779

  Knowsley

  0.736

  0.736

  Lambeth

  1.282

  0.391

  1.673

  Leicestershire

  0.835

  0.835

  Medway

  1.295

  1.295

  Norfolk

  1.595

  1.595

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.033

  0.033

  Plymouth

  0.831

  0.831

  Portsmouth

  0.891

  0.891

  Redbridge

  0.903

  0.017

  0.920

  Richmond upon Thames

  0.152

  0.261

  0.413

  Slough

  0.376

  0.376

  Southampton

  1.016

  1.016

  Southend-on-Sea

  0.358

  0.358

  Suffolk

  0.108

  0.108

  Sutton

  0.503

  0.378

  0.881

  Thurrock

  0.308

  0.308

  Waltham Forest

  2.140

  0.534

  2.674

  Wandsworth

  1.141

  1.141

  Westminster

  0.818

  0.818

  Masters Degrees
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many taught Masters degrees(a) were awarded and (b) were enrolled for in each year since 1992. [121329]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available information is shown in the table. Comparable figures for earlier years are not held centrally.
  626W

  Numbers of enrolments and awards for taught Masters degrees

  Academic Year

  Enrolments

  Awards

  1994/95

  126,136

  16,823

  1995/96

  142,665

  19,030

  1996/97

  142,488

  19,347

  1997/98

  141,751

  20,951

  1998/99

  151,510

  21,354

  1999/00

  158,713

  22,064

  2000/01

  164,691

  23,142

  2001/02

  175,665

  23,644

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency

  Musically Gifted Pupils
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria the Department employs in assessing parental contributions under the Aided Pupils Scheme for musically gifted pupils at specialist schools; and how housing costs are allowed for. [123441]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Aided Pupil Scheme, part of the Music and Dance Scheme, is an annually assessed means-tested scheme that required parents to make a contribution towards fees according to their means. Gross income from all sources is assessed so that all parents are placed on a similar footing wherever they live. The amount (if any) parents pay is on a sliding scale linked to total income and the scales are constructed so that the least well-off families benefit most. No deductions are made in respect of outgoings such as mortgage repayments, pension contributions and the normal day to day costs of living when assessing a family's total gross income. The method of income assessment ensures that a proper balance is struck between the amount parents can realistically be expected to contribute and the amount of taxpayers' money that is provided for the scheme.

  Nurseries (Leeds, West)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Leeds, West constituency had places in(a) day nurseries and (b) school nurseries in each of the last 10 years. [122673]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of places at day nurseries and children at maintained nursery schools—Leeds local authority area 1994 to 2003

  Number of places

  Headcount of children

  Day nurseries1

  Full day care2

  Maintained nursery schools3

  1994

  n/a

  n/a

  92

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  77

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  39

  1998

  3,500

  n/a

  46

  1999

  3,900

  n/a

  0

  2000

  5,100

  n/a

  0

  2001

  4,400

  n/a

  0

  2002

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  2003

  n/a

  5,700

  0

  n/a = Not available

  1 Children's day care facilities

  2 Ofsted

  3 Annual Schools' Census

  627W
  Information on the number of places in day nurseries is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Information on the number of pupils in nursery schools at parliamentary constituency level is not available prior to 1998. From 1998, there were no nursery schools in Leeds, West parliamentary constituency.

  Day care figures for 2001 and earlier years for England and Government Office regions were published in DfES Statistical Bulletin 08/01 "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 2001", which is available in the Library and on the DfES website, www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics. Figures for 2001 for out of school clubs and holiday schemes have recently been revised. Latest child care statistics were published in a report by Ofsted

  Number of three and four year olds1, 2, 3 by type of early years education provider—England

  Position in January each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003 (provisional estimates)

  Private and voluntary providers4

  Number of three year olds

  n/a

  268,800

  285,100

  283,200

  5327,700

  Number of four year olds

  95,100

  96,000

  101,100

  96,500

  5117,500

  Total number of three and four year olds

  n/a

  364,800

  386,200

  379,800

  5445,200

  Independent schools

  Number of three year olds

  n/a

  25,900

  27,200

  27,400

  26,300

  Number of four year olds

  28,700

  28,500

  28,300

  29,400

  28,500

  Total number of three and four year olds

  n/a

  54,400

  55,500

  56,800

  54,800

  Maintained nursery and primary schools

  Number of three year olds

  n/a

  229,900

  226,800

  223,500

  218,500

  Number of four year olds

  496,400

  483,700

  482,800

  477,700

  472,200

  Total number of three and four year olds

  n/a

  713,600

  709,600

  701,200

  690,700

  Special schools6

  Number of three year olds

  n/a

  2,300

  2,300

  2,100

  1,900

  Number of four year olds

  2,900

  2,700

  2,700

  2,700

  2,500

  Total number of three and four year olds

  n/a

  4,900

  5,000

  4,800

  4,500

  All providers7

  Number of three year olds

  n/a

  526,900

  541,300

  536,300

  5574,400

  Number of four year olds

  623,100

  610,900

  614,900

  606,300

  5620,700

  Total number of three and four year olds

  n/a

  1,137,700

  1,156,300

  1,142,700

  51,195,200

  n/a = Not available.

  1 Headcount of children aged three and four at 31 December in the previous calendar year, rounded to the nearest 100.

  2 Numbers of three and four year olds in schools may include some two-year-olds.

  3 Any child attending mere than one provider may have been counted twice

  4 Includes some local authority providers (other than schools) registered to receive nursery education grants; excludes independent schools and providers not registered to receive nursery education grants.

  5 Scaled up from the data as returned by providers to all providers of early years education.

  6 Includes general hospital schools.

  7 Rounding of components may cause discrepancies in totals.

  Number of schools with pupils aged 3 or 41

  Sefton LEA

  England

  Position in January each year: 2000 to 20032

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032

  Nursery Schools

  Number of schools

  4

  4

  4

  4

  514

  506

  494

  471

  Primary Schools

  Number of schools

  86

  86

  86

  86

  15,844

  15,847

  15,868

  15,830

  Special Schools3

  Number of schools

  4

  4

  4

  3

  599

  586

  584

  579

  Independent Schools

  Number of schools

  6

  6

  6

  6

  1,509

  1,498

  1,494

  1,441

  Direct Grant Nursery Schools

  Number of school

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1 Includes pupils aged under 3.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Includes both maintained and non-maintained special schools

  628W
  'Registered Childcare Providers and Places in England, 31 March 2003', which is available on the Ofsted website, www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications.

  Pre-Schools
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have attended pre-schools in each year since 1973; how many pre-schools there were in(a) England and (b) Sefton in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002; and how many there are in 2003. [122300]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information for 1999 onwards is shown in the tables.
  629W

  Nursery Schools and Early Years Private and Voluntary Providers—England and Sefton local education authority area

  Number of nursery schools

  Position in January each year

  England

  Sefton

  1999

  522

  4

  2000

  516

  4

  2001

  508

  4

  2001

  496

  4

  Additionally, there were 19,400 private and voluntary providers in England in January 2003, of which 80 were located in the Sefton local education authority area.

  School information prior to 1999 is available in the Statistical Volume 'Schools in England 2002', a copy of which is available from the Library. The latest figures on three and four-year-olds in early years education providers were published by the Department in the Statistical First Release "Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England: January 2003 (provisional) (15/2003)" in May 2003. Copies of both are available from the Library and electronically from the Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  School Fires
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many fires there have been in schools in each of the last three years. [123312]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not collect these figures.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have had to close for a period of time owing to fire in each of the last three years. [123313]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not have this information. However, the issue of fire safety is of primary importance.

  If a fire should happen in a school, the Department's primary concern is for the safety of pupils, teachers and other users. Regulation 17 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 requires that every part of a school building, and of the land provided for a school, shall be such that the safe escape of the occupants in case of fire is reasonably assured. Schools are also covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and by subsequent related regulations. These include aspects of fire safety.

  To help schools manage fire safety, the Department published "Managing School Facilities Guide 6, Fire Safety", in 2000. This offers guidance on how to minimise the risks of both accidental and malicious fires occurring, and advises on how to identify hazards and carry out risk assessments. It also gives advice on training and on fire detection and alarm systems.

  In addition, officials from the Department sit on the Arson in Schools Working Group, a group of experts representing the insurance industry, the fire and police services, local authorities and Government Departments. The group exists to research and promote ways of reducing malicious fires in schools. One of its outputs has been the publication of the guide "How to Combat Arson in Schools", copies of which have been sent to all schools in the UK.

  School Funding (Suffolk)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent correspondence he has received from Suffolk county council about the funding of schools in Suffolk in 2003–04. [123051]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters from the local authority and schools in Suffolk about the funding of schools. He made a statement to the House on 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 13WS.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2003,Official Report, columns 693–94W, on school inspections, what percentage of year 11 lessons inspected by Ofsted in 2001–02 were set by ability in (a) specialist and (b) non-specialist comprehensives. [123327]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many responses his Department has received to the 2003 staffing survey; how many responses his Department had received by 16 April; and to how many schools the survey was originally sent. [122984]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey was originally sent to a sample of 833 maintained secondary schools in England. When the statistical first release August 2003 "Secondary Schools Curriculum and Staffing Survey: November 2002 (provisional)" was published on 16 April 2003 180 schools had returned the survey. Since publication a further 25 schools have returned the survey, bringing the total number of schools to return the survey to date to 205.

  As I informed the House on 17 March, it is the Government's intention to publish final results of the survey in September. We remain on course to meet this target.

  School Inspections (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in the London borough of Wandsworth have undergone an Ofsted inspection within the last 12 months. [123318]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was to the Treasury of providing income contingent loans for higher education students in each year since 1998–99. [122559]
  631W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills only has responsibilities for student loans paid to higher education students domiciled in England and Wales therefore this answer provides data relating to them.

  The resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) costs to the Treasury for income contingent loans are shown in the table:

  Resource Accounting and Budgeting costs: financial year 1998–99 to 2001–02: England and Wales

  £ millions

  Financial Year

  RAB Charges

  1998–99

  151

  1999–2000

  491

  2001–01

  661

  2001–02

  822

  The fall in the HM Treasury cost of capital rate from six per cent. to 3.5 per cent. which took effect on 1 April 2003 will reduce the resource cost in future years.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many graduates were due to commence student loan repayments in April 2003; and how many have commenced repayment. [124042]

  Alan Johnson
  251,091 borrowers (UK figure) were due to start repaying their income-contingent student loans in April 2003. The figures for those that have started repayments are not yet available because repayment is based on income and is deducted at source by employers with tax and National Insurance. Details of repayments are notified to the Student Loans Company by the Inland Revenue after the end of the tax year in question.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers, (b) classroom assistants and (c) other redundancies (i) have occurred since 1st April and (ii) he has been informed will take place during the remainder of the financial year in each school in Hertfordshire. [121682]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: Detailed information on redundancies of teachers, classroom assistants and others on a school by school basis is not collected centrally.

  Teacher Vacancies (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies there are for teachers in each London borough. [123316]

  Mr. Miliband
  The most recent vacancy numbers for the maintained schools sector at local authority level are shown in table 40 of the 2002 edition of "Statistics of Education: School Workforce in England". A copy of this volume has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DBA/OL/vQ380/456-t40.htm.
  632W
  Vacancy information was published at regional level in April 2003 in statistical first release 10/2003. In January 2003 there were 1,020 vacancies (a vacancy rate of 2.1 per cent.) in the maintained schools sector in London, down from 1,360 vacancies (a vacancy rate of 2.7 per cent.) in January 2002.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what expenditure was incurred in each of the last five years; and what the level is of projected expenditure to 2005–06 to tackle teenage pregnancy; and if he will make a statement. [120770]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Teenage Pregnancy Strategy was launched in June 1999. Expenditure and provision for the Strategy is listed below.

  There are early encouraging signs of progress. The most recent data for 2001 shows a 10 per cent. reduction in the under 18 conception rate and an 11 per cent. fall in the under 16 conception rate since 1998, the baseline year for the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. Participation of teenage parents in education, training or employment has doubled from 16 per cent. to 33 per cent.

  Teenage pregnancy strategy

  £ million

  Expenditure

  1999–2000

  5

  2000–01

  16

  2001–02

  21

  2001–03

  21

  2003–04

  35

  2004–05

  40

  2005–06

  40

  Note

  Figures quoted for 2003–04 and 2005–06 are provisional and are the Spending Review 2002 Allocations.

  The table details the funding of local teenage pregnancy strategies and central activity led by the Teenage Pregnancy Unit including campaigns. Teenage parents are also supported in other ways, for example through reintegrating school age mothers into education via the Vulnerable Children Grant, supporting the child care costs of teenage parents in post-16 education and by housing support for those teenage parents who are unable to live with their families.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the recommendation in the recent Health Committee report on Sexual Health for a National Service Framework on sexual health as part of his Department's strategy to reduce teenage pregnancy. [123435]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  University Premium
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the areas in respect of which universities will receive a 20 per cent. premium for admitting students therefrom; and if he will list the other criteria which will result in the payment of a premium for admitting students. [122817]
  633W
  Alan Johnson
  Funds to help with the additional costs to higher education institutions (HEIs) of recruiting and retaining certain students are allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). This Widening Participation allocation is determined partly by the neighbourhood classification of the student's home address. HEFCE uses four classifications related to average rate of participation in higher education:1. Neighbourhoods with below 50 per cent. of average participation
  2. Neighbourhoods with 50–75 per cent. average participation
  3. Neighbourhoods with 75–100 per cent. average participation
  4. Neighbourhoods with above average participation

  Funds are distributed to HEIs recruiting students from these neighbourhoods using a weighting system. Other funds to assist universities to recruit and support undergraduates from disadvantaged backgrounds are distributed according to formulae that recognise prior educational attainment and age, and mode of study.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, what the cost would be of abolishing university tuition fees in 2003–04. [113971]

  Alan Johnson
  Pursuant to the reply by my hon. Friend of 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 134, clarification is required to the answer which sated that the standard tuition fee contribution for full-time home and EU students of £1,125 is estimated to raise around £887 million for English institutions and around £60 million for Welsh institutions. The reply does not make clear that the sum of £456 million, given as the public contribution to fees in England for 2003–04, includes public funding of approximately £40 million allocated to support postgraduate study through the Research Councils. Correspondingly, the sum of £31 million given as the public contribution to fees in Wales for 2003–04, includes public funding of approximately £3 million allocated to support postgraduate study through the Research Councils.

  An amended table is set out below:

  2003–04 Estimate

  England (£ millions)

  Wales (£ millions)

  Public contributions to fees

  416

  28

  Private contributions towards the cost of tuition

  431

  29

  Total

  847

  57

  The amount of private contribution to fees (£431 milliion in England) is not altered by this and so
  634W
  there is no change to the figure of 90,000 places, referred to in the earlier answer, that would be lost if the private contribution were to be abolished.

  Young Carers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have taken part in courses to raise awareness of young carers since 1999. [123340]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: This information is not collected centrally.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff at each civil service grade within each Department were aged(a) 16 to 25, (b) 26 to 35, (c) 36 to 45, (d) 46 to 60 and (e) over 60 in each of the last five years. [123422]

  Mr. Alexander
  The figures for the Cabinet Office are based on headcount for the number of permanent staff as follows:

  Number (headcount)

  Age

  April 1998

  April 1999

  April 2000

  April 2001

  April 2002

  16 to 25

  9

  21

  37

  75

  116

  26 to 35

  199

  276

  392

  494

  623

  36 to 45

  357

  476

  532

  586

  697

  46 to 60

  454

  519

  545

  606

  710

  Over 60

  101

  105

  93

  84

  50

  The departmental figures are in tables and represent the data reported to Mandate over the last five years. Copies of the tables have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Mandate is a central computer based record of information for almost all civil servants in the Home civil service. For some Departments and agencies, summary figures are provided in a manual return, which may not always be fully consistent with Mandate information, for example, because of minor differences in timing. Breakdowns by age are purely figures reported to Mandate. Departments and agencies are responsible for their own grading structures, but these have been allocated to broad responsibility levels to give a common basis for tabulation.

  Figures are on a headcount basis, for the number of permanent staff in each Department. The figures are based on the Departments following the structural changes made following the 2001 election.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Cruelty
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been for cruelty to(a) dogs, (b) cats and (c) sheep in (i) the UK and (ii) Sefton in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003. [122316]

  Paul Goggins
  Offences connected with cruelty to dogs, cats and sheep cannot be distinguished from cruelty to other animals in the statistics collected centrally in England and Wales.

  Figures for Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Office and those for Northern Ireland for the Northern Ireland Office.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the regulations on the use of animals in(a) scientific and (b) other experiments; and if he will make a statement. [123977]

  Caroline Flint
  Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Home Office regulates the use of protected animals in any experimental or other scientific procedure that may have the effect of causing that animal pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. The Home Office does not regulate the use of animals in experiments or procedures not covered by the 1986 Act.

  The 1986 Act provides a strong regulatory framework and an effective means by which to balance the need to protect animals from unnecessary suffering with the legitimate requirements of the scientific community (and the public) for medical and other essential research and safety testing. The system set up under the 1986 Act has proved flexible and responsive to changing circumstances and requirements, and its enabling provisions allow changes to be made quickly and easily by administrative means, or using secondary legislation.

  The Animal Procedures Committee (APC) review of the operation of the Act, published in its Annual Report for 1997, concluded that the Act provides a good framework for a well-regulated and responsible use of animals in scientific procedures in the United Kingdom. A number of recommendations arising from the APC review to enhance the effectiveness of the Act have subsequently been implemented and further improvements are continually being sought. The APC has also recently provided advice on the cost benefit assessment conducted under by section 5(4) of the 1986 Act, which we will consider carefully. Section 24 of the 1986 Act is also currently being reviewed. Proposals are also awaited from the European Commission for the revision of Directive 86/609/EEC, which the 1986 Act transposes into United Kingdom law. These may result in the need for the 1986 Act to be amended in due course. However, we have no immediate plans for legislative change.

  Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in considering the appeals of prisoners detained under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [121950]

  Mr. Blunkett
  15 foreign nationals have so far been detained using powers in Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001. Of the total detained, two have voluntarily left the United Kingdom. The other 13 remain in detention.

  On 19 May 2003, individual appeals for eight of the ATCS Act detainees who were certified in December 2001, and two of the subsequent detainees, began being heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). This first batch of appeals will continue throughout the summer.

  At this time, five of the individual appeals have been heard by SIAC. Determinations have yet to be issued by SIAC in these cases.

  The remaining appeals are expected to be heard by SIAC in the autumn. The timing of these appeals is a matter for the Government.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-social Behaviour Orders have been granted in England and Wales. [122780]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. The number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs granted within England and Wales, up to 30 November 2002 (latest available), is 785.

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

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of black and ethnic minority communities in each local authority area have(a) been served with an ASBO and (b) been found in breach of an ASBO; and if he will make a statement. [119681]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally on the number of civil Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued and refused within England and Wales does not identify the ethnicity of the persons concerned.

  For persons dealt with for breach of ASBOs, and ASBOs made on conviction in criminal proceedings from December 2002, the ethnicity has been provided to the Home Office by the courts on a voluntary basis up to 31 March 2003 but the quality of the ethnic data provided is not sufficiently robust to allow publication. The requirement to provide details of ethnicity was made mandatory from 1 April 2003.

  Arson
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were found guilty of arson in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [120917]

  Ms Blears
  1,500 persons were found guilty of arson in England and Wales in 2001.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in England and Wales have specialist units dealing with arson. [122589]

  Number of persons found guilty, sentenced and sentence breakdown for arson1 at all courts England and Wales 1997 to 2001

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  2001

  Found guilty

  1,582

  1,393

  1,380

  1,436

  1,500

  Total sentenced

  1,574

  1,338

  1,373

  1,420

  1,480

  Breakdown of total sentenced

  Absolute discharge

  5

  3

  1

  5

  4

  Conditional discharge

  204

  128

  138

  108

  95

  Fine

  163

  36

  29

  29

  36

  Probation order3

  227

  224

  212

  !97

  190

  Supervision order, community service order4, combination order5 and curfew order

  319

  311

  342

  326

  319

  Fully suspended sentence

  20

  29

  17

  21

  16

  Immediate custody

  485

  479

  512

  512

  533

  Other community orders6 and otherwise dealt with

  151

  128

  122

  222

  287

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire Police were only able to supply a sample of data for magistrates' courts proceedings covering one full week in each quarter for 2000. Estimates based on this sample are included in the figures, as they are considered sufficiently robust at this high level of analysis.

  3 Community rehabilitation order from 1 April 2001.

  4 Community punishment order from 1 April 2001.

  5 Community punishment and rehabilitation order from 1 April 2001.

  6 Attendance centre order, reparation order, action plan order and drug treatment and testing order.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence Her Majesty's Government will require from a Turkish Cypriot to prove EU citizenship when visiting the UK, after Cyprus accedes to the EU. [R] [123188]

  Beverley Hughes
  Cypriot nationals will have the same free movement rights as existing EU nationals from their accession to the EU.

  EC law provides that EU member states shall admit an EU national on production of his valid passport or identity card. The UK would therefore expect Cypriot nationals to carry their passports or identity cards when visiting the UK. However, in very exceptional circumstances, such as if an EU national has lost his passport while travelling, the UK may admit EU nationals who can prove their nationality and identity by other means.

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Ministers there were in his Department in each year since 1996. [120994]
  638W
  Ms Blears
  The required information is not available centrally.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people prosecuted for arson offences were(a) found guilty, (b) placed on probation, (c) fined, (d) made subject to a supervision order, community service order, combination order or curfew order, (e) given a suspended sentence, (f) given a conditional discharge, (g) given an absolute discharge and (h) given a custodial sentence in each year since 1997. [122590]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Blunkett
  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.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is indicated by related administration cost receipts in Table 5, page 173 of the Home Office Annual Departmental Report 2003. [123354]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Administration cost receipts in Table 5, page 173 of the Home Office Annual Departmental Report 2002 arise from the following main headings:
  fees from passports;
  fees for disclosures given by the Criminal Records Bureau;
  receipts from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and for the services of Home Office immigration staff; and
  receipts in the Prison Service for providing services to the Department of Education and Skills and places and regimes in the juvenile estate for the Youth Justice Board.

  Firearms
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions are placed on manufacturers' sales of sporting firearms from mainland United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. [123235]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: Under the terms of the Firearms (Removal to Northern Ireland) Order 1990, the removal of firearms or ammunition from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is prohibited unless the removal is authorised by the chief officer of police for the area from which they are to be removed and by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The Order applies only to section 1 firearms and ammunition and not to shotguns. We are presently reviewing these procedures.

  Licence Plate Cloning
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of vehicle licence plate cloning have been(a) investigated and (b) prosecuted in the last 12 months. [122621]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings database does not separately identify offences involving the supply or use of fraudulent vehicle registration marks.

  Mayor of London
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [122143]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have met the Mayor of London on a number of occasions. As with previous Administrations, it is not Government practice to provide details of all such meetings, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mobile Phone Crime
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted for offences under the Mobile Telephones
  (Re-programming) Act 2002; and what penalties were imposed on those convicted. [121960]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available through our formal statistical channels. Court proceedings for offences under the Mobile Telephone (Re-programming) Act 2002 only became identifiable in the statistics collected centrally in January 2003. Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn of 2004.

  The Home Office and police forces have been monitoring offences under the Act, and know of three prosecutions and convictions under the Act to date. The sentences in these three cases were a conditional discharge, a community punishment order and a fine, and a conditional discharge and a fine.

  National Security
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures are being taken to monitor domestic internet sites for potential threats to national security; arid what resources are being devoted to this task; [121641]

  (2) what measures are being taken to monitor UK internet sites for potential threats to national security. [122220]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am sure my hon. Friend understands it is not possible to comment on matters of national security.

  Operation Icebolt
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report on the(a) cost and (b) outcome of Durham and Cleveland Police's Operation Icebolt; and if he will make a statement. [121884]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Operation Icebolt was an anti-terrorist operation conducted by Durham and Cleveland Police Forces in co-operation with the Metropolitan Police in January 2002, and has been concluded. It is longstanding Government policy not to comment publicly on the details of anti-terrorist operations.

  Pathfinder Programmes
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the pilot areas for pathfinder programmes for convicted domestic violence offenders. [121946]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: Both the Prison and the Probation service are piloting programmes for domestic violence offenders.

  The Probation pilots are in west Yorkshire and London. The Prison service pilots are in Her Majesty's Prison Manchester and Her Majesty's Prison Acklington.

  Pet Cruelty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of pets being thrown from moving vehicles were reported to the police in the last 12 months. [122190]

  Ms Blears
  The requested details are not collected centrally.

  Police and Prison Expenditure
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total amount spent per head of population on(a) police, (b) prisons and (c) probation was in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [121957]

  Ms Blears
  The total amount spent per head of population by the Home Office on police, prisons and probation, based on the 2002–03 estimated outturn as published in the (A) Home Office departmental report 2003 (cm5908) (minus (B) depreciation) and (C) the
  641W
  Office for National Statistics' estimated mid-year resident population for England and Wales 2001 is set out in the following table.

  (A): Estimated expenditure (£)

  (B) Depreciation (£)

  (C): Total population

  (A-B)/C= Cost per head (£)

  Police

  6,815,251,000

  -8,088,000

  52,084,500

  130.69

  Prisons

  2,534,176,000

  -132,642,000

  52,084,500

  46.11

  Probation

  716,290,000

  -9,134,000

  52,084,500

  13.58

  Police Inspectors
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional responsibilities have been placed on police inspectors and chief inspectors by(a) legislation and (b) changes in policing methods since 1994. [121320]

  Ms Blears
  In recent years the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and other legislation has been amended so that the minimum rank for taking a number of important policing decisions has been reduced from superintendent to inspector. These include taking fingerprints, intimate and non-intimate samples without consent, authorising intimate searches and delaying a detained person's right to let someone know they have been arrested.

  New legislation has also given additional responsibilities to inspectors. For example, they are able to authorise the searching or examination of a detained person to ascertain their identity and to deny independent custody visitors access to a detained person. In certain circumstances they can authorise surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and approve searches for criminal cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).

  The way in which those powers are exercised, and the precise responsibilities given to officers at different ranks, depend on local decisions taken by individual chief constables and other police commanders. However, there has certainly been a very positive trend towards devolving decision making and responsibility from force headquarters to local managers.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were recruited in Humberside in each of the last five years; and how many were recruited in police authorities with similar size populations in the same period. [121716]

  Ms Blears
  By 30 September 2002 Humberside Police had 2,114 police officers, a record number. The force had 816 civilian support staff on 31 March 2002 (the latest figures).

  The table shows the number of officers recruited to Humberside Police and to the five other forces with most similar sized populations in the last five years for which figures are available.
  642W

  Force

  Year as at 31 March

  Officers Recruited (includes number funded by the Crime Fighting Fund)

  Humberside

  1998

  88

  1999

  48

  2000

  91

  2001

  98 (47)

  2002

  237 (41)

  Cheshire

  1998

  94

  1999

  112

  2000

  36

  2001

  108 (21)

  2002

  158 (76)

  Derbyshire

  1998

  66

  1999

  52

  2000

  79

  2001

  103 (65)

  2002

  112(50)

  Leicestershire

  1998

  118

  1999

  88

  2000

  67

  2001

  108 (37)

  2002

  150 (65)

  Norfolk

  1998

  84

  1999

  28

  2000

  43

  2001

  90 (41)

  2002

  99 (42)

  North Yorkshire

  1998

  65

  1999

  17

  2000

  10

  2001

  66 (4)

  2002

  99 (38)

  Policing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made by non-Home Office police forces in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [121959]

  Ms Blears
  Information is not collected centrally on arrests made by non-Home Office police forces.

  Prisons
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have been built with public money over the last 10 years; and when the construction of each such prison was ordered. [122919]

  Paul Goggins
  Since 1993, four prisons have been built with public money. The dates of order, interpreted here as the date the main construction contract was let, is not readily available and could now be ascertained only at disproportionate cost. They are:

  Prison

  Opened

  Lancaster Farms

  1993

  Blakenhurst

  1993

  Doncaster

  1994

  Buckley Hall

  1995

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) governing governors and (b) governor grades of prison establishments in England and Wales are from an ethnic minority group; [122967]
  643W
  (2) what proportion of staff in the Prison Service are from an ethnic minority group. [122968]

  Paul Goggins
  As at 30 June 2003, there was in the public sector, one senior operational manager in charge of an establishment recorded as coming from a minority ethnic group. A further two senior operational managers had no ethnicity data recorded in this group. Within the contracted prisons sector (i.e. private prisons), there is one minority ethnic manager in charge of an establishment.

  Out of the 1,258 senior operational managers in post on 31 May 2003 in the public sector, 35 were recorded as coming from a minority ethnic group, representing 2.8 per cent. of senior operational managers in this group. A further 85 (6.8 per cent.) had no ethnicity data recorded.

  Out of the 46,467 public sector staff in post on 31 May 2003, 2,425 were recorded as coming from a minority ethnic group, representing 5.2 per cent. of staff in this sector. A further 4,078 (8.8 per cent.) had no ethnicity data recorded.

  Within the contracted (i.e. private) prisons sector, 83 staff are recorded as coming from a minority ethnic group, representing 2.2 per cent. of the total contracted prisons staff.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of GDP was spent on prisons in(a) 1973, (b) 1981, (c) 1991 and (d) 2001; and what the expenditure was on prisons in real terms in each of those years. [122969]

  Paul Goggins
  The following table provides the information requested, for 1973, 1981, 1991 and 2001 and is based on Prison service costs. Because of changes over the years in the way that the Prison service's costs have been funded and measured, these figures will not be exactly comparable with each other.

  The level of expenditure in 1990–91 reflects an increased capital spend on new prisons at that time. In recent years such costs have been met through private finance initiative (PFI) contracts, with the capital costs being repaid over a long period.

  Prison Service Costs as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)

  GDP (£ million)

  Prison Service (£ million)

  Financial year

  Cash

  Real terms 2001–02

  Cash

  Real terms 2001–02

  Percentage

  1972–73

  67,167

  534,372

  78.3

  623.0

  0.12

  1980–81

  236,486

  592,111

  403.5

  1,010.3

  0.17

  1990–91

  563,735

  773,611

  1,341.5

  1,840.9

  0.24

  2000–01

  962,613

  986,682

  1,794.7

  1,839.6

  0.19

  Note:

  Prison Service costs include current and capital expenditure.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales have(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) doctors or nurses and (d) doctors and nurses available to practice health care (i) 24 hours a day, (ii) 12 hours a day, (iii) every other day, (iv) twice a week and (v) once a week. [122970]
  644W
  Paul Goggins
  The information is not available in the form requested. Under the Prison Act 1952, every prison must have a medical officer. The provision of health services in an establishment is organised around its health care centre.

  Health care centres fall into one of four categories according to the level of service provided and are staffed appropriately to fulfill their particular function. There are 23 Type 1 and 45 Type 2 health care centres at which only daytime health care cover is provided, generally by part-time staff in the former and full-time staff in the latter. There are 68 Type 3 health care centres, which have in-patient facilities and 24-hour nurse cover, and four Type 4 facilities, which have the same level of provision but act as national or regional assessment centres.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison officers are allowed to administer medication to prisoners; and what proportion of those officers have been given medical training. [122971]

  Paul Goggins
  Only nurses and health care officers—prison officers who have received specific training and work as part of the health care team—administer medication to prisoners. Where a health care officer is not nurse qualified they work under the clinical supervision of a registered nurse. The competencies for the safe administration of medicine are contained in the new national occupational standards for custodial health care set out in the Custodial Healthcare National Vocation Qualification (NVQ).

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of medication provided in prisons that would normally be administered in tablets is given in liquid form to prevent prisoners storing their medication. [122972]

  Paul Goggins
  The information is not available in the form requested. Prisons have a risk assessment process that will be undertaken before a prisoner is allowed to have medication in their possession. Not all medication can be made available in liquid form. Prison Health has published "A Pharmacy Service for Prisoners", available at www.doh.gov.uk/prisonhealth, which will help prisons to develop their pharmacy services.

  Police Radio Communications
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the operation of the system on the health of(a) the general public and (b) those using the system. [121942]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Safety Radio Communications Project is now known as Airwave and is currently being rolled out to all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland. The Airwave service is currently available to 14 forces and completion of the rollout is expected by mid-2005.

  We have taken independent expert advice on the health and safety aspects of the TETRA technology used by Airwave. The experts concluded that the specific features of TETRA were unlikely to pose a risk to the health of either the public or those using the system.
  645W
  We have set up an extensive programme of work monitored by independent scientists to address remaining areas of uncertainty. This has confirmed that all Airwave equipment conforms to international health and safety regulations. No adverse health effects have been found so far. Regular updates are available on our website (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html).

  TETRA
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 462W, to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), on TETRA, what funds have been allocated to the national health monitoring study of Airwave police users; and when he expects the study to report. [121852]

  Ms Blears
  £5 million has been allocated for the national health monitoring study of Airwave police users. This work includes two components: a long-term study to follow-up over 100,000 Airwave police users over 15 years, and a shorter-term detailed study of a small group of police officers. The detailed study will report after three years. The long-term study is statistical in nature and many years of data will be required to produce reliable results. An interim report will be available once five full years of data have been collected, some seven years from the start of the work. Regular updates on progress will be available on our website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many masts each of the police constabularies have in their area for use by the new TETRA system; how many new masts are required by each constabulary to ensure full service for the system; and what the anticipated date is by which each constabulary will have full coverage. [122147]

  Ms Blears
  Airwave is the new TETRA radio system for police forces in England, Wales and Scotland. The network is the responsibility of Airwave 02, the Private Finance Initiative partner for Airwave. It is estimated that around 3,000 masts will be required to provide coverage for Airwave across the country. Final figures for the number of new masts in each constabulary will not be available until the end of the rollout, as adjustments will continue to be made across the system in order to optimise coverage. Airwave is currently available to 14 forces and the rollout is expected to be complete by mid-2005.

  Robbery/Burglary Victims
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of(a) serious injury and (b) death there have been involving victims of (i) robbery and (ii) burglary in each of the past five years. [122111]

  Ms Blears
  (a) Data on the number of cases of serious injury involving victims of (i) robbery and (ii) burglary are not held centrally. The British Crime Survey (BCS) collects some information on injuries sustained in violent incidents. Violent incidents from the BCS can be classified into a violence typology comprised of domestic, mugging, stranger and acquaintance incidents. Violent crime from the BCS can also be
  646W
  separated into robbery, wounding, common assault, and snatch theft. The information regarding injuries sustained for this latter breakdown is not published prior to 2001–02 BCSinterviews.

  Mugging is a popular rather than a legal term, comprising robbery, attempted robbery and snatch theft from the person. The BCS does not cover incidents against those aged under 16 or those not living in private households. Available information is given in the following table.

  Injuries sustained in muggings (1998 BCS, 2000 BCS and 2001/02 BCS interviews)

  Percentages

  1998

  2000

  2001–02

  2001–02

  Minor bruise/black eye

  24

  14

  15

  18

  Severe bruising

  14

  12

  17

  21

  Scratches

  7

  10

  6

  7

  Cuts

  12

  4

  11

  13

  Broken bones

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Notes:

  1. Results for muggings should be treated with caution due to the small number of incidents.

  2. More than one type of physical injury may have occurred.

  3. More than one response was allowed.

  (b) The numbers of deaths arising from robbery and burglary during the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 are itemised in the following table. Deaths involving victims of robbery and burglary 1997–98 to 2001–02

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Robbery

  23

  28

  23

  23

  37

  Burglary

  13

  13

  9

  3

  12

  Total

  36

  41

  32

  26

  49

  Data as at 8 October 2002, figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Security (Royal Palaces)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of security at royal palaces; and if he will make a statement. [121918]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 867.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional security measures have been put in place at royal palaces at Windsor Castle since 21 June 2003. [121949]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 867. As she will appreciate, I cannot comment on the detail of security measures in place at Windsor Castle or other royal palaces, as to do so may compromise the safety of those the measures are designed to protect.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the
  647W
  Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122253]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Details of how many staff were in the Home Department and each agency and each non-departmental public body for which the Home Department is responsible, and their costs, are found in the annual Home Office Departmental Reports and in each individual body's annual report. All annual reports are presented to Parliament and copies are placed in the Library. The majority of the bodies have also posted recent annual reports on their websites.

  Sunset Clauses
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [120840]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The subject matter of much Home Office legislation is such that a sunset clause would be inappropriate. For example, the criminal law, rules on citizenship and immigration, the regulation of the police and the prisons are all topics on which it is unrealistic to believe that the controls can simply be abandoned. A sunset clause would just necessitate further legislation. Such a clause is included, however, in exceptional cases (such as in respect of some of the powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001).

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) retail outlets and (b) licensees were prosecuted for illegally providing alcohol to people aged under 18 during the last 12 months for which figures are available. [122011]

  Ms Blears
  155 persons were proceeded against in England and Wales in 2001 for the offence of 'Selling etc, intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 for consumption on the premises'. It is not possible in the statistics collected centrally, however, to distinguish between retail outlets and licensees.

  Statistics for 2002 will be available in December 2003.

  Campaign

  Column A

  Column B

  NHS careers recruitment

  Regional press, posters—£335,000

  TV

  Foreign press—£15,000

  National and regional press, women's magazines, minority ethnic press, professional press, radio, internet, six sheet posters

  NHS Direct

  Internet advertising—£250,000

  Internet advertising

  Older people campaign (Press and magazine advertising and 'advertorials')—£200,000,000

  Press and magazine advertising and 'advertorials'

  Smoking Cessation

  Terrestrial and satellite TV—£6.6 million

  Terrestrial and satellite TV

  Press and magazine

HEALTH

  "Liberating the Talents"
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made in implementing the recommendations in Liberating the Talents, published in 2002. [122458]

  Mr. Hutton
  Liberating the Talents provides a new framework for nursing in primary care to support the delivery of the NHS Plan. It is for primary care trusts (PCTs) to determine how they wish to implement the recommendations locally. PCTs are being supported by the Department to take forward Liberating the Talents through a range of work programmes. Workshops have been held in 26 of the 28 strategic health authorities for 290 PCTs, core elements of the framework have been included in the new general medical services contract and a guide one stablishing nurses with special interests has been published. The NHS University is piloting a learning programme to support nurses to provide first contact care, a new model of nurse-led managed care for patients at risk is being piloted in ten PCTs and we have set upinitiatives to support recruitment and retention of nurses in primary care.

  Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a national screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm. [122364]

  Mr. Hutton
  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) makes recommendations to Ministers on all aspects of screening programmes. It is currently considering the resource costs and workforce implications of implementing a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm, following the publication of a multi-centre study, funded by the Medical Research Council last year.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advertising campaigns his Department is(a) conducting and (b) planning for the next 12 months; and how much is being spent on each campaign in each advertising medium. [121644]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Major advertising campaigns committed to and planned by the Department of Health for 2003–04 are shown in the table. Column 'A' gives details of committed spend as at 30 June 2003. Column 'B' lists other advertising activity planned for the rest of this financial year (not yet agreed).
  649W

  Campaign

  Column A

  Column B

  Flu Immunisation

  National TV—£900,000

  Press—£500,000

  Bus/Tube Interiors—£200,000

  Online—£40,000

  Sexual Health

  Radio—£80,000

  Radio

  Mens/Womens magazines—£54,000

  Mens/Womens magazines

  Ambient/Posters

  Online

  Teenage Pregnancy

  Radio—£155,000

  Radio

  Teen magazines—£45,000

  Teen magazines

  Ambient/Posters

  Online

  Child Immunisation

  HIB Booster Campaign

  April-July National Press, regional press, parenting press, women's press—£360,000

  Parenting Press

  Programme support

  September TV—£1.12 million

  Drugs—FRANK

  TV—£1.55 million

  TV

  Radio—£800,000

  Radio

  Press—£350,000

  Press

  Ambient—£130,000

  Ambient

  Social Work/Care Recruitment

  National press—£275,000

  TV

  Cross track posters—£70,000

  National Press, Cross track, posters, internet

  Online—£60,000

  Access (Waiting, booking and Choice, Emergency Care and Patient Experience)/ Get the right treatment campaign

  Regional press, regional radio, outdoor, ambient advertising

  Agency Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 67W, on agency nurses, what information is collected on hours worked by agency nurses. [122801]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on hours worked by agency nurses is not collected centrally.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources were allocated to(a) research into and (b) treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in each year since 1997. [122641]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC's expenditure on research into attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is shown in the table.

  Because the MRC has changed the way in which information is kept, it does not have a set of complete records to compile figures for 1997–99 in this particular area.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  0.62

  2000–01

  0.63

  2001–02

  0.53

  2002–03

  not available

  650W
  Since 2001, the Economic and Social Research Council has funded a £45,000 research project on screening and interventions for inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity in school age children. These problems are associated with ADHD but are not by themselves definitive indicators of the disorder.

  Expenditure on the treatment of ADHD is not separately identifiable within overall spending on child and adolescent mental health services.

  Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the treatment available for benign prostatic hyperplasia. [122450]

  Mr. Hutton
  Specialist urological services for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are available widely around the country and a significant number of men can be treated by their family doctor. In recent years, drug treatments and surgery for the disease have greatly improved.

  Treatment can be given by medicines which can either help to relax the muscle fibres within the prostate or decrease the size of the gland. The most common surgical operation is an endoscopic surgical procedure where parts of enlarged tissue are removed.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has just finished consulting on two procedures under the interventional procedures programme. They are examining transurethral electrovaporisation of the prostate, which is a minimally invasive alternative to standard treatment, and transurethral needle ablation of the prostate. Guidance on the safety andefficacy of both techniques should be published in the autumn by the interventional procedures programme.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibilities his Department undertakes in connection with British Overseas Territories. [123900]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are reciprocal health agreements between the United Kingdom and those populated territories which wished to have such agreements; that is, with Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St. Helena and Turks and Caicos Islands. The agreements cover immediately necessary treatment for temporary visitors travelling in both directions. They also provide that some patients may be referred by the territories specifically for treatment of a pre-existing condition to the UK where appropriate facilities are not available in the territory concerned. The UK also represents the interests of the territories at the relevant regional committees of the World Health Organisation.

  Care Homes (Essex)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are waiting in hospitals in Essex for placements in care homes. [122887]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Management information from Essex Strategic Health Authority shows that, as at week ending 29 June 2003, there were fifteen patients in hospitals in Essex awaiting placements in care homes.

  Carers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has collated on the number of full time, non professional, carers broken down by(a) local authority area and (b) disability or other condition of the person cared for. [123442]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Cable, dated 7 July 2003:

  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what information has been collated on the number of full-time, non professional, carers broken down by (a) local authority area and (b) disability or other conditions of the person cared for.(123442)

  The principal source of information on the number of carers in England and Wales is the decennial Census of population. The question on unpaid caring in the 2001 Census asked for the number of hours spent caring which were not part of any paid employment. The number of people in England and Wales who provide unpaid care and who were not otherwise employed is shown in "Table S026 (Sex and economic activity by general health and provision of unpaid care)" of the Census 2001 National Report for England and Wales, which was published on 7 May 2003. A copy of this report was placed in the House of Commons Library. The corresponding figures for each of the 376 local authorities in England and Wales are available on CD-ROM, a copy of which is also available in the House of Commons Library. A further table in the National Report for England and Wales "Table S027 (Households with a person with a limiting long-term illness (LLTI) and their age by number of carers in household and economic activity)", which you might find useful is also broken down by local authority and is on the same CD-ROM.
  652W
  The Census did not ask for characteristics of the person cared for and it is not therefore possible to answer part (b) of your question with information from the 2001 Census.

  Information on unpaid caring in Scotland and Northern Ireland is available from the General Register Offices of those countries.

  Hospitals (Children)
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which NHS hospital trusts rated two star and above have major hospital sites with an accident and emergency department that does not admit children for minor injuries; [122345]

  (2) which casualty departments in NHS hospitals rated two star and above are assessed as being unsafe for the admittance of children. [122346]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested on services provided by accident and emergency departments is not collected centrally. The range of services a particular trust provides, including whether or not they offer children's services, is not a factor in the centralised star rating system. Star ratings measure the services that are delivered by a trust and not all trusts can or should deliver the same range of services.

  Many decisions on service provision are based on considerations of clinical safety. This is why the pattern of local health services, within national priorities, is a matter for local health planners to decide, based on the needs of the local population.

  Chronic Pain Services
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken to ensure a quality service in all areas in respect of access to pain management services; if he will list those acute hospitals which do not provide a chronic pain service; if he will make it his policy to require the health authorities in each area to provide for constant coverage for pain relief; and if he will make a statement. [122738]

  Mr. Hutton
  Pain management is an important component of care. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report on pain services, published in April 2000, highlighted variations in access to pain services throughout the country. It made recommendations to national health service acute trusts and commissioners on how pain services should be delivered in order to reduce variations to access. It recommended that primary care trust commissioners should review local provision of pain services, looking particularly at the provision of more specialised treatments on a networked basis. In this review, account should be taken of the needs of both adults and children, and include patients with acute pain resulting from sudden illness or accident, as well as post-operative pain and chronic pain. Trusts should also agree with commissioners the services and resources which are appropriate to meet local needs.

  The Department of Health does not collect information on those trusts which do not provide a chronic pain service. The CSAG report showed that, in April 2000, chronic pain services existed in 215 acute NHS trusts, which amounts to 86 per cent. of acute trusts in the United Kingdom.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new entrants to the civil service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119826]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  1 April-31 March

  50 plus

  Other

  Total

  1997–98

  17

  108

  125

  1998–99

  20

  190

  210

  1999–2000

  15

  231

  246

  2000–01

  34

  348

  382

  2001–02

  53

  391

  444

  Note:

  The figures shown in the table represent data for the years from 1997–98 to 2001–02, for the number of permanent staff recruited into the Department of Health. The figures shown are the overall figures including any departmental agencies and were obtained from the Department of Health's personnel database.

  Clinical Diagnostics
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to increase the level of laboratory diagnostic testing for clinical diagnosis. [122342]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan set out the vision for the national health service to offer patients fast and convenient care offered to a consistently high standard. Extra resources for the NHS were announced in the 2002 Budget, with an annual average increase of 7.4 per cent. above inflation—the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding—over the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. As part of this, we are investing £54 million capital and £9.1 million revenue specifically in pathology services over the three year period from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  The Department of Health recognises the vital role of pathology services in the effective treatment and care of patients, and in providing fast and effective diagnoses to support improved access to services. We have set up the pathology modernisation programme to ensure that pathology services provide the appropriate diagnostic support for clinical services.

  We are currently revising our draft document for the NHS on modernising pathology services and plan to publish it shortly.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define 'any' person under Clause 84(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; who will be able to request copies of a report; whether individuals who appear in CSCI reports will have their right to privacy protected; and whether a person requesting a copy of a CSCI report will be required to give notice of their request. [122934]

  Dr. Ladyman
  'Any person' in this context would include an individual or a legal person (such as a company). The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) must make reports available to any person on 654W
  request. There is no requirement to give notice of a request. We would expect CSCI to deal with all requests for copies of reports within a reasonable time.

  CSCI will be subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the common law of confidentiality in handling personal information relating to individuals. Under normal circumstances, we would not expect that the CSCI will include personal data relating to identifiable individuals in its reports.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what a reasonable time will be under Clause 85(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; if the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will be required to give notice of their intention to inspect; if he will define the term 'reasonably believes to be used' under Clause 85(2)(b); what evidence CSCI will be required to produce that a premises should be inspected; and who will provide the authority to enter and inspect under Clause 85(3). [122952]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It will be for the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) to determine what constitutes a reasonable time under clause 82 (formerly 85) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. The purpose of this clause is to allow the CSCI to conduct an inspection of a premise at any time of the full 24-hour day so long as it is justifiable given the needs of the inspection. Whether it would be reasonable to give advance notice of an individual inspection would be a decision that the CSCI would have to make in the light of the particular circumstances.

  CSCI would be able to enter premises that it reasonably believed were being used in connection with the provision of English local authority social services. It is not proposed that the Bill will define the term "reasonably believed". Essentially, CSCI will have to establish that, at the time of entry to the premises, they genuinely believed on reasonable grounds that the premises were being used to provide local authority social services. CSCI's power and authority to inspect is derived from clause 82 of the Bill. Clause 82(3) of the Bill, requires a person proposing to exercise rights of inspection to produce a duly authenticated document showing their right to inspect. This will be proof of their identity and position within CSCI.

  Condoms
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on distributing free condoms among prisoners. [123302]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Policy on prison health issues is determined in partnership between the Home Office and the Department of Health. Prison doctors have been advised that they can make condoms available to individual prisoners, on application, where, in their clinical judgment, there is a risk of infection from HIV.

  Consultants (Private Medicine)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements are made for consultants carrying out private work in NHS hospitals to reimburse the NHS for NHS-paid-for parts and materials from NHS stores. [122889]
  655W
  Mr. Hutton
  Before allowing patients to be treated privately in their facilities, national health service hospitals are required to obtain undertakings from (or on behalf of) those patients to pay for the accommodation and services they are to receive. That includes the materials and other goods to be used in their treatment.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an independent assessment of how the NHS uses(a) criteria and (b) procedures for determining eligibility for continuing care. [123300]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The Department is currently commissioning an independent review of arrangements for fully funded continuing care in the national health service.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve career opportunities in dentistry for(a) nurses, (b) therapists and (c) hygienists. [122627]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are working with the General Dental Council on a review of the extent to which professionals complementary to dentistry can undertake the practice and business of dentistry in order to develop team working in dentistry. We are also considering proposals for the development of competency-based modular training programmes, which would, in the longer-term, facilitate movement between the different dental professions.

  Electronic Documents
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which he is responsible. [116394]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not keep central records of systems bought by the authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

  The Department is currently rolling out an electronic records management product developed in-house, while a number of solutions are being considered for the Department's executive agencies to meet local business needs.

  Euthanasia
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Government will make it its policy to oppose legislation that seeks to legalise euthanasia; and if he will make a statement. [124182]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government welcomes public debate on this issue and will listen carefully to the arguments put forward by all sides. However, any proposal to change the law in this area would need to be considered very carefully and the Government have no plans to change the current law.
  656W
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the Patient (Assisted Dying) Bill. [124183]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government welcomes public debate on this issue and we shall take careful note of what is said in the debates as the noble Lord Joffe's Bill is considered. However, any proposal to change the law in this area would need to be considered very carefully and we have no plans to change the current law.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans(a) his Department and (b) the Food Standards Agency have to meet the European Commission and the European Food Safety Authority to discuss the concerns of UK industry on the omission from Annex 1 and Annex 2 of the Food Supplements Directive of nutrients permitted for use in the UK; [120640]

  (2) what recent meetings Ministers in his Department have had with representatives of the Health Food Manufacturers Association to discuss the Food Supplements Directive; what issues were discussed at the meetings; and what action he intends to take as a result. [120641]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, (Ms Blears) met with representatives of the Health Food Manufacturer's Association to discuss the Food Supplements Directive on 9 June 2003. Issues covered in discussion fell under four main headings: nutrients and nutrient sources missing from Annexes I and II in the Food Supplements Directive and requirements for safety dossiers; the recently-published report of the expert group on vitamins and minerals and advice on safe upper levels therein; future setting of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements at European Union level; and plans for future action on chromium picolinate.

  The Government, represented by the Food Standards Agency, is pressing the European Food Safety Authority for an urgent, substantive meeting with relevant parties to discuss dossier requirements and expects a positive response soon. The European Commission supports this move. The objectives of such a meeting would be to explain problems faced by the United Kingdom food supplements industry resulting from the omission of nutrients and nutrient sources from the Annexes to the Food Supplements Directive; and to explore the potential for simplified dossiers to be presented for vitamin and mineral sources with a long history of safe use and the potential for read-across between dossiers for substances which are likely to have similar toxicological profiles

  Further, to ensure that the Government's policy objectives for regulation of food supplements in the EU are met, the Government continues to press for maximum limits for nutrients in food supplements to be based on thorough risk assessment and set at levels which protect public health, but which neither unnecessarily

  657W
  limit consumer choice nor unduly restrict trade. The Government continues to press this view strongly with other Member States at every opportunity.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the percentage of electors who will register to become voting members of a foundation trust; and what estimate he has made of likely turnout. [123579]

  Mr. Hutton
  The membership of a National Health Service foundation trust must be sufficient to ensure that a board of governors can be elected fairly and transparently according to its constitution. Each NHS foundation trust's constitution must also set a minimum number of members, which must be appropriate for that NHS foundation trust, and which will form part of the local consultation on governance issues.

  General Anaesthetic
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children complained of pain during operations using general anaesthetic in the last three years. [122393]

  Mr. Hutton
  This data is not collected centrally.

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that(a) powers to make regulations under clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill shall be exercisable by Statutory Instrument and (b) that such instruments shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution, of each House of Parliament. [120305]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Subsections 174(4) and (5) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill stipulate that any power to make regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.

  The regulation making powers provided to the Secretary of State under sections 60(1), 60(7) and 60(8) will therefore subject to negative resolution procedure.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that a court order from a County Court should be issued prior to the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection entering and inspecting(a) any premises owned or controlled by (i) an NHS body, (ii) a local authority and (b) other premises. [120391]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health with reference to clause 100 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, whether it is his policy that advice given to him by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection should be done by written report which should be published. [120234]
  658W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Subsection (4) of new section 5A of the Care Standards Act 2000, as inserted by Clause 100, places the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) under a duty to provide advice or information on such matters in relation to independent health services as the Secretary of State may request. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to publish such advice.

  Subsection (3) of new section 5A also places a general duty on the CHAI to keep the public informed about the provision of independent health services in England and in particular about the availability and quality of such services. It will be for CHAI to determine how best to provide and publish such advice.

  Health Service Ombudsman
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the oral answer by the Prime Minister of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 1040, how the conclusions and recommendations in the Health Service Ombudsman Report (HC399) would give rise to the cost consequences he described. [124040]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The costs consequences described would flow from making all personal care free.

  Health Services (Turkish Cypriots)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health services will be available on the NHS to Turkish Cypriot visitors to the UK after Cyprus joins the EU; and if he will make a statement. [123187]

  Mr. Hutton
  The health care co-ordination arrangements contained in Regulations (EEC) 1408/71 and 574/72 apply to all persons legally resident in a member state who are insured for health care in a member state. Insured persons who temporarily visit another Member State are entitled to immediately necessary health care in the state being visited. This will apply equally to Turkish Cypriot visitors to the United Kingdom if the Turkish part of Cyprus accedes.

  Hospital Mortuaries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has held in the last six months with strategic health authorities concerning security at hospital mortuaries. [122158]

  Mr. Hutton
  There have been no general discussions with strategic health authorities concerning security at national health service mortuaries within the last six months. Day-to-day responsibility for security lies with the particular NHS body that manages the mortuary.

  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service, launched on 1 April 2003, is currently reviewing the management of security within the NHS.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of security at hospital mortuaries. [122171]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no general assessment of security at hospital mortuaries. This is a matter for local national health service trusts.
  659W
  The Counter Fraud and Security Management Service, launched on 1 April 2003, is currently reviewing the management of security within the NHS.

  Hospital Radio Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the provision of hospital radio services. [122196]

  Mr. Hutton
  Hospital radio stations have provided an invaluable service to patients for many years. It is for the national health service trust to determine the provision of hospital radio services within its area.

  Local Authority Fees
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average fees are which local authorities pay each week for the care of(a) an elderly resident in a care home and (b) a child with behavioural and emotional difficulties in residential accommodation. [123351]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not available in the detail requested. However, the average gross weekly expenditure per person on supporting older people in residential and nursing care is £336, which includes the fees of those who meet the full cost of their care and those whose costs are met by councils in England. This data relates to the year ended 31 March 2002, which is the most recent data available. Information about the costs of children in residential accommodation is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommended square meterage of living space per patient in a mental health hospital is. [122388]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Space standards are identified in schedules of accommodation, as part of Hospital Building Notes for individual new hospital departments. Health Building Note 35 provides guidance on accommodation for people with mental illness, including a recommended area of 15 square metres for individual bedrooms with en-suite facilities.

  MRSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is available to NHS trusts on communicating a diagnosis of MRSA to patients. [120077]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no specific national guidance on how to inform patients of a methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection.

  As patients with MRSA and other conditions may need supporting information, the Department has produced a generic toolkit for creating patient information locally. This is available at http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsidentity/toolkit-patientinfo.pdf. Alternatively, trusts may prefer to use existing materials such as the Health Protection Agency's new leaflet "MRSA—Information for patients".

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 484W, if he will list the NHS trusts and the
  660W
  number of special care baby unit cots which were added in error to the number of neonatal intensive care cots in March 1999. [122209]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The information requested is not currently available. The Department is starting a project to correct the historical data with the national health service trusts involved, so that an accurate time series of neonatal intensive care cot provision can be provided.

  NHS Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the star ratings system of performance monitoring in the NHS; what plans he has to amend the arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [123055]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service star ratings system is based on assessment of performance against key targets, other performance indicators and reports published by the Commission for Health Improvement.

  Improvements have been made to the star ratings since they were first published in September 2001, with the inclusion of consultation exercises with the NHS when deciding new performance indicators. We expect this to continue when, subject to Parliamentary approval, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection is established and takes on responsibility for the future development of publication of star ratings.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on implementation of National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommendations that are not being met. [122241]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Desmond Turner) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 483W.

  Organ Retention
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Isaacs report on organ retention in the NHS; what plans he has to change procedures; and if he will make a statement. [123035]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We are considering the report by Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy and will publish our response shortly. Following earlier advice from the Chief Medical Officer, we have already made significant changes to procedures and communications with families at the time of post mortem. We shall introduce a new Human Tissue Bill as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Osteoporosis and Related Fractures
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the incidence was of osteoporosis and related fractures in 2002–03; [122318]

  (2) how many hip fractures there were in each of the last five years. [122319]
  661W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on osteoporosis and related fractures in 2002–03 are not yet available. Information for 2001–02 shows that there were 9,524 finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where osteoporosis with related fracture was recorded in national health service hospitals in England.

  The number of FCEs where hip fracture was recorded in NHS hospitals in England in the last five years is shown in the table.

  Number

  1997–98

  19,628

  1998–99

  16,416

  1999–2000

  16,596

  2000–01

  16,374

  2001–02

  16,315

  The average (mean) FCEs per year over the five year period is 17,066.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the questions from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham refs. 108820 and 108822, tabled on 8 April and refs. 116467 and 116468 tabled on 3 June. [124043]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the dates on which the hon. Member's questions were answered.

  UIN

  Date reply sent

  Official Report

  108820

  28 April

  87W

  108822

  28 April

  86W

  116467

  3 July

  484W

  116468

  3 July

  484W

  Patient Safety
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the operation of the national system for reporting and preventing accidents and errors in the NHS and the work of the National Patient Safety Agency; [121635]

  (2) what steps he is taking to tackle incidents of clinical negligence resulting from identity errors occurring in NHS facilities. [121636]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government has established the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) to improve the safety of national health service patient care by promoting an open and fair culture and by introducing a national reporting and learning system for patient safety incidents.

  The NPSA has completed an extensive testing and development phase for its national reporting and learning system, which has involved work with 39 NHS trusts in England and Wales, reflecting a range of healthcare settings, and wide consultation with experts in data collection, risk management and statistical analysis. The NPSA will begin to roll out the reporting system nationally from the autumn of 2003.
  662W
  A vital part of the NPSA's work is to identify key areas of concern for patient safety in the NHS and to develop solutions to prevent errors being repeated.

  As one area for potential patient safety solutions, the NPSA is examining the role of manual and technological solutions in ensuring that patients receive the healthcare which is intended for them. It has commissioned research to identify best practice already in place in the NHS, and explore the potential to transfer technologies in use in other sectors, such as biometrics (for example, using iris recognition or thumb printing as a unique identifier). The national reporting and learning system will, in time, enable the NPSA to develop a much clearer national picture of the extent of patient mismatching.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health following the introduction of the weighted capitation formula from 1 April, how many primary care trusts in England and Wales are receiving funding of(a) more and (b) less than 100 per cent.;and what action he is taking to ensure that those receiving less than 100 per cent. will receive their full funding allocation in future years. [123905]

  Mr. Hutton
  As a result of the 2003–06 allocations, all primary care trusts (PCTs) in England will make progress towards their target shares of resources, as determined by the new formula.

  Information on distances from target for PCTs in England for 2003–04 is available in the Library.

  Funding for health bodies in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Prisoners (Dental Health)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in improving dental health for prisoners. [123304]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A "Strategy for Modernising Dental Services for Prisons in England" has been developed and was published at the end of April as a Prison Service Instruction.

  The strategy will support prison health care managers in developing their dental services based on clear recommendations and in line with modernisation within the national health service. It also contains practical advice on service specification, outlines effective ways of commissioning dentists and explains how all developments need to be built on robust clinical governance arrangements. There is a three-year investment plan, to support the implementation of the strategy.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total pre-build public subsidy was in all the private finance initiative hospitals that are open. [122182]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: There are no pre-build public subsidies involved in private finance initiative schemes.
  663W
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total amount was of money gained from land sales by NHS Trust Private Finance Initiative Consortia. [122183]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: Assets which prove to be surplus to requirements of hospitals are disposed of to realise additional resources for the national health service under both the private finance initiative (PFI) and the public capital funding route. Surplus land may be sold to the PFI partner as part of the PFI scheme in return for a reduction in the unitary charge payable over the project life. Any such disposals must be for at least open market value based on independent valuation from the district valuer.

  Information on the value of land involved in major PFI schemes which have become operational is collected annually for the Health Select Committee's public expenditure inquiry. Last year figures were presented for the 12 major schemes which had opened; these are shown in the table. To update this information outside of the annual health service circular data collection exercise would involve disproportionate cost.

  (£ million)

  Trust

  Value of land involved in PFI contract

  Dartford and Gravesham

  22

  Carlisle

  No land involved

  South Buckinghamshire

  4

  Norfolk and Norwich

  No land involved

  North Durham

  3

  Greenwich

  13

  Calderdale

  No land involved

  South Manchester

  No land involved

  Barnet and Chase Farm (Wellhouse)

  8

  Worcester Royal

  4

  Hereford Hospitals

  No land involved

  South Durham (Bishop Auckland)

  0.3

  Private Healthcare
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the terms of the offer to tender for diagnostic treatment centres to private health companies will differ from those being offered to health care trusts for similar services; and what rate of return he expects to include in such contracts. [121458]

  Mr. Hutton
  Independent sector diagnosis and treatment centre (DTC) contracts will be service-based contracts and not subject to rate of return regulation: bids have been invited for given volumes of clinical activity, particularly activity needed by national health service commissioners to meet 2005 waiting times targets. In the medium-term, as set out in Delivering the NHS Plan, the intention is that independent sector DTCs will operate under a single system of regulation, inspection and healthcare resource group tariffs, across public and private sectors.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information must be made available to patients about(a) the expertise and training of staff in independent clinics or hospitals and (b) the level of available emergency care in that facility. [123037]
  664W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Regulation 6 of the Private and Voluntary Health Care Regulations made under the Care Standards Act 2000 requires the registered person of each independent health care establishment or agency to compile a written statement of purpose, to be available for inspection by every patient and person acting on behalf of a patient. Schedule 1 to the Regulations lists the information that must be contained in the statement of purpose, which includes:the number, relevant qualifications and experience of the registered provider, manager and staff (including medical practitioners) working there; and the kinds of treatment and services provided, the needs they are intended to meet, and the facilities available for patients.

  Regulation 7 requires the registered person to produce a written patients' guide. This must include, among other detailed information:
  a summary of the statement of purpose;
  either a copy of the most recent National Care Standards Commission's inspection report on the organisation, or information on how to obtain it; and
  the terms, conditions, and details of charges payable for all aspects of the treatment and services described in the statement of purpose.

  There are many further references to patient consultation and information in the national minimum standards, in particular relating to patients' rights, privacy and dignity, involving patients in decisions about their treatment, and obtaining properly informed consent.

  The Private and Voluntary Health Care Regulations and National Minimum Standards are published as a priced document in one volume, Independent Health Care, National Minimum Standards, Regulations by The Stationery Office. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Public Benefit Corporations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations led him to stipulate £1 as being the appropriate fee to register as a member of a public benefit corporation. [123577]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill requires that a person may not be a member of a public benefit corporation unless he has agreed to pay a sum not exceeding £1. The requirement to agree to make a nominal payment to become a member of a public benefit corporation is not a membership fee but represents a commitment to the national health service foundation trust.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expected cost is of maintaining a register of members of public benefit corporations. [123578]

  Mr. Hutton
  The costs of maintaining a register of members will vary depending upon the size of the membership of a Public benefit corporation. The new arrangements build on existing arrangements for patient and public involvement—much of the activity is not entirely new and will not therefore generate new costs.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in the public-private initiative in the NHS; what targets have been set; and what performance has been measured. [120908]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan committed us to opening over 100 new hospital schemes in total between 2000 and 2010. Currently, there are 114 hospital schemes counting towards the 100 target, of which 104 will be built under the Private Finance Initiative. Of the 104, 31 are now operational and a further 17 are under construction.

  Radiology
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has for IT development to enable radiology consultants in the NHS to access images from their homes when on duty; [123161]

  (2) if he will list the hospital trusts who have invested in ISDN lines for computers, to enable consultant radiologists to access images from their homes when on duty. [123162]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about local investment in ISDN lines by trusts is not held centrally.

  Access to radiology images online is part of the integrated care records service (ICRS), which is core to the National Programme for Information Technology. This supports the implementation of the national strategic programme, "Delivering 21st Century IT-Support for the NHS" which was announced by my noble Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, following the publication of "Delivering the NHS Plan" 11 June 2002.

  Phase 1 of ICRS to December 2004 will provide clinicians with the capability to email, browse internet/intranet sites and view basic clinical information relating to their patients (demographics, limited clinical correspondence and laboratory and radiology results), whether they were in primary, community or secondary care settings.

  It is a matter for local trusts to determine whether and how to provide access to patient records, including radiology images, in the light of local working practices and national security and confidentiality guidance.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the medical profession concerning the possible benefits of the use of biologic drugs Etanercept and infliximab as an early treatment to halt the development of rheumatoid arthritis. [124266]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We are not aware of having received any representations from the medical profession on this subject. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence reported on these drugs in 2002, so we would expect that any representations would have been received them. There has, however, been correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members and the public, as well as several Parliamentary Questions, on anti-TNF therapy.
  666W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent by the NHS on the(a) use of biologic drugs Etanercept and infliximab as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and (b) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including methotrexate in each of the last five years. [124267]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The use of these groups of drugs (all fall within BNF 10.1.3, Rheumatic Disease Suppressant drugs) in the community is negligible. They are used extensively in hospitals. We do not hold information centrally about expenditure on drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of schizophrenics had access to cognitive behavioural therapy in the last year for which figures are available. [122405]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the percentage of schizophrenics with access to cognitive behavioural therapy is not collected centrally.

  Staffing
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what difficulties in(a) recruitment and (b) staff retention were recorded in each NHS trust in England in the latest year for which statistics are available, broken down by (i) speciality, (ii) area of work and (iii) the skills and qualifications required. [119772]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health collects a three month vacancy survey that offers statistics broken down by speciality and area of work and which measures the recruitment and retention position in each NHS Trust. The results of the vacancy survey for March 2002 are available in the Library. Results for March 2003 are expected to be available in July 2003.

  Urology
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the trusts which have been successful in applying for Action On Funding for urology patients. [122415]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Action On Urology pilot sites were announced on 9 May 2003. Each pilot site will receive £94,000 to fund projects over 18 months.

  Details of the pilot sites and copies of the press notices are available at www.modern.nhs.uk/action-on, and have been placed in the Library.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) targets he has set and (b) guidance he has issued relating to the treatment of patients who have had their operation cancelled more than once. [121751]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 1 April 2002, as part of the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee, if a patient has their operation cancelled by the hospital on the day of surgery for non-clinical reasons, the hospital will have to
  667W
  offer another binding date within a maximum of the next 28 days or fund the patient's treatment at the time and hospital of the patient's choice. From 1 April 2003, the guarantee has been extended to cover patients cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons at the last minute, for example, on the day of admission to hospital.

  National health service trusts are also required to treat patients who have had their operation cancelled within maximum waiting times for inpatient treatment. There are no specific guidelines on how to treat patients whose operation has been cancelled more than once. General guidance on utilising operating theatres more effectively and managing cancelled operations has been provided through the Modernisation Agency's operating theatre and pre-operative assessment
  668W
  programmes. This guidance is entitled "Tackling Cancelled Operations and Step Guide to Improving Operating Theatre Performance" and can be found at www.modern.nhs.uk/theatreprogramme.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the potential impact of the European Working Time Directive on junior doctors. [120581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has issued guidance to the national health service—HSC 2003/001 'Protecting Staff, Delivering Services—implementing the European Working Time Directive for Doctors in Training' and is funding a series of implementation workshops. A copy has been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Special EU Programmes Body
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Copies of the Special EU Programmes Body: Annual Report and Accounts for 2001 have today been laid in Parliament.

  Chief Electoral Officer
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, Denis Stanley, is responsible for all aspects of electoral administration in Northern Ireland, including the conduct of all elections and referendums, as well as electoral registration. In accordance with section 14 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, the Chief Electoral Officer is required to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State.

  I am pleased to announce that the annual report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for the year 2002–03 has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in both Libraries.

HEALTH

  "Saving Lives, Valuing Donors"
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  We are publishing today Saving Lives, Valuing Donors—A Transplant Framework for England, setting out our key aims for organ and tissue transplantation over the next 10 years. It describes good practice based on national and international evidence, which we believe will help save lives and maximise the benefits of organ and tissue transplantation.

  Copies of Saving Lives, Valuing Donors—A Transplant Framework for England have been placed in the Library.

  Foundation Trusts
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton)
  The Government's response to Second Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health, on foundation trusts, (Cm. 5876), has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Iraq
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  The Ministry of Defence is publishing today Operations in Iraq 2003: First Reflections, an initial
  42WS
  report on the recent combat operations in Iraq. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  This initial report provides an authoritative account of the campaign and the contribution which has been made by the UK's armed forces. It also reflects on the early conclusions which we can draw from the combat operations and their implications for future defence policy.

  Within the Ministry of Defence, a thorough examination is under way into all elements of the operations in Iraq, and gathering evidence from those involved at all levels. Detailed analysis—to inform a definitive assessment of the effectiveness of our equipment, military strategy and planning processes—will take some months to complete. The reflections in this report are therefore inevitably broad and of a provisional nature. We hope to publish a full report before the end of the year.

  Our armed forces are continuing to perform a vital and difficult job in Iraq, helping the Iraqi people to establish a functioning infrastructure and creating the conditions for a stable new government. I pay tribute to their magnificent work, which is demonstrating once again the exceptional quality and dedication of our servicemen and women.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Development Agencies
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  I have published the Regional Development Agencies' reported Tier 3 outputs for 2002–03. These impressive figures are evidence of how the RDAs are making a concrete difference in every region. The figures cover the creation and safeguarding of jobs, amount of brownfield land brought back into use, numbers of businesses added to the regional economies and the number of learning opportunities. These results, which are in line with their challenging targets are testimony to the hard work and commitment of staff working in RDAs and their regional partners.

  Also published today are the results of regional surveys of stakeholders' perception of RDAs' performance, which were conducted by MORI, on the behalf of DTI. These results show that although RDAs are relatively new organisations their stakeholders are generally satisfied with their performance and feel that they are addressing the right priorities. The majority of stakeholders thought that RDAs have been successful at developing coherent Regional Economic Strategies and working effectively as lead partners to deliver regional initiatives. The surveys also highlighted the need for RDAs to work harder to communicate clearly what they are trying to achieve and to publicise their activities better.

  Press releases on the Tier 3 outputs and the regional surveys results have been issued in each region. Copies of these press releases, the regional survey reports and the Tier 3 output figures for 2003–03 have been placed

  43WS
  in the Libraries. MORI's reports on the regional surveys have also been placed on Government office websites. Links to the reports and more information about the RDAs and their performance is available on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/rda/info/index.htm.

  Information and Consultation Directive
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  A consultation document on the EC 44WS
  Information and Consultation directive is being published today. The directive gives new rights to employees in larger firms to be informed and consulted on workplace issues which are likely to affect them. It sets out proposals for legislation to implement the directive, to come into force by March 2005. The public is invited to comment on the proposed legislation by 7 November 2003. The consultation document is available on the DTI website at www.dti.gov.uk/er. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

European Constitution
Lord Blackwell Lord Blackwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will undertake to provide Parliament with an article by article analysis of the draft European Constitution, setting out where and how proposed European Union powers differ from those in existing treaties and what scope is provided for the future extension of European Union powers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government will produce two Command Papers in July on the work of the convention and a White Paper in advance of the intergovernmental conference due to begin in October.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will the Command Papers or the White Paper set out the detailed analysis that I requested in my Question? Secondly, given the complexity of the issues, will it be possible for officials to be made available to brief Members of the House on some of the issues, perhaps through the Joint Committee on the European convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, so far only parts 1, 2 and 4 of the convention are in draft. We hope to have part 3 later this week. The two documents on the convention will be largely factual statements of what is contained, although I understand that there will be a foreword by my right
2
honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on the documents dealing with the convention. They will not contain the detailed analysis that the noble Lord is looking for. We will publish the White Paper in preparation for the IGC, as we have done for previous IGCs. I cannot be definitive about the form of that White Paper, but I take the noble Lord's point that it is important to have some documentation that describes more of the detail. I cannot tell the noble Lord whether we will do it article by article for 460 articles, but I have discussed it with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. We are seized of the issue and we will endeavour to be helpful to Members of this House and another place.
Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the eventual ratification of the treaty will require the full informed consent of the British people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been over this before. If by that the noble Lord means to imply a referendum, I am sorry to have to disappoint him, as I have had to disappoint some of your Lordships on previous occasions. As your Lordships are aware, in Britain Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise treaties before ratification. That has happened with all the European treaties since we joined the European Community and that is planned for this treaty too.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, could we hear the noble Lord, Lord Howell, first and then perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply. We are dealing with extremely contentious issues. At the very least we should be talking about Green Papers and Select

3
Committee inquiries rather than White Papers and Command Papers. We have learnt not to have much trust in some of the Government's publications and dossiers. These issues have two or three sides and need very thorough public debate. Is the Minister really saying that we are going straight from here to White Papers on what amounts to a new Treaty of Rome, encompassing all the previous treaty legislation for the European Union? Is she really saying that the issue can be settled by just White Papers and parliamentary debate when eight other countries are going to have referendums, the constitutional implications are clear and the outcome is highly debatable and will influence this country for years to come? Her proposals are inadequate.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have not proposed anything except to say that there are definitely plans for two Command Papers and one White Paper. I have not ruled anything out. I specifically told the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that Her Majesty's Government would try to be as helpful as possible on the issue and that I was discussing it with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister for Europe. I understand that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships' House has already made a request similar to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. I am sure that the European scrutiny committee will also have a view on the issue. I am happy to talk to the chairmen or to the full committees, both of which have a strong interest in this matter, to learn what they would find helpful. The specific suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, has not been ruled out. I made it clear that it was under discussion.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, we very much welcome the Government's commitment to publish their view, particularly in view of the fact that, on Friday at the last plenary session of the convention, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, felt moved to list so many objections to the draft of part 3, which was in front of the convention, that it almost called in question the Prime Minister's judgment that the convention's findings form a basis for negotiation. Can the Minister make it clear that in one or other of their publications, the Government's objections—which now look far greater in number than those of any other participant in the convention—will be made available so that we can decide whether, once again, we resemble the Scottish mother looking at her son marching with the soldiery, saying, "Look, look, they are all out of step but our Jock"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as we know, there is a wide variety of views about the convention, not only in your Lordships' House but elsewhere. The Government's detailed position will be set out in a White Paper published in preparation for the IGC. That will explain the Government's position on the issues in relation to a constitution. I hope that your Lordships will find that helpful.
4
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, asked for something slightly different. He wanted a comment, article by article, on the 460 articles of the convention, and he wanted explanations as to how they might be an extension of European powers. I understand the noble Lord's point; it is slightly different from the rather more strategic overview of the Government's position on different parts of the convention. As I have made clear to the House, what he has asked for has not been ruled out or agreed but is under discussion, and the Government are seeking to be helpful to your Lordships in another place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Harrison: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I believe.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, can the Minister explain why those who wish to defend the British constitution in this House undermine it by calling for extra-parliamentary processes such as referendums?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is up to them to defend their position. The Government have been very clear that we have great faith in parliamentary democracy in this country. It is at the heart of our system, which is not a system that has been based on referendums. I am bound to say to your Lordships that what was good enough for the other side when they were in government is good enough for this side when we are.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are out of time on this Question.

Constitutional Change: Civil Service Advice
2.46 p.m.
Lord Sheldon Lord Sheldon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the role of the Civil Service in advising them on their recent decisions on constitutional changes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Civil Service played a full part in advising the Government on the recent announcement of proposals for constitutional change, consistent with the requirements set out in the ministerial code and the Civil Service code.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, has my noble and learned friend seen the evidence given by three former Permanent Secretaries to the Cabinet to the ably chaired Public Administration Committee in another

5
place that they would have expected to give advice on major machinery of government matters? With regard to the recent changes, can he say whether the advice given by leading civil servants was inadequate, particularly with regard to the amount of time required to carry out their investigation? Was the advice mistaken, and was inadequate attention paid to that advice?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, in my experience the advice of senior civil servants has never been inadequate. I say that without any sense of overt or covert irony. It is for civil servants to give advice, as set out in the ministerial and Civil Service codes. Ministers are obliged to pay careful attention to that advice but, at the end of the day, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said in the title of his book, Ministers decide.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in the light of that question, the House will be aware that there is great concern in the House, particularly over the way in which the change in the role of the Lord Chancellor was handled. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Secretary to the Cabinet were consulted? Does he recognise that, at this time when apologies are very fashionable, this House perhaps deserves some apology?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness was not here on the occasions when I expressed regret and apology. I am not sure that we can endlessly revisit the question of apology. On the first available occasion I said that I regretted the discourtesy, if your Lordships felt disapproving, and I apologised for it. I do not think that I can apologise more than once. I am sure that is good for the soul, but it does not seem to work for me.
It is wrong and invidious to specify any individual civil servant who might have given advice. Ministers had regard to the ministerial code and they came to a judgment. Some of your Lordships believe that the judgment was wrong, and that is your Lordships' prerogative.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord said on two occasions that civil servants were consulted about the announcements. Were they consulted before the decisions were taken?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, was advice tendered that it needed legislation to deal with the office of the Lord Chancellor and that it would take at least a year for that to take place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I was not privy to any particular advice about legislation or a legislative timetable, but there is no doubt that it was well appreciated that some degree of legislative change would be required—not least because, as my noble and learned friend points out by necessary implication,
6
some of the Lord Chancellor's functions are statutory and could therefore only be changed either by Order in Council or by statute.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, one might come to the simple conclusion that, whoever is consulted or not consulted, when major changes in policy are mixed up with the personalities involved in a reshuffle, a government will end with egg on their face.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord has experience of that particular scenario, but I would not want to intrude unnecessarily into private grief. The fact is that I have yet to hear any dissent from the policy announcements; namely, an independent supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission. Those are the policy aspects. I accept that it is good summer sport to complain about presentation, but I urge your Lordships to go to the substance and not stay flicking about the surface
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, when something goes wrong so badly as requires the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to apologise, does he think it is worth looking at the decision-making process which led up to the announcement? Am I alone in having slightly lost the plot in terms of what the nature of the relationship is between civil servants, Ministers, special advisers, special special advisers and all the many bodies in the Cabinet Office—the Prime Minister's Reform Strategy Group, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit etcetera? I think that the Prime Minister recently said that he understood that it was possible to have too many targets. Does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House think that it is also possible to have too many cooks in No. 10?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said that he had lost the plot. I hope that is not true; otherwise, it would mean that Saatchi was not working.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that not even his skills in presentation—and we all know how considerable they are—are likely to allay in anything except the very long term the deep unease that this episode has caused?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope that it is not simply presentation but I recognise that there is deep unease about it. That, I am sure, will pass. What we need to focus on I respectfully suggest, consonant with what this House normally tries to do, is to see what the policy changes are and whether we approve of them or not. I gently repeat to your Lordships that I have heard no one suggest that we should not have an independent supreme court or that we should not have an independent judicial appointments commission. Those

7
are extremely important constitutional changes and they constitute a devolution of power from an executive where they probably ought not to have been.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is an office holder of this House, will any legislation affecting his position and role be started in this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot possibly say that. Indeed, it would be presumptuous of me to try to pre-empt the conclusions of the Select Committee which was set up only a few days ago. We ought to pay careful attention to any such recommendations that it may bring forward.

Zimbabwe and Southern Africa
2.52 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the effect on neighbouring countries of the situation in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Zimbabwe crisis is damaging regional economies and has adversely affected their interest rates, inflation, foreign direct investment and tourism. A study by the Zimbabwe Research Institute in May estimated the total cost to the combined Southern African Development Community countries to have been at least 1.88 billion dollars at the end of 2002. Zimbabwe's neighbours are also suffering damage to local production from the influx of cheap Zimbabwean goods, unpaid Zimbabwean debt, an increase in largely unskilled migrants and the cross-border spread of foot and mouth disease.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, do the Government still agree with the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, that for every year of ruination in Zimbabwe it will take 10 years to recover? That is on the economic side. On the political side, does the noble Baroness believe that the African countries are sufficiently taking into account the fact that the longer they fail to live up to their obligations under the treaty for the African Union, NePAD and the SADC, to exercise peer pressure for human rights, good governance and the rule of law in Zimbabwe, the more that will lead to various treaties losing credibility and authority?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend the Secretary of State at DfID that the longer this goes on the more difficult it is for the African economies to recover. I mentioned Zimbabwe's unpaid debts and the effect that the crisis is having on tourism in the region as just two of the instances where matters are worsening. I was very glad
8
to learn that the African Union meeting is due to take place in Mozambique on Thursday and Friday of this week. That will provide a further opportunity to sound out African opinion on prospects for inter-party talks. I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to learn that my honourable friend Hilary Benn, the Minister of State at DfID, will attend that meeting in Maputo.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, only last week the Mayor of Harare was here pointing out the desperate need for food aid in both rural and urban areas. Can the noble Baroness assure us that the Government will be able, given their commitments elsewhere in the world at the moment, to maintain or increase their aid to Zimbabwe in the case of this particular crisis? Given the movement of refugees across the border out of Zimbabwe, can the noble Baroness give me an idea of the progress being made by DfID and the Foreign Office in terms of developing a strategy for the whole of Southern Africa?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have devoted some £51 million to feeding Zimbabwe's hungry people since September 2001. We have been taking part directly in feeding 1.5 million of Zimbabwe's hungry people. We are, of course, working with international partners to maintain the pressures for change. Obviously, we work with the European Union, the United States and the Commonwealth. It is very important that, in doing all these things directly with aid, at the same time we reinforce that with pressure for a democratic solution. The Zimbabwe crisis is obviously producing a flow of refugees across its borders. One of the countries which is suffering is Botswana, which is having to repatriate around 1,000 Zimbabweans a week. South Africa's interior Minister claims that 3,000 Zimbabweans are being returned from South Africa this week. It is enormously important that we remain engaged with regional strategies to try to deal with the refugee issues.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I know that the Government's line has been quiet diplomacy and quiet dialogue. One understands that in certain circumstances that works. But has the Minister noticed that the American Secretary of State has spoken out in very strong terms about President Mugabe's violent misrule and said that his imminent removal is a worthy and urgent goal? Has the Minister also noticed that the President of the United States is billed to speak shortly in South Africa in the same firm terms? Has the Minister further noticed that the American Congress has passed resolution after resolution pointing out the horrors taking place as the Zimbabwean economy collapses? Does the Minister think that it is time perhaps to revise the Government's approach and side more strongly with the Americans and others in bringing to an end Mugabe's hideous and cruel rule?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much welcome what the United States has done over this, particularly what Secretary of State Colin Powell said in relation to what is going on in

9
Zimbabwe. There was a quite disgraceful counter-attack from the Herald newspaper which referred to him as,
"a disgraceful Uncle Tom who always sang to his master's voice to the detriment of social justice and the rights of people of colour".
That was a quite disgraceful thing to have said.
I am also pleased that President Bush will visit five African countries and will talk to President Mbeki among others about Zimbabwe. But let me respond to the noble Lord. He said that we should be more strident on this point. I put it to the noble Lord that if we were to do as he asks, we would very much play to Mr Mugabe's agenda—that every time Britain speaks on this matter, we speak as a colonial power. That is the argument that he uses with other African countries. That is why we have experienced difficulties in the United Nations. At every opportunity President Mugabe portrays us an an old colonial power. What he wants is for this to become a bilateral row with the United Kingdom, and that is what we have to guard against. Therefore, we urge others to make the points. We are quite prepared to help to make the bullets but sometimes it helps to have someone else firing them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, has the Minister seen reports that over 30 people in Bulawayo died of malnutrition last week? As she has suggested, would it not be less confrontational than my noble friend's proposed policy simply to ensure that food aid is delivered to those members of the Zimbabwean population who are presently being driven into starvation deliberately by the government of that country? Since this Question relates to the neighbouring countries, will Her Majesty's Government co-operate with them to ensure that those people receive the food aid that they already need?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords; I strongly agree with the noble Lord's comment. The shortages in Zimbabwe are made a great deal worse by the regime's imposition of untenable prices and by the fact that the government try to have a monopoly on the distribution of food. That has been one of the main causes of the worsening of the already appalling plight of so many people in Zimbabwe. We have been working with other international organisations, as I indicated in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It is enormously important that we try to work round the Zimbabwe administration in order to ensure that food gets to where it is really needed.

Police Forces: Retention of Officers
3 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are proposing to deal with the problem of retaining police officers in forces around London.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we share the concern that forces around London should be able to retain the services of experienced and skilled officers. We have worked closely with chief constables and police authorities in the South East to put in place a range of targeted measures to assist retention. We shall continue to work with forces to monitor the effectiveness of those measures and to consider any further steps that may be necessary.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, I draw his attention to the fact that the retention crisis in the South East is getting worse by the month, and has been worsening for nearly three years. It is of great concern to all chief constables that those leaving forces around London are the experienced, trained officers—firearms officers, experienced detectives and those with long service. The measures that the Government have put in hand have not yet worked. Do they have further proposals in mind to stem the crisis?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that there is a particular problem in the South East. We have long recognised that. The noble Lord asked me a Question some three years ago on this matter. It is for that reason that we have put in place a whole package of targeted retention measures. The happy story for the Thames Valley Police Authority is that in the past few years its numbers have started to rise. It has 135 more officers now than it had in March 1997. The noble Lord makes a good point about experienced officers leaving the service. For that reason we have put in place the 30-plus retirement scheme, which I understand is beginning to bear fruit.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that forces in the South East are in an uncomfortable position? On the one hand, there are the weighting attractions of the Metropolitan Police, and, on the other, the attractions of the lower cost of living of forces outside the South East? Will the Government consider extending the joint equity house purchase scheme that is currently available in the Thames Valley, Surrey and Hertfordshire to forces in Essex, Kent, Bedfordshire, Hampshire and Sussex?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the scheme was introduced only recently—in March this year—and, as I understand it, is proving to be of value. We shall keep this matter carefully under review. If appropriate, Ministers will no doubt want to give careful consideration to extending the scheme to other forces in the South East that have a particular problem with retention.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, are community police officers now an actual force on the ground in London, and, if so, how many are there? In earlier debates we referred to the need for recruits who are not fully trained but who will supplement the numbers.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that under the Police Reform Act we made available schemes for what were described as community support officers. That scheme has had a very successful start within the Metropolitan Police Service area. My understanding is that financial provision was made up to 500 additional police officers in the first instance.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, are the targets being achieved in terms of recruitment among the minority communities? Does he agree that that would go some way to assist in meeting the overall recruitment target for police officers in London?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness's last point. Yes, it makes a considerable contribution to recruitment and to ensuring that we reach the target numbers that we wish to reach for the police service as a whole. Although I do not have the statistics to hand, I know that we are making progress in increasing the numbers of ethnic minority members in the police service. I am happy to make the figures available to the noble Baroness at a later date and share them with other Members of this House.
Lord Elton: My Lords, having observed community support officers on duty on one occasion, my question is: should not some thought be given to making them look more like police officers and less like traffic wardens?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that community support officers are offering a reassuring presence on the streets and are doing fine work. I take the noble Lord's point. The other side of the argument is that people have expressed the view that community support officers are one thing and police officers are another, and that they should not be easily confused.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, can I enlarge the Minister's geographical perspective by saying that the problem also exists in Wiltshire, which the Boundary Commissioners believe to be in the South West rather than in the South East?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that Wiltshire Police Service is busy and active in recruiting new officers. Its statistics for the past two years indicate that they appear to be enjoying an additional number of police officers, in line with most other England and Wales forces?
Baroness Sharples: My Lords is not the issue of retention the most important part of this Question?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, is it very important that we retain experienced police personnel. I made reference earlier to the 30-plus scheme, which is now in its second phase and is proving very successful. As well as bringing in new recruits—and we
12
are hitting and surpassing our targets—we also need to retain experienced police officers who have a great deal to offer the communities that they serve.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Symons will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given in another place by the Foreign Secretary to an urgent Question on the imprisonment and trial of two UK nationals at Guantanamo Bay.

Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Sustainable Energy Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Marine Safety Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
"DESTRUCTION OF FINGERPRINTS AND SAMPLES

(1) Section 64 of the 1984 Act (destruction of fingerprints and samples) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) the words ", except as provided in the following provisions of this section," are omitted.

(3) Subsections (3AA), (3AB) and (3AC) are omitted."

The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the further extension of circumstances in which the police may take non-intimate samples from a person in police detention. That includes taking such a sample from a person arrested for a recordable offence. Such samples can be taken without the consent of the individual. It only requires the authorisation of an inspector. The new power is available whether or not the sample is required for the investigation of an offence in which the person is suspected of being involved.
One of the powers being given to the police is that DNA profiles extracted from arrested persons will be added to the DNA database and checked for matches with DNA taken from crime scenes. We have no difficulty in accepting that the action proposed is minor and that the process will benefit crime detection and help to protect the general public from criminality. At the heart of the debate is the argument, advanced by Justice, as to whether it is appropriate or necessary in a democratic society to permit the state to obtain and retain information from innocent persons. If the database is not considered appropriate, then there is no logic in allowing the police to retain such samples or profiles.
The public is always happy to co-operate on cases where DNA is sought from a large number of people to assist in solving heinous crimes. However, if it were generally known that people who are not proceeded against or are found innocent in court might have the samples and profiles retained, ordinary members of the public would find it difficult to co-operate in establishing a national, perhaps international, database, on which they had no say whatever. I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It says:
We draw the attention of each House to the risk that the database might lawfully be put at the disposal of foreign investigators and intelligence agencies conducting speculative 'fishing expeditions' in circumstances where the law governing the work of the foreign agency requesting information offers little or no protection for privacy-related rights in relation to personal data held by public authorities. We also draw attention to the lack of clarity in the allocation of legal responsibility for securing compliance with Convention rights".
The number of profiles now being held total over 2 million. We could be adding another 300,000 arrestees a year to that number. We do not oppose samples being taken to determine whether or not a charge should be made. That is in the interests of the individual if he or she is innocent. We object to the proposal that this should be routine or on a continuous basis, irrespective of the charge being levelled.
Our amendment is designed to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to take out the sections that allow fingerprint and DNA samples to be retained. We want to ensure the destruction of samples taken from detainees who are subsequently not charged. We have an important safeguard where courts should be the ultimate authority to determine if such samples should be kept. I am aware of the judgment of the Appeal Court in the case of S and Michael Marper against the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. But we are now talking of the indiscriminate storing of samples and profiles. Surely the correct course of action, when the
14
whole question of rights and liberties are infringed, is for the court to determine in each case whether the sample or profile should be retained.
We do this in relation to most matters in which police have to seek an order to retain or destroy material. DNA fingerprinting should not be an exception. Can the Minister tell me whether individuals would have the right to demand to see what use was being made of the samples? Would they be told if the information was being shared with international police forces? Who will be responsible for the protection of information on the database? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: A short debate took place on Clauses 7 and 8 last week dealing with the taking of fingerprints and DNA samples without consent when someone has been arrested for an offence, even if subsequently they are not charged. I do not seek to reopen that debate, but it is interesting to read Hansard at those points and see how your Lordships stressed the careful balance which the present Section 61 of PACE enjoys, and the concerns expressed at the proposals within Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill.
The taking of fingerprints and samples may well be necessary in many circumstances, but there is significant concern about the necessity to retain that data indefinitely—and. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Buck low. He said:
"I am worried about those whose fingerprints are taken in the course of examination and who are not proceeded against or are acquitted. Their fingerprints are retained but we do not have general fingerprinting for all people. Surely there is an issue here".
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, the Minister, replied:
"I accept that that is an issue. I say that is an issue about balance and proportionality. That is a debate that we should have because the Committee will know that the Government's view, particularly in relation to the most serious offences, is that the risk to the public is so great that it is worth balancing it in their favour, as opposed to destroying information which may subsequently have proved to be vital and could have assisted in the identification of crime. It is a real issue and I do not seek to pretend otherwise. It is a question of where we draw that dividing line".—[Official Report, 30/6/03; col. 714.]
So it seems that the Minister accepts that this is an area which needs further consideration and I hope that she will reassure us that that is indeed the case.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights also expressed concern about the data implications of the two clauses. I shall quote from paragraph 53 of its report, in which it concludes,
"it is not clear to us who would be legally accountable if an error on the part of any of those parties, or of one of the laboratories submitting samples of analyses for inclusion on the database, or of one of the operatives entering the data or processing them, led to an unjustified interference with a data subject's right to respect for private life under ECHR Article 8. In short, who would be the appropriate defendant in an action by an aggrieved data subject claiming to be the victims of a violation of his or her right under ECHR Article 8?"

15
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, also quoted from that report in Hansard on 30th June at col. 708, which clearly identified the Joint Committee's unease about data retention.
We agree. There is simply not enough clarity yet in areas of responsibility for collection and retention of highly sensitive and personal data—especially if the person from whom that data is taken is never charged with an offence. There was no debate on this in the other place at the time that the Government introduced the proposals at Report stage, and it seems to us that what is proposed will add huge numbers to an already staggeringly large database—I understand that there are already 2 million samples included on it—and the concern of these Benches is that the taking of these fingerprints or DNA samples should not become routine, nor should it be a way to build up the number of profiles held on the DNA database.
I shall make one final quotation, this time from my honourable friend in another place, Simon Hughes. He said:
"This is another step on the road to holding every citizen's DNA on the national database, and it is being done with virtually no public debate. Thousands of people are arrested every year who are guilty of no crime. Their fingerprints and DNA may now be recorded and held, even if they withhold their consent".
That is our real concern. Some data will need retaining. Much more will not, and this new clause seeks, as my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, to reintroduce the ability to destroy fingerprints and samples of those who have not been charged.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I rise briefly to support this amendment. The erosion of liberty and personal freedoms rarely takes place in a single bound. It tends to be a creeping process. It is easy to speak of any individual changing of the balance as something that continues the shaping of proportionality. At some stage the Government have to answer the question—what principle underlies the belief that it is right, without having general fingerprinting and sampling across the board, to keep the fingerprints of those people who are arrested but never charged? I have a suspicion that in this area proportionality tends always to move by degrees against individual freedoms. I hope that I am wrong, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I, too, support the amendment for the reasons already advanced. It seems to me that there is a case—it is not one I would support—for saying that such action should extend to the population at large or at random, or for any purpose that the police or others think appropriate. That is a case I would not support.
There is a case for saying that such samples should be retained only of those who have been charged or convicted. However, I can see no justification for treating people who have never been charged with an offence as being in a category different from the population at large. Members of the population at
16
large are not subject to such samples being taken from them and retained against their wishes. Why, therefore, should someone who happens to have been arrested but not charged be treated in a different and more adverse way? There has been no explanation of that and I would not defend it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support entirely what my noble friend Lord Brittan said. I am not sure whether he is learned but he is very distinguished. There is a case, which many of us would not support, for all fingerprints to be on the database. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says in reply to my noble friend Lord Brittan. It seems extraordinary to treat separately those who have not been convicted just on the off chance that it might be handy for the government of the day at a future date. That should be resisted. It is an extraordinary idea and one that the Government should withdraw if they cannot explain it properly.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, of Richmond, said, it flows on from the debates we had on Monday. Like her, I shall not reopen the debate but the principles underlying it flow into today's debate.
The Government have not proved a case for retaining the evidence of fingerprints and DNA from those people who have crossed the threshold of a police station but were never charged or arrested. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, we are not seeking to stop the police taking DNA and fingerprints from those people they think they will charge. It is a proper course to take in the exercise of tracking down whether a person should be charged. We are saying that we should not be creating a new subgroup of people against whom action was not subsequently taken but whose DNA, taken by so-called "non-intimate" samples of swabbing or fingerprints, has been retained.
My noble friend Lord Brittan commented that perhaps there is a case for a national database on the population at large. It is not a case that he would support and I suspect that many people would not do so. But if there is such a case, it is incumbent on the Government to set it out clearly and honourably and not try to move step by step towards it. As my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon rightly observed, there is sometimes a creeping process of eroding liberties and somehow one ends up with proportionality. One thinks one knows what is meant, then suddenly there is a completely different and unacceptable definition.
The Government must justify the position they have taken and we do not believe that they have done so as yet.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle: I, too, am persuaded to support the amendment. However much the individual parts of the Bill have much to commend them—and they do—the cumulative effect must be

17
considered. I worry that the power given to retain fingerprints and DNA samples indefinitely is part of a cumulative rebalancing against civil liberties.
I accept that DNA is an increasingly valuable tool in the fight against crime and that samples may be necessary to establish whether charges are to be brought. But I worry about the indefinite retention of the information, whether or not the person is charged or convicted of any offence. Is it appropriate or necessary to allow the state to retain such information from innocent persons, and to begin to create a universal DNA and fingerprint database? I believe that that is a matter for open public debate and if such a national database is judged to be appropriate and necessary it seems to me that everyone in the country should be compelled to provide samples.
There may be a strong case for holding everyone's DNA on file. If so, the case must be made openly and publicly and not be introduced bit by bit in what looks to me like stealth.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all Members of the Committee who have participated in this short debate and I hope I shall be able to give the answers for which a number have called. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and others have sought to suggest that this in an incremental approach by government who by stealth seek to in some way abuse improperly the civil liberties of those who come innocently into the system. I say straightaway that that is not the purpose or intent of the Government. The application is being made openly to the Committee to consider whether this should properly form part of the Criminal Justice Bill and we are now having a proper debate about it.
I must emphasise at the beginning that the advances we have made in DNA and fingerprinting are significant. We have the ability to use the data not just as a sword with which to pierce the criminality of those who would hide from us, but the opportunity to use the data as a shield to protect those who are innocent of any offence and are often wrongly accused. It is easy to alight on only the examples which have enabled us to convict and bring to justice those who are guilty of crime, but not to highlight sufficiently the large number of people who have been set free as a result of the data being available and capable of being utilised to their benefit and that of the public.
We read an example of that at the weekend. Many Members of the Committee will have read the case of a former sailor who spent 16 years behind bars for the murder of a barmaid and was cleared by the Court of Appeal on Thursday last week. That person remained in prison because he refused to accept his guilt and as a result could not take advantage of parole.
I very much hope that when noble Lords consider what I have to say they bear in mind that this is not simply a sword, but also a shield, and also that all those who have nothing to fear from having their fingerprints and DNA samples retained may come to find that it is
18
of benefit. Having the information available can exclude people who might otherwise have been investigated. It is therefore important that the—
Lord Neill of Bladen: Is the Minister arguing that by keeping fingerprints the Crown confers a benefit on certain people? If so, perhaps the statute could say that one could have the option of having one's fingerprints retained indefinitely so that one may be a beneficiary under the scheme that the Minister has in mind.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I did not say that there is a direct benefit, as the noble Lord suggests. I do not intend to deal with the matter at all facetiously; it is a very serious matter indeed. Often this is presented as all infringement and no opportunity or no benefit. I was simply highlighting that that is a very narrow way of looking at the use to which such data can and should properly be put. We are taking a balanced look at the information. It is important that we get it right. This is not a piece of sophistry; it may be of critical importance to those who come before our courts and are convicted improperly. It may also be important to victims and their families who see perpetrators go free. If we were to show a little courage, imagination and initiative, we may be able to stop certain criminal activities.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The issue is highly important. Have the Government considered the matter with the Law Society, the Bar Council, Justice and so on? Will the Minister give the Committee some idea of the consultations that have taken place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Your Lordships will know that consultations took place on the whole Bill. Once I have explained the reasons why we have come to the conclusion that this is a proper stance to take, I shall answer my noble friend in greater detail. If I may, I would like to address the import of the amendment and the substance of it.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Will my noble friend confirm that the view of the lawyers on this matter is no more important than that of any other citizen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Never let it be said that I suggest that lawyers are not ordinary citizens. I can assure your Lordships that there is parity of treatment.
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain the arguments that she has just advanced that the retention of fingerprints and so on of people who are not guilty of other crimes can somehow prevent them being wrongly brought before the courts and convicted of future crimes. Surely the time to take that evidence is at the time of arrest.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Elton, straightaway. However, after I have answered his point, perhaps noble Lords would allow me to answer the main import of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, an individual may be under suspicion for a particular offence but data on the database may be capable of being compared with DNA samples taken from the crime scene. That comparative study may be able to exclude that person from the investigation so that the police never have to pursue him or her further and they can go on to consider others. That is when it becomes a great utility. There are occasions when, for various circumstantial reasons, the police may alight upon a certain individual who appears to have all the necessary components to indicate that he or she may have been involved but they can be excluded. That is why I say that it can have a beneficial effect at an early stage.
It is important that the police are able to retain all information assembled during the investigation of an offence, not least to enable them to investigate a possible miscarriage of justice in the future, as I have already indicated. The police are already able to retain other information gathered as part of the investigation, such as witness statements, photographs, and so on, and we would say that samples and fingerprints are really no different.
Furthermore, if the fingerprints and DNA samples are retained they will be available to the police in the event of that person committing an offence in the future. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from their fingerprints or DNA being retained as they may be used only for the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the prosecution of an offence.
In the year following the amendments to PACE made by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which removed the requirement to destroy the fingerprints/DNA of persons who were acquitted, approximately 400 offences were detected involving some 300 offenders using DNA profiles that would previously have fallen to be removed from the database. Those included three attempted murders, four rapes and a number of aggravated burglaries and serious assaults.
In resisting the proposed amendment, I would like if I may, to take noble Lords back to the cases that gave rise to the amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 which allowed police the discretion to keep the DNA samples of people who were acquitted or against whom charges were dropped.
The implications of the requirement on the police to destroy DNA samples in those circumstances were brought into focus in the most acute way by two cases heard together in the Court of Appeal: R v B and R v Weir. In those cases compelling DNA evidence linked the accused to two particularly bad brutal attacks on elderly people in their homes, one resulting in rape
20
and the other in murder. In both cases a match was made between samples taken at the crime scene and DNA profiles on the database. However, those profiles were derived from samples that were taken in relation to offences of which the two accused had been acquitted. They therefore fell to be destroyed under the terms of Section 64 of PACE as it then was. New samples were taken as a result of the link made and it was those new samples that were adduced in evidence.
Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal concluded that the matches had been used in the investigation of the subsequent offences contrary to the prohibition in Section 64; that the trial judge had no discretion to admit the evidence and that, therefore, neither man could be convicted. As the Court of Appeal said:
"It would have been perfectly possible for Parliament to conclude that the fight against crime was so important that there should be no restriction on the use of DNA samples so that where such samples were lawfully obtained by the police the information derived from them could be retained on a database for all purposes. Whether in the light of these two cases and the repercussions in relation to other cases, the authorities or Parliament wish to revisit Section 64 of PACE is not a matter for this Court of Appeal but there can be no doubt as to the seriousness of the consequences".
The House of Lords' decision in R v B when it reached them on appeal took a rather different approach to that of the Court of Appeal. The House of Lords decided that the trial judge had discretion to admit the DNA evidence, even though it derived from a sample that ought to have been, but had not been, destroyed. The Government welcomed that decision which at least meant that where compelling evidence was available the courts were not forced to ignore it. Nevertheless, the law was left in what was, in the Government's view, an unsatisfactory state, hence the need for reform. The court might be able to look at evidence if it so happened that the relevant police force had not yet caused the profile to be removed from the database, but that would depend on a combination of chance and police efficiency.
Those two cases demonstrate in the most chilling way, the danger that lies beneath the proposed amendment. The Government at the time realised that and this is what led to the decision to remove the requirement that such samples be destroyed and not used in subsequent investigations. The Government also accepted at the time of course that the retention and use of fingerprints and samples from those who have been acquitted raised potential issues under article 8 of the ECHR, but they did not believe that article 8 required the destruction of potentially vital objective evidence.
As I have already said, we do not expect the police to destroy all interview notes or documentation relating to previous investigations, whether or not they lead to a conviction. It is accepted that information may well be relevant to subsequent investigations. Information derived from DNA samples is one of the most objective and conclusive forms of establishing involvement in a crime or, equally important, disproving involvement. We do not believe that the police should be under a duty to throw it away. The police are not given carte blanche to do with such

21
samples as they will and Section 64 of PACE makes it clear that DNA samples and fingerprints can be used only for the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution.
We heard in our earlier debate reference to a challenge to the current provisions of Section 64 of PACE in the Court of Appeal in the case of R v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (ex parte S and Marper.), to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred. Those two appellants argued that the chief constable's decision to retain their fingerprints/DNA, notwithstanding that one of them wasp acquitted and the charge against the other was not proceeded with, was a breach of the ECHR. The appellants had claimed that the chief constable's decision was in breach of Article 8—the right to privacy—and Article 14—the right to non-discrimination.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded your Lordships in our earlier debate, the Court of Appeal found that in those cases there was some interference with Article 8(1). However, the court also went on to find that under Article 8(2) the interference was proportional and justified. Furthermore there was no interference with Article 14. The appellants have appealed against the decision and the appeal will be heard before this House probably later this year.
I hope I have made it clear that if fingerprints and DNA samples are retained they will be available to the police in the event of the person committing an offence in the future. Law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from this; it does not impugn their integrity or leave a stain on their character where this is perfectly normal and in the interests of detecting crime and protecting the rights of victims it is clearly desirable that the police should have every possible technological or scientific aid available to them to enable them to do so.
It is also important that the police are able to retain all the information assembled during the investigation of an offence not least to enable them to investigate a possible miscarriage of justice in the future. DNA profiles are useful, objective forms of evidence that can be used to indicate guilt or—and we must not forget this—help to establish innocence.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked what we should do if other agencies wish to go on fishing exercises and use such samples improperly—an issue touched on also by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. As your Lordships will remember, we dealt with that matter in part in our topical Question last week. I am happy to reiterate that opportunities for the database to be used in such a way are non-existent. The JCHR was concerned that the data might be placed at the disposal of foreign investigators and intelligence agencies conducting such fishing exercises in circumstances where the law governing the work of a foreign agency requesting the information offered little or no protection for privacy-related rights in relation to personal data held by public authorities.
There are in fact strict protocols set by Interpol for the provision of information from the national DNA database to foreign law enforcement agencies, which
22
allow information to be provided to EU members but otherwise restrict the provision of information to countries with good human rights records. DNA profiles and personal identification data associated with them are held by both the laboratories that analyse the samples sent to them and the custodian. They are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. Their databases are registered with the information commissioner and personal data are kept securely. It is accessed only on the authorisation of designated personnel. Therefore, I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that any fear that this information may be used improperly is ungrounded.
The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, asked why people who are arrested are treated differently from the population at large. The objective difference is the fact that there has been an arrest and therefore they have come into contact with the criminal justice system, so information is obtained. We should make it clear that that is not only in relation to that person; and it is a matter that noble Lords should consider. Such information has been used to identify those who may be within the same family.
I shall give your Lordships an example. A serious offence of murder was committed. An incomplete profile was obtained from the DNA evidence available at the scene of the crime. It was not possible to identify the perpetrator from the information held on the database, but it was possible to identify a person in the perpetrator's family, because the DNA indicated similarities. From using the data available from the family member of the perpetrator it was possible thereafter to identify the perpetrator. Your Lordships should not underestimate how powerful such evidence can be.
Some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about mass screenings where people are given the option of having their sample added to the national database. Their consent is important and must be given in writing. We think there is a difference in terms of opportunity and ability. People come forward and offer themselves up for mass screenings, which we need to continue to encourage. But it is different to say that we should give up the information we have culled from an investigation because it may be used in other cases.
Your Lordships should also know that in many cases where individuals have not been charged or they have been acquitted of offences, subsequently it has been discovered when they were arrested for another offence—sometimes of a fairly minor nature—and their DNA was obtained, that they were in fact guilty of some very serious offences. There is one example where an individual was arrested in relation to a shoplifting case involving a mere £10. Thirty years previously, that individual had committed some serious sexual offences, and was able to be identified. So we have some powerful evidence that can be put to good use.
There are now approximately 2 million DNA profiles on the database—as the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, said—and approximately 180,000 crime scene samples.

23
Since its launch, the database has matched over 170,000 suspects to previously unidentified DNA found at crime scenes. About 4,000 matches per month are found between the profiles of individuals and those from scenes of crime, and if a biological sample is taken from a scene of crime there is a 42 per cent chance of finding a matching profile from an individual on the database. As the number of profiles on the database increases so will the chances of identifying the individual whose DNA was found at the crime scene. In practical terms, the proposed new power in respect of fingerprints will probably be used most frequently to confirm the identity of an individual where it is in doubt rather than to check against a particular crime stain or stains. To that end, it may often be that individuals are already on the database under an alias or alternative name. One can see the huge value to which that information will be put.
Of course it is accepted that police powers to retain DNA samples and profiles of persons who have been acquitted or against whom charges have been dropped raises concerns about intrusion into personal liberty. I recognise absolutely why the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and others raise the issue. Many of those concerns were debated in relation to Clause 7. Some people may be concerned about the building of larger databases, particularly where it relates to people who have not been proceeded against for an offence. That was the point made by the noble, Lord Brittan.
It can therefore be argued that any intrusion on personal privacy is both necessary and proportionate to the benefits for victims of crime and society generally in detecting crime and protecting the public against criminals. There are many examples of persons who have been acquitted of one offence, or have had a charge against them dropped, who subsequently commit other offences. It does not therefore stigmatise someone not convicted of any offence if it is the norm to retain fingerprints/DNA that have been lawfully obtained.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank my noble friend for giving way. I intervened earlier to ask what consultation had taken place between the Home Office—or whoever else is involved—and the Law Society, the Bar Council, and so on. My noble friend said that she would respond.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I do not believe that we have had specific consultation with either the Law Society or the Bar Council on the two clauses. The noble Lord will know that, in the ordinary way, consultation takes place on many of those issues.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wish to register the Committee's thanks for the courtesy and detail with which the noble Baroness has presented the Government's arguments. Although we may not agree with her, we can only respect and admire her full answer. Further to the comment made by her noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, is it not true that our particular difficulty with the clauses is rooted in the
24
fact that they were only introduced to the Bill in another place on 19th May whereas the passage of the Bill began last December? As the Minister rightly said, there had been full consultation with the outside world, including both lawyers and non-lawyers, on the whole Bill. The difficulty, I am sad to say, is that the outside world took little notice on 19th May during the debate in another place. This matter will be hitting them only now. Is that not the difficulty that we face as a result of the lack of consultation on these controversial issues?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course it would have been better if we had had a fuller opportunity to discuss the matters, and if the clauses had been more fully debated in another place. One of the beauties of your Lordships' House is that we have the luxury to do just that. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this opportunity. I am sure that we are having a very similar discussion to that which would have surrounded the decision on whether we retain the data on those acquitted. Members of the Committee will know that our practice in the past was that, if an individual was acquitted in accordance with our law and the procedures, he would be entitled to have the DNA information contained on the record expunged.
We know from the two cases that I have outlined, and the 400-plus that have followed, how important the retention of that information has already proved to be. One need only look at the newspapers to see daily proof of the good use to which DNA evidence can be put. So much evidence that comes before our courts can be besmirched, argued with and undermined because it may convict the innocent and may allow the guilty to go free. An objective tool that we can use both to free and to convict is therefore very powerful.
There need come to light only one of the sort of cases we have discussed for the public to say, "We simply do not understand why the system is deliberately disabling itself from giving us justice when the same is easily obtainable". We must address that question.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Would it not be better if, before Report stage, the sort of organisations to which I referred were consulted? My noble friend puts forward a powerful case.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: If the noble Lord could give way for one moment, I could answer one of the questions that he very thoughtfully raises as a keen supporter of Justice, of which I am chairman. Inevitably, as the noble Baroness says, there appears to have been no time to consult any bodies. But we have submitted to her very clear representations, which we have circulated to a number of noble Lords. The submission states:
"JUSTICE strongly opposes this new clause, added at the Commons Report Stage".
A later passage states:
"The issue of whether it is appropriate or necessary in a democratic society to permit the state to obtain and retain this information from innocent persons, and in effect begin to create a universal DNA and fingerprint database, is one of great

25
importance. It is an issue upon which JUSTICE believes there should be a general and open public debate. If such a database is considered appropriate then all persons, arguably, should be compelled to provide samples".
That was the point eloquently raised by my noble friend Lord Brittan. I must say to the Minister that the more I listened to her speak about how DNA samples could contribute towards establishing innocence or guilt, the more I felt that she was arguing for a national database or screening. I fail to be in the least convinced by her long exposition of how to differentiate between the innocent who are not charged but have been arrested and the innocent who have been neither arrested nor charged. That is at the heart of the debate. I regret to say that, for me, the Minister has not begun to answer that case.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I wish to raise the question of why there was no consultation with the Human Genetics Commission, of which I am the chair. The issue raised by my noble friend of how access to genetic information can assist justice raises very important matters with regard to public expectation, which have been explored by the commission. The public want to see that information used to deal with crime.
However, concerns are expressed about the creation of a national database without proper consent from the whole public. There has not been consultation on the matter. There are advocates of that approach. Professor Jeffreys, the discoverer of DNA for police investigation, has said that either everyone should be on the database or the matter should not be approached in the way that the Government propose. It would help if those involved in the issues were consulted. I am afraid that the Home Office has not been in touch with the commission that I chair. The other matter that I wish to raise—
A Noble Lord: It is an intervention.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: Sorry. I wish to raise the following point because it is important. A distinction should be made between samples and matters that are purely "the barcode" kept by the police. Many advocate that the barcode could be kept but that the issue of samples is of real concern and should be debated much more publicly.
4 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister. She said that we have powerful evidence for why we are recommending the retention and collection of samples, but if the case is so powerful, why was it not included in the Bill when it was first introduced in the House of Commons? As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, the matter was introduced very late in the day and I do not think that there was proper consultation. I could have quoted from Justice or the Law Society, both of which have shown great concern about the proposal that the Government are introducing.
26
The issue that bothers us most is the erosion of the rights and liberties of individuals and that there has not been proper consultation with the bodies that matter. Even at this late stage, it would be appropriate for the Government to consult those organisations before Report. If they do not, I am certainly bound to consult them, bearing in mind what the Minister said.
I remind the Minister that she mentioned the case of someone who was acquitted after serving a long term in prison. But that case is not relevant to what we are discussing. The amendment would not have helped that case. The person was charged, so the sample would have been retained and there would have been no problem in that respect. We are talking about 300 or 400 out of the hundreds of thousands of cases that go before the court, so this is a matter of serious concern, unless there is a public debate on this particular issue. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If my noble friend the Minister were to say at this late stage that the Government are prepared to enter into consultation before Report, which they have not done, would the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, be satisfied?
Lord Dholakia: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton Davis, but my answer would depend on the outcome of the consultations. I have got the preliminary views from those organisations but I will certainly return on Report after further consultation with these bodies, irrespective of whether the Home Office has consulted them or not.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: I am always fascinated by demands for consultation. Have the bodies concerned made representations to the Minister? Have they asked to meet the Minister, and if not, why not? Why should it be necessary to hold up the passage of the Bill because interested bodies cannot be bothered to take the initiative?
Lord Dholakia: If the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, had listened to some of the answers put forward, he would have heard that this provision was introduced at a very late stage in the House of Commons and I do not think that the organisations involved had the opportunity to consult the Minister. However, I do not think that it is too late to consult them, and all that I intend to do therefore is to mention to the Minister that we will certainly be in touch with the organisations. If we feel on Report that the argument about the collection of samples has not been advanced, we will press appropriate amendments to a Division.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I reiterate what I said right at the beginning of the debate. Of course, in relation to all or any of these matters we remain open to discussion. We have already indicated that we will have the usual meetings with the Front Bench and other interested parties between now and Report. For the sake of the record, I make that offer once again.

27
I say openly both to Justice and to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that, in relation to the Bar and the Law Society, in accordance with our usual practice, we will consider any representations made to us about any other issue arising from the Bill. I would love to answer the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, but I will do so on another occasion.
Lord Dholakia: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Guantanamo Bay: UK Nationals
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend Mr Mullin on the imprisonment and trial of two UK nationals in Guantanamo Bay. The Statement is as follows:
"On 3rd July, the United States designated six detainees, including two British nationals held at Guantanamo Bay, as eligible for trial under a military commission. We have strong reservations about the military commission. We have raised and will continue to raise these reservations energetically with the US. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, about this over the weekend and will speak to him again in a few days.
"So far, neither of the detainees has been charged. However, we have made clear to the US that we expect the process to meet internationally accepted standards for a fair trial. We will follow the process very carefully. The US is aware of our fundamental opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances. If there is any suggestion that the death penalty might be sought in these cases, we would raise the strongest possible objections with the US".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement from another place. I did not see the text in advance, which I understand. This is an answer to an urgent Question in the other place. However, I am aware of how strongly the Minister feels about the matter. I know that she feels concern that we all share about what is now proposed.
28
We understand why prisoners have been taken to Guantanamo Bay and why their rights have been suspended for a time. These are people who are suspected of revolting and evil acts and I have no doubt that it was hoped—it may still be hoped—that they could reveal details about other atrocities both in the past and to be completed, which would save many human lives.
That time has now passed, however, and there is talk about trials before a military commission or tribunal. It is right for us to pursue questions now that this talk has arisen. What has actually been agreed with the American Government about the procedures to be adopted? How will they work? When will they start? What sort of legal representation will the detainees have and what are the charges? Are they to be charged with treason or something different?
Will we remind our American allies, who fought bravely and understandably in Afghanistan and suffered the most dreadful injuries two years ago, that they need to work together with their coalition partners? They should not be surprised if things go wrong when they do not work closely together. The Americans are refreshingly outspoken about our affairs, which I welcome. However, why should we not be equally firm and outspoken about theirs—although always, of course, in the friendliest possible way?
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, my understanding has always been that one of the pillars of the attitudes and civil rights of this country is that people are innocent until they are found guilty. That is a fundamental principle and many of us are delighted that the Minister has made that clear. However, first, is the House aware that these men do not know what charges they face? They have not been told. Secondly, is the House aware that, if they are found guilty, they may face the death penalty, which this country has decided no longer to accept? Thirdly, is the House aware that, if these men are found not guilty, they will not be acquitted and released but will be retained as enemy combatants for whatever length of time the US chooses to detain them?
Finally, is the House aware that the UK and the US are both signatories to United Nations conventions that absolutely guarantee the right to a fair trial, the right to defence and the right to access to lawyers by any country that is a signatory? Will the Minister tell us whether, given what good allies we have been to the US, the Prime Minister will raise this matter at the highest level, with the President of the US?
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, for their interventions. I am sorry that there was no advance text. However, the Statement that I repeated to your Lordships was very simple and straightforward. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was kind enough to acknowledge, it was made in response to an urgent Question in another place.

29
We must be clear on one point: there are no charges laid against either of the British nationals at the moment. There has been a designation by the United States that has cleared the way to possible charges against the six named individuals. There must be a separate decision about whether any charges will be laid and go forward to a trial. I do not want to mislead any of your Lordships. It is probably logical to believe that such charges will be laid, but I stress to your Lordships that part of the reason why they do not know what the charges are is that they have not been laid at the moment.
I agree absolutely with the noble Lord's points about terrorism. Some appalling and terrible atrocities have been committed in several countries. We should never forget that people have suffered. We must do what we can to expunge it from the international arsenal of what is available to people who do not want to conform to the ways in which most of us are able to do business with each other. However, it is important to come back to the fundamental point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby: those individuals are innocent until they are proved guilty before a court of law.
The individuals concerned have been a long time in a legal limbo in Guantanamo Bay. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that it would be unsatisfactory to go on not being clear about how anybody would be brought to trial. What can, at least, be said about the events of last Thursday and Friday is that some clarity has been brought to bear on the situation, but it is difficult not to have strong reservations about the way in which the United States proposes to proceed with the trials.
The noble Lord asked me what had been agreed. Little has been agreed about the trials. The United States has published its proposals and has said that it will engage with us on the matter. We propose to engage rigorously with it. We shall press the United States authorities for the internationally recognised remit over a fair trial and such things as the right to defence lawyers, the right to see the evidence that will be adduced against those who are to go before a court, the right to an appeals system and the right to have as open a trial as possible. I readily acknowledge that it is not easy to have an absolutely open trial, if matters relating to national or international security have to be dealt with in some detail. We are familiar with procedures under which a court can sit in camera to hear matters of great sensitivity that may impinge on national security.
I agree that we must be firm with the United States and friendly with the United States. I believe that putting our points vigorously to the United States is important for the United States itself. It is enormously important that, in a procedure in which, we are told, the death penalty may be available—that is a matter for the military commission—the United States leaves no stone unturned in ensuring that the trials are recognised as being as fair and open and as much in conformity with internationally recognised standards for fair trials as is humanly possible.
30
The noble Baroness raised the question of the death penalty. I regret to say that that penalty is still open to the commission. We have made our views on that abundantly clear, and we shall go on doing so.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government have pressed the United States Government to accept that lawyers chosen by the individuals, in the event of a trial, should be allowed to represent them, rather than lawyers allocated by the US military? Have the Government pressed for international observers—British observers, certainly—at any such trial? If not, will they do so? Has my noble friend any idea whether there are any rights of appeal against a decision by such a military tribunal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have raised and are raising the issue of legal representation. As it stands, the legal representation has been selected by the United States Government from Department of Defense lawyers. As I understand it, it may be possible for other lawyers to be retained by anybody who goes to trial, but, again as I understand the current proposals, such other lawyers would have to be United States citizens. That might be a question of how United States lawyers deal with United States courts, which may be consonant with the way in which the United States operates in respect of criminal trials. In addition, any such lawyers would need heavy security clearance, and there are some questions that we would want to raise about the ways in which they would communicate. There are quite a number of issues relating to legal representation.
The question of having international observers has been discussed. The United States Government have agreed that there should be some international observers, but we need to explore further with the United States authorities how that might work. At the moment, I understand that the rights of appeal that are being suggested are ones within the Department of Defense.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the proceedings of the military tribunals have been condemned by the American Bar Association, the National Institute of Military Justice and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers? Is she also aware that military tribunals have a disgraceful history, having been used to suppress the Sioux in the Indian wars of the 19th century? Many were condemned to death then, and they were reprieved only by the intervention of President Lincoln.
Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government will press as hard as possible to ensure that the tribunals are opened up to the public and are held in public as far as is possible; that there are independent observers; and that the requirements of

31
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which demands an independent and impartial tribunal at the first instance, are fulfilled?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that some strong reservations have been expressed by the United States legal associations that the noble Lord mentioned. I am also aware that military tribunals are, in many countries, regarded as not being sufficiently cognisant of the separation of powers between the military authorities and the judicial authorities.
When I dealt with defence matters as a Minister in your Lordships' House, your Lordships spent a lot of time on the question of where the authority of military power ended and where judicial powers had to be invoked in our laws. I am bound to say that our justice system would not allow us to engage in a trial such as is proposed for anybody suspected of much less serious crimes.
All those issues are being raised by my right honourable friend. I was able to tell your Lordships in the Statement that I repeated that my right honourable friend had spoken this weekend to his opposite number in Washington. I assure your Lordships that he proposes to do so again later this week. I have seen a lawyer representing one of the British people who have been designated, and I shall be happy to see anybody representing the other individual concerned. All that is being fed to my right honourable friend for his discussions with Colin Powell.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I regret that I was not here for the beginning of the Minister's Statement. Does she know of any precedent for the proposals being put forward by the United States Government? How long did it take us to get consular access to the British citizens concerned?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know the direct precedent. We had some particular arrangements for the Lockerbie trial, but that is not a precedent. From time to time, in a world in which international terrorism is such that crimes are committed against a country's nationals right the way around the world by individuals from different jurisdictions, there may be one-off arrangements. It is not surprising that there is no precedent for what is being discussed here, but that does not relieve any country of the capacity or the responsibility for dealing with a trial as fairly as possible. On the issue of precedent, it is not surprising that we do not have anything direct.
A noble Lord: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I did not answer the second point raised by my noble and learned friend as regards consular access. There has been no consular access because these are unlawful combatants. They were not in the position of nationals who might find themselves
32
in prison on ordinary criminal charges. However, they have been seen by British officials five times since becoming inmates at Guantanamo Bay.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, first.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us, knowing how unsatisfactory this position has been for a long time, why we were prepared to ease the restrictions on extraditing in favour of the United States—a subject which was recently raised in this House? Why was that not used, for instance, as a bargaining position in order to achieve some helpful resolution of the current problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, those two issues are very different. These individuals were not extradited from the United Kingdom. They are individuals who were taken into custody by the United States outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction from various parts of the world. Now, possibly, they are to be charged with terrorism. They have not been extradited from the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that the whole of the Guantanamo Bay issue brings United States' justice into disrepute? Does she not agree that military tribunals without the right of access—locking up for years and years—go against the whole tradition of Anglo-American justice? Would she muse a tiny moment on the prospect of peradventure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was in Opposition? I can hear his mellifluous Welsh tones thundering against the injustice of these cases; I would have been in complete and utter agreement with him. This brings the whole of United States defence of democracy, defence of liberty and defence of justice into disrepute.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I made the point a moment ago that it is in the interests of the United States to listen very carefully to what its friends are saying. It is in the interests of the US because if it is not able so to do, I fear that many individuals and perhaps some Governments around the world will draw the conclusions that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is drawing. It is sometimes possible to thunder about these issues and at other times to speak in a measured but, none the less, forceful tone about what we now expect to happen. There is a great deal of work to be done. I suspect that there will be many conversations about this. It is the measured calmness of diplomatic and ministerial representations that are likely to get us closer to the types of measures that constitute a fair trial.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think that I can assure my noble friend that the Government will have the support of almost everyone in this House for the actions that they take. Clearly, it is an appalling state of affairs. Those of us who have looked at the situation

33
have come to the conclusion that it reflects badly on the United States, on its history and, indeed, on its traditions. I have one factual question: how many other British subjects are there in Guantanamo Bay who may find themselves in a similar position?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said. Altogether, there are nine British subjects housed at Guantanamo Bay; that is, seven in addition to the two designated in this process.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the best way of ensuring that our citizens get a fair trial to demand that they he handed over to British authorities for trial in our courts under the Terrorism Act 2000? If they have to be tried in the United States, would the Government ensure that the final rule—the regulations—which will govern the military tribunals are subjected to British legal experts for their comments? Particular issues are that the lawyer who will be defending not just our citizens but others too is a former military aide to President George Bush Senior; that the defendants, apparently, are to be offered the choice between pleading guilty and receiving a 20-year prison sentence, or the death sentence; and that the conversations between defence lawyers and their clients are to be monitored. Does she think that all those provisions are in accordance with the international standards that we are demanding?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is why the Government are voicing such strong reservations. I find it hard to disagree with many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord. Avebury. The monitoring of conversations is certainly something that we would find unacceptable. The plea bargaining process in the United States applies to its criminal law; that is being applied now to these cases, very much in the way described by the noble Lord. It might be argued that it puts undue pressure on individuals to own up to crimes for fear of finding themselves exposed to the death penalty if they do not do so. I absolutely understand the point made by the noble Lord. It is a point that would strike anyone who looks at these papers.
On the question of demanding that the individuals be handed over, in the preliminary discussions we examined a number of different options with the United States, including the one mentioned by the noble Lord. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made that clear some months ago in another place. The United States has been clear back to us that that was not an option.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, has the Minister or her colleagues made it clear to the United States' authorities that the way in which a trial would take place in this country, under the Terrorism Act, would ensure a fair balance between open justice and the need to protect the security of the intelligence and security sources—that being Option A? Option B would involve the United States' federal courts, with
34
their fine reputation for the due process of law, conducting a trial according to their ordinary procedures. Option C would be an international tribunal that was independent and impartial, established under international law to satisfy the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Have those three options been—or will they be—put forward as possible options to the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "Yes, of course all these options have been discussed". I am pleased to hear what the noble Lord said about the balance in our Terrorism Act. Of course, there is an issue here. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was right to remind us of the seriousness of the crimes. Let us not forget that some of the crimes at the root of this are heinous and horrendous crimes. It is enormously important that we do everything we can to ensure that the people responsible are brought to justice.
That said, the whole system loses credibility unless there is a fair trial process. When so much of what we are arguing about is fairness and justice in the world, it is enormously important that the system we use to bring people to justice is self-evidently as fair as possible—that is, balancing the rights of the individual on trial against the rights of the rest of the world to security. The issue of federal courts is very interesting. So far, United States' citizens have gone through a quite different court procedure—a point which I am sure will not have escaped many of your Lordships. Again, this is a point on which one is tempted to argue that a system that is not quite right for United States' citizens might not be quite right for a great number of other citizens too.
The noble Lord makes the important point about international tribunals. Of course, he knows that the United States has not signed up to the International Criminal Court, much as we have urged it to do so. I take the point of the three options; the fact is that none of those three options is on offer. We have quite simple choices. We either stay in the room and argue for fair trials—or as fair as we can obtain—or we leave the room. I am for staying in the room.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement and for what the Minister has said about a fair trial being essential. Will the Government continue to press for the remaining seven British prisoners to be either charged or released? Secondly, would the noble Baroness use all her influence to secure adequate exercise facilities for these people?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, on the first point, yes. The noble Lord made a very important point about these other individuals. There are terrible choices here. These individuals can either have a lengthy stay without knowing what will happen to them or they can go forward to a trial process which may have many shortcomings and about which we have reservations. It is very important that the issue of the other seven is resolved. On the second point raised by the noble Lord

35
of adequate exercise, we have pressed for that. It is not just a question of exercise, there should also be more contact through family letters. There is some evidence that family correspondence is not getting through. That has been the cause of quite a lot of distress. On both issues of family letters and exercise, we shall continue to make representations.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is impossible not to sympathise with the position the Government find themselves in. The Minister will have a clear idea of the concern and anger in all parts of your Lordships' House. Will she use her best endeavours to come back to the House when we resume in September with a progress report?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, indeed I will. Your Lordships may be interested to know that this issue falls into my ministerial portfolio as the Minister for counter-terrorism. Therefore I am well placed to return to your Lordships on this issue.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, the Minister says that it is important to bring influence to bear on a Government with which we have very close relations. We saw that in the run-up to the war in Iraq where it was publicly argued that we played a very important role by being in the room. At what point do we say we are going to leave the room and make it clear that we find something wholly unacceptable and that there is a fault line in our relationship?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I find it difficult to speculate. I shall tell my noble friend why. I am not sure how that helps the individuals about whom I am most concerned—those who may stand trial. My noble friend talks about what might be some wholly unacceptable arrangement. It is also unacceptable to leave British citizens abandoned to their fate. Saying that we find it impossible to go on does not serve any useful purpose. We should continue to hold our nerve and continue to argue as vigorously as we can. My right honourable friend has arranged to have further discussions with Colin Powell later this week.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the Minister has the whole-hearted support of this House in making clear to our friends in the United States that the British public will find baffling the refusal of the US authorities to consider the reasonable options advanced by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. This refusal comes from a country which has had a close relationship with us, both in the conduct of the war against terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11 and more recently over Iraq. The failure to accept the handing over of British nationals to the British authorities suggests a lack of trust in our own ability to handle terrorism threats. This is simply not consonant with the close alliance of which we are a part.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The reaction of the British media has been very clear. In recent days many people have said to me that they find what is being proposed unacceptable. The Government have strong reservations. We must engage with the United States about this. They have indicated that they are still open to suggestions about the way trials are conducted. They have said they wish them to be open. I do not believe it is a lack of trust in the United Kingdom that lies at the root of this. It is the belief of the United States that they, as the retaining power, have the right to put these individuals on trial. However much we find that a difficult notion, we have to deal with the situation as we find it. It is enormously important that we engage as friends and use our not inconsiderable powers of persuasion.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.35 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No.32:
Page 6, line 13, leave out "and" and insert—
"( ) the General Council of the Bar,
( ) the Law Society of England and Wales,
( ) the Institute of Legal Executives, and"
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to all the amendments standing in my name. Several of the amendments to this Clause suggest being more specific about those whom the Home Secretary must consult about new codes or proposals to amend existing codes. Currently Clause 9 specifies as consultees only persons representing the interests of police authorities and persons representing the interests of chief constables, together with such other persons as the Home Secretary thinks fit. We agree that it is sensible to include the Law Society and the Bar Council and they are covered by government Amendment No. 32 That amendment also includes the Institute of Legal Executives as members of that organisation will frequently be involved in advising detainees at police stations and will therefore have day to day dealings with the codes. That was a point made in Committee in another place and we accept its validity.
We do not agree that magistrates need to be specified as consultees in every case as suggested by Amendment No. 33 They have a direct interest in only certain aspects of the codes and the proposals in Clause 9 allow ample scope for them to be consulted where that is necessary. Amendment No. 34 would expand the reference to the Secretary of State consulting with such other persons as he thinks tit to

37
specify that such persons must have experience in the general field of activity covered by the codes. We do not think that is necessary, as targeted consultation would obviously be directed towards people who are in a position to comment on new codes and proposed changes from an informed position.
Amendment No. 35 would require that the persons to be consulted on new or revised codes at the discretion of the Home Secretary should be specified in a list issued by him and should include organisations involved in consultations on revisions of the codes prior to these latest proposed amendments to PACE. We think that would defeat a key objective of Clause 9, which is to enable consultation in each individual case to be directed towards those organisations and individuals best placed to comment on the particular issues raised, which will vary from item to item. Requiring what would be very broad consultation for even the most minor amendments would tend to reinforce the bureaucratic nature of the whole process rather than to make matters more straightforward in the way we are proposing.
Amendment No. 36 would require that among those whom the Home Secretary thinks fit to consult should be included those representing the interests of the victim, lay and professional witnesses and defendants. Once again, we suggest that that would tend to undermine the intention of allowing for targeted consultation according to the specific subject matter. The requirement to consult the main representative bodies for the legal profession, which we are intending to include, does much to cover the interests of defendants, victims and witnesses. However, there will clearly be many situations where broader consultation will be necessary and the clause allows for that.
We are looking to minimise the bureaucracy surrounding the introduction of any new or revised code and provide a targeted and focused approach to consultation. Amendment No. 37A may provide an element of bureaucracy. It would add an unnecessary feature of laying the list of consultees before Parliament at the same time as a code. We have already indicated in considering Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 that the Secretary of State will consult as considered relevant and necessary. The focus should be on the content and effectiveness of any new or revised code and not on elements of the process of achieving that outcome.
Following on from discussion in another place and taking into account the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee, we have been considering the procedural options for dealing with new and amended codes. We now accept that the affirmative procedure is justified for new codes and significant amendments and that is reflected in government Amendment No. 37, which stands in my name. However, we have been trying to devise a quicker route for handling minor and straightforward changes.
We have looked hard at the scope for involving the Home Affairs Select Committee in advising on whether specific changes warrant detailed parliamentary scrutiny or not. However, there are substantial legal difficulties in
38
the way of specifying a role for the committee in the Bill. In particular, the difficulties arise from the fact that the names and functions of parliamentary committees are subject to change over time. We have seen that happen in the past few years. We might in due course be faced with a need to change primary legislation to remove or modify a statutory requirement for consultation that was not compatible with the way Parliament reorganised its business. I understand that there are also difficult issues linked to the mechanism by which the Secretary of State would consult such a committee in pursuance of a statutory obligation and the remedies available to the committee if he failed to do so.
A more workable alternative is to amend the legislation so that there is effectively a choice between affirmative resolution and simply laying before Parliament for any proposed changes. That is the approach reflected in Amendment No. 37. Further to that, I am prepared to give an undertaking here in Committee that the Home Secretary will seek the Home Affairs Committee's advice on the appropriate procedure for each and every proposed amendment to the codes and also that he will be bound by the committee's advice in every case. That will effectively ensure informed parliamentary oversight of the procedure to be used, but without referring to the committee in the Bill.
In summary, the government amendments which have been proposed go a considerable way towards meeting the concerns that have been raised and ensuring that new and revised codes are subject to adequate processes of consultation and parliamentary consideration. We recognise that the proposed involvement of the Home Affairs Select Committee is an innovative idea, but we hope that it can prove very effective in practice in ensuring sensible levels of parliamentary scrutiny. While we resist the opposition amendments, that is against the background of our own proposed amendments picking up what we regard as the most telling and important points that they raise. We also recognise that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not yet had an opportunity to consider our amendments. We shall of course consider its comments very carefully and, if necessary, review the position in the light of its recommendations. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to be content.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As the Minister said, we have tabled some amendments in this group. I listened carefully to what she said in justifying her position and attempting to destroy ours. I hear the words "targeted consultation" and "minimising bureaucracy", which is all good stuff. However. we are not entirely happy, and the amendments require a further airing.
As the Minister said, the amendments revise the codes of practice. We are grateful that the Government have tabled amendments that have gone some way to meeting our concerns. However, the practical operation of the last eight clauses that we have been debating will be governed by the codes. Much of our

39
discussion in the Chamber has been understandably at a strategic—even a bird's eye—level, but the PACE codes of practice are the fundamentals of the system, where it comes most closely into contact with the general public.
Until now there has been a wide consultation process, laid down in Section 67(1) of PACE, which states that:
"When a Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice to which this section applies, he shall prepare and publish a draft of that code, shall consider any representations made about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly".
We are concerned that under the umbrella of bureaucracy minimisation and cutting down on and focusing consultation, the Government are proposing to narrow and shorten the consultation process too much. We agree with the Government that maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the system is absolutely critical. Is it wise in such circumstances to reduce the consultative process?
We also have some more specific concerns that our amendments address. Clause 9(4) lists the people who have to be consulted before any revision of a code. We agree with the noble Baroness that, as originally drafted, the consultation process seemed a little one-sided. Subsection (4)(a) refers to the police authorities, subsection (4)(b) to the chief officers of the police and subsection (4)(c) to such other persons as are thought fit. Of course, the police need to be involved, but there are others who need to be involved and to be able to make their views known.
The Law Society has provided us with a very helpful briefing on this point; it observes that the codes affect all aspects of pre-charge investigation, in turn affecting the post charge process, and can often affect the operation of the duty solicitor scheme. Accordingly, where there is to be a change in practice, it is in the interests of effective implementation, as well as in the interests of justice, for there to be obligatory consultation with all relevant parties.
Amendment No. 33 widens consultation to include what one might describe as "the legal professionals", two of which the Minister swept up in her amendment. However, we remain concerned that magistrates are being overlooked. They are very much at the sharp end of the practical implication of the codes. We should also like to see the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Magistrates' Association brought into the consultation process.
Our Amendments Nos. 34 and 36 take the issue wider, including representatives of the general public who become involved with the courts, as well as interest groups that deal with the impact of the judicial system. We have had a most helpful briefing from the Children's Society, which outlined some of the practical difficulties and implications if consultation is to be restricted in future. It says:
"The Children Act 1989 gave a technical legal definition of the term 'in care', meaning a child is subject to some form of care order, introducing the term 'looked after' for children living away from home and 'accommodated' for children for whom the local authority does not have a share in the Parental Responsibility. It
40
is only after many years of representations that the significance of this has been acknowledged in the Codes of Practice. There is now a changed wording over who may act as the appropriate adult for looked after children consistent with the language and concepts of the Children Act 1989. Without the current duty to consult widely the representations necessary to effect this change would not have been considered and this long overdue change not happened".
Finally, the noble Baroness said that Amendment No. 37A was unduly restrictive, but it is an attempt to ensure that consultation on future codes is sufficiently wide by requiring the Secretary of State to disclose who has been consulted. Otherwise, the assurances given by the noble Baroness this afternoon—no doubt in absolutely good faith—will not bear heavily on her successors. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has taken a similar approach for the Liberal Democrats with Amendment No. 35, to which my noble friend Lady Anelay has added her name. I look forward to her contribution.
Our case for the amendments can be simply put. We are all agreed that maintaining public confidence in the system of justice is critical. Transparency is a vital ingredient in maintaining that confidence. The provisions of the PACE codes will be experienced at first hand by literally thousands of our fellow citizens. For many of them the code will govern their only contact with the judicial system. It is very important that there should be avenues for them to make their views known on the efficacy or otherwise of the codes when revisions are contemplated.
There is another, more pragmatic reason for keeping the consultation process on revision as wide as possible. As Mr Grieve observed in Committee in another place on 7th January at col. 123, where the maximum consultation on revisions to the codes has taken place, their new provisions are more likely to be accepted and it is less likely that their detail will be subject to challenge in court. That underlines the importance of Amendment No. 37A. We are seeking to mirror closely the present consultation process. There do not appear to have been any problems with it. "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it", seems to be good advice on this occasion.
Baroness Walmsley: Amendment No. 35, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would retain the existing provisions for making amendments to the PACE codes of practice, so that any changes to the safeguards for children are subject to wide consultation. The amendment has been suggested by the major children's organisations.
Clause 9 changes the current situation, under which the Home Secretary is obliged to undertake public consultation on any changes. The Bill proposes that he can amend or revise the codes with limited consultation. Government Amendment No. 32 amends that.
This significant change has received cross-party opposition in another place as well as in your Lordships' House. The Home Affairs Select Committee also expressed concern. There is a lot of support for the need to extend the breadth of consultation to, among others, the Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as the Law Society and the

41
others included in government Amendment No. 32. It is also felt that any changes should be agreed through affirmative resolution in both Houses. Although the Government have indicated that the affirmative procedure is in place for new codes and significant amendments, many people are concerned that apparently minor changes can sometimes have major effects, even though they have been subject to limited consultation. The major children's organisations are concerned that the proposed limited consultation on changes is unnecessarily restrictive. They are particularly concerned to ensure that any changes to the safeguards for children are widely consulted on by a specified list of organisations that have made major contributions to consultation in the past.
Consultation can improve the codes and act as a check and balance to ensure that safeguards for children are maintained. The recent review involved 80 organisations and produced very few problems. The interaction between consultation and parliamentary scrutiny is well established and the resulting codes are robust and comprehensive. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has quoted a clear example in which such consultation has resulted in a very beneficial change to the code.
I hear what the Minister has to say about the need to remove bureaucracy when minor changes are envisaged, but I remind her that on an earlier group of amendments her noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws pointed out that a significant organisation was ignored in consultation on another matter in relation to the Bill. I hope that I have made the case for the widest possible consultation.
Lord Elton: I endorse the view that the case of children needs the most careful consideration. There is much in what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. However, the need for consultation runs right through the Bill, regardless of who is concerned.
I warmly welcome government Amendment No. 37, which produces a properly parliamentary procedure, but it seems to contain an oddity. As I understand it, subsection (7) of the amendment says that the normal procedure for a code will be to bring an order to Parliament under the affirmative procedure. However, subsection (7A) appears to leave a range of options. It says:
"An order bringing a revision of a code into operation must be laid before Parliament if the order has been made without a draft having been so laid"—
that is, having been laid for an affirmative procedure. That subsection implies that a revision of a code can have the affirmative procedure or it can simply be laid before the House, which involves no procedure, but the intermediate stage—which is usually considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which we pay close attention and which is yet to report—is for a negative order.
The difference is important. Affirmative orders have to be brought forward by the Government for debate, but negative orders appear on the Minute as such and offer themselves for selection by other Members of the House. However, I think that those that are simply laid
42
before the House appear in a different part of the Minute that I practically never read, because there are scores, or even hundreds, of them coming through all the time. I do not regard the simple laying of the order as sufficient protection in a matter that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others have said, can have a close effect particularly on children.
Lord Renton: I am impressed by most of the amendments. However, Amendment No. 36, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, says that consultations carried out before the code is formulated should include,
"those representing the interests of the victim, lay and professional witnesses and defendants".
Let us take defendants. There is no public body representative of criminals which would have to he consulted. I wonder whether my noble friend could explain what on earth is intended by including that. Are there bodies representing victims of these sort of crimes? I should be fascinated to know whether there are such bodies because victims can vary enormously right across society. Then we also find that the representatives of lay and professional witnesses have to be consulted. They, too, can vary greatly. If my noble friend could explain the amendment or say that perhaps it should not be moved, I should be grateful.
5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which I rarely do. He is seized of a very important point. Amendments have to make sense. I do not believe that the proposed measure makes a real contribution to our deliberations. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a very important point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will readily discard what is tabled in Amendment No. 36.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister's amendment was predicted in the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of which I am a member. The committee states at paragraph 9 of its report that the matter,
"is explained in full in the memorandum where it is stated that amendments are to be tabled about the level of parliamentary scrutiny that will apply".
The committee said that it would consider those amendments when they were available to the House. I think I am right in saying that the committee has not as yet been able to do that because the relevant business was tabled before it met. But the committee further stated:
"Meanwhile, we wish to endorse the principle (proposed in the memorandum) that new codes and significant amendments to existing codes (however that is to be defined) should be subject to affirmative procedure".
I was going to wait until the next group of amendments to comment on that but as I believe the noble Baroness said that the Government were prepared to accept that new codes should be subject to affirmative resolution, she has made an exception to the process of amendments to codes and has offered a rather

43
different way of dealing with them. Of course, I have no idea what the committee would have to say about that because it has not yet considered the matter. But in principle the committee does not agree with that as it considers that such codes matter so much to ordinary people that they should be properly discussed by both Houses of Parliament even when the issue is simply that of amendments to the codes. I expect the noble Baroness realises that the Select Committee may or may not be in agreement on the matter. We are about to discuss that matter but I thought that I had better remind the Committee what the Select Committee said on that point.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It might be helpful if I respond to the two points made about Amendment No. 36. I think it is fair to say that victim support organisations could be consulted. I say to my noble friend Lord Renton and to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that defendants are not necessarily criminals. They may be innocent people who have been through the system and therefore have a view about the operation of the codes. As regards lay and professional witnesses, while I do not for a moment claim that the amendment is perfectly drafted from a parliamentary draftsman's point of view, it is an attempt to ensure that the generality of the public are involved in the matter on the grounds that it is altogether too important to be left to lawyers.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down could he explain who would be the representatives? Which bodies would be the representatives of victims, of lay and professional witnesses and, separately, of defendants?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I do not wish to be so prescriptive as to suggest that the Government should lay out a list in primary legislation. I merely say that categories of bodies exist that represent the interests of victims, witnesses and defendants and who could be consulted.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Clearly a large number of organisations have already been consulted, if you like, in terms of the lobbying that they have put before us, some of which is of exceptional quality in a number of areas relating to this Bill and to several in which we have been involved recently. I have in my time represented organisations that deal with witnesses, victims and perpetrators. Sometimes it is extraordinarily difficult to separate out those groups. I add my voice to the wish that those groups continue to be consulted not in the interests of bureaucracy but because the comments that they make to an open-minded government can add quality to the codes on which the latter are consulting.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness is quite right but surely the phrase,
"such other persons as he thinks fit"
44
catches them all. It is impossible in legislation to mention everyone who ought to be consulted. That catch-all is very valuable.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I endorse what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that she is absolutely right about the nature of the consultation and the mix that quite often is inherent in the structure of the organisations with whom we consult. I hope that nothing that I have said will be misunderstood as indicating that the Government intend to limit those with whom they consult.
The Committee will know that the codes will be published on the website in draft so in practice anyone and everyone will as now be able to comment and make their position clear. At present there are no statutory consultees, only a general duty to consult which we exercise with great frequency and, I believe, efficacy. What we are talking about is the bureaucracy of having a list of specific organisations which have to be consulted on each occasion about each issue. Such a list may not include those who will need to be consulted. There is also the fear of changing that list but organisations change and metamorphose into different organisations. If you have a static list, does that mean that those on it are the only people who will be consulted? We want to make it clear that the matter is open.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we take very seriously indeed the contribution made by children's charities which have been very vocal and rightly so. They have highlighted some of the nuances, differences and changes which are so important in making sure that children and young people's interests are properly reflected. We obviously wish them to continue to address those issues in the energetic way in which they have. We believe that the proposals will allow them to do so.
The Home Affairs Committee proposal is a novel one. We are suggesting that it should have an input into which procedure should be adopted, whether affirmative or negative. However, its novelty does not detract from its efficacy. We believe that it will bring something to the process. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the affirmative procedure. Subsection (7) relates only to the new clauses—that must be the affirmative procedure. The proposed new subsection (7A) offers a choice for revision: either affirmative procedure or the simple laying of an order. We decided not to go for the negative procedure.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that we absolutely understand that the affirmative procedure was the course taken by the Delegated Powers Committee. We understand that the real import of what the committee was saying was that significant alterations were of equal importance to new codes, and for affirmative resolutions as appropriate.
The new process we are suggesting is that it may be necessary, for the convenience of everyone, to make minor changes to the codes which do not merit the full

45
panoply of the affirmative resolution procedure. If the Home Affairs Select Committee were to indicate to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the negative resolution procedure would be preferable and appropriate, we would agree to be bound by that. It is on that novel proposal that we obviously want to have the comments of the Delegated Powers Committee and I have indicated that we shall examine the matter when we have that advice.
Lord Elton: The Minister did not explain why the Government had decided simply to let papers not subject to parliamentary proceedings lie on the table. I was asking for an explanation as to why the middle alternative was not available to the committee so that both Houses could decide whether they wished to pursue a matter further.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have made it clear that we agree that in the majority of such cases the affirmative procedure would be the most appropriate. As I have indicated, if the Select Committee came to the view that the negative resolution procedure was appropriate, we would follow that; and indeed the simple laying of an order would be appropriate where issues do not appear to be contentious or in need of that level of scrutiny. It gives us an opportunity to make each procedure fit the purpose in terms of the nature of the changes that we seek to make.
This is a much more flexible tool than we have had before, but we are trying to apply the lightest touch necessary but to allow both Houses a proper opportunity to scrutinise and debate these issues where that seems to be appropriate. We hope that the way in which we have phrased this—subordinating the exercise of the discretion of the Home Secretary to the committee's suggestion—will inspire confidence that we have got the balance right. Were the committee to come to the conclusion that the affirmative resolution should be used in each and every case having considered on the basis of the information before it that that would be appropriate, as I have indicated, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is content to be so bound.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish to be clear about this. I did not realise quite what the noble Baroness was saying. If this amendment is accepted today, the Delegated Powers Committee has nothing to do with it. It is not for the Delegated Powers Committee to decide what Parliament should do; it merely advises this House. Is the noble Baroness putting this amendment to the Committee today, or is she leaving it for further consideration?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am putting the amendment to the Committee today. I should clarify the point, as I may have innocently confused matters. The choice is between the affirmative procedure and the mere laying of an order, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, indicated. I hope that I have made that clear.
46
In introducing the amendment I was attempting to explain that there are real difficulties in putting the proposal that the Home Secretary should be bound by the committee's recommendations on the face of the Bill, because of the possibility of the committee changing and the construct being different. We know that we cannot do that—the draftsmen have told us as much. But what we can do is to make a commitment to this House that these issues will go before the committee; the committee will have an opportunity to examine them; and the Home Secretary has indicated that he will be so bound.
So far as concerns the Delegated Powers Committee, we are asking this Committee to consider the amendment now, but we are doing so on the basis that the Delegated Powers Committee has not had an opportunity to have its say. What I was saying was that, if, contrary to our current expectation, a different view is alighted upon, we will consider that before we return to the matter on Report. So this may not be the end of it if there is a powerful argument that we should properly consider.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the Minister for that response.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: If we are to take Amendment No. 37 now, it may be helpful if I raise some of the concerns I have about Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. Otherwise, we shall have a repeat of the same debate on the next grouping. We are concerned about the parliamentary scrutiny aspect. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for her briefing letter. She has summarised it very fairly. She said:
"The basic intention of clause 9 is to speed up and simplify processes in relation to the codes so that it is easier to keep them up to date in the face of an ever-increasing rate of legislative and procedural change. However, concerns have been expressed during debate in the Commons, as well as by the Home Affairs Select Committee … that the proposed changes are too far reaching and do not allow for sufficient consultation and parliamentary scrutiny".
So far so good. But the letter went on to say:
"In the light of these objections we are now proposing to amend clause 9 so that any new codes will remain subject to the full affirmative resolution procedure in parliament as at present. In relation to proposed changes to the existing codes, our amendments would effectively allow the Home Secretary discretion to choose either the affirmative resolution procedure on a draft order or straightforward laying of a made order depending on his judgement about the level of scrutiny necessary in each particular case. However, in order to avoid allowing an inappropriate level of discretion to the Home Secretary, we would undertake in parliament during the passage of the Bill that he would agree to consult the HASC in every case and be bound by their views on which procedure to adopt in relation to each proposed change. This approach was trailed in debate at Commons Report stage and did not meet with any opposition".
That raises a number of serious concerns. We have, as yet, no definition for the phrase "new code". The noble Baroness has given us one off the top of her head this afternoon, but, cynically, one could argue that there will never be a new code; there will only be revisions of existing codes. Secondly, is it right that the Home Secretary should decide whether to use the

47
affirmative or negative resolution? Thirdly, while it is true that the Home Affairs Select Committee will have some influence over which procedure is used, is it influence with teeth, given the political make-up of the committee?
Finally, I can see no role for this House in arriving at this decision. One of the primary roles of this House is as a revising Chamber. There is legal, judicial and general expertise in abundance in this House and it should therefore have a role in this procedure.
One final matter that I should like to raise with the Minister is how frequently the Government believe it will be necessary to review the PACE codes in future. It is one thing to consult on changes to the codes and to construct new codes. It is quite another to go through the hard, day-to-day realities of implementing the changes—new forms, new procedures and, above all, new training are highly absorptive of police time. So it would be helpful as we debate this general area if the Government could give some indication of their thinking as to the frequency with which these changes are likely to be made in future. For example, would the Government consider an amendment suggesting that codes could be revised, say, only twice in any 10-year period? There are issues that we have not teased out, and, rather than return to them in relation to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, I thought it worthwhile to raise those points now.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for that. A "new code" is a code covering entirely new subject matter. For example, there was recently a new code on the video-recording of interviews. One of the difficulties that I have is in giving the noble Lord any indication as to how often these changes will be necessary. Regrettably, none of us has a crystal ball and we often think that there is no need for revision. Then, because of technological and other changes, we find that a new code to meet the new arrangements becomes necessary, as the noble Lord probably knows from practice. So I cannot say how often that will be necessary, but the fact that it will be necessary we can take from the amount of times that we have had to do it so far. I anticipate therefore that it will be a rolling programme, but I cannot give any better indication than that.
Amendment No. 38 would require the retention of the affirmative resolution procedure for new and revised PACE codes. I have already mentioned that we are content to retain the affirmative resolution procedure for new codes. However, we want to keep some flexibility in relation to amendments, and that is why we intend effectively to give the Home Affairs Select Committee discretion over whether specific proposals should be subject to affirmative resolution or to a simple laying requirement.
I hear the comments of the noble Lord about the complexion of the Select Committees. However, that has not to date stopped them holding this Government to account, and every other government who have come within their view. We do not see that the Home Affairs Select Committee will do anything other than
48
behave entirely independently. That is how they have operated in the past and we believe that they will continue to do so.
Amendment No. 39 would require the affirmative resolution procedure for analogous codes covering the work of military police forces. Currently such codes are only subject to negative resolution and, as they tend broadly to follow the main PACE codes, there is a good case for exempting them from any specific parliamentary procedure. Allowing for the government amendments which have already been discussed, we do not support either Amendments Nos. 38 or 39, but they are in the framework of the other proposals we have just outlined. I hear the comments of the noble Lord about scrutiny. That is why I made plain, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that we await the Delegated Powers Committee, because we wish to listen to what it might say. That is an innovative way of dealing with the matter.
I know that many noble Lords and others in another place have been concerned about how the Home Secretary will exercise his discretion. This is an appropriate way of giving both Houses the reassurance they seek. If we get an indication that the affirmative resolution procedure is preferred, that is the procedure we shall adopt.
Lord Elton: If we are expanding this group to include the next, I apologise for returning to the point that I have just raised. I draw your Lordships' attention to Section 67 of PACE, which has not been amended in this respect so far as I can see. Under that Act, amendments to codes were put through exactly the same parliamentary scrutiny—that is the affirmative procedure—as the original codes. Therefore, the current proposal is a downgrading. It is not a downgrading from the top line to the second line—from affirmative to negative procedure. It is a downgrading from the top line to the bottom line, which means no parliamentary procedure.
All those who have expressed concern about children and the importance that even minor changes might have for them will agree that that should be looked at with great suspicion. We should possibly return to the issue on Report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We are grateful to the Minister for her further courteous explanation on Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. We are not yet clear where we shall end up with Amendment No. 37, given that we have not yet had the report. So while we understand the Government's position, we shall reserve ours. So long as the Minister understands that we may wish to return to it on Report, we are prepared to let the matter rest for the moment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful for that indication. I hope that when we have an opportunity for further reflection, noble Lords will feel more content. I hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about suspicion. If that view is shared by others, then I am sure that they will ask for the affirmative resolution procedure, which is the higher

49
rather than the lowest of the three proposals, and I say. frankly, that if that is the view that is expressed, we would be content.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
"(5) A code, or a revision of a code, does not come into operation until the Secretary of State by order so provides.
(6) The power conferred by subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(7) An order bringing a code into operation may not he made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
5(7A) An order bringing a revision of a code into operation must be laid before Parliament if the order has been made without a draft having been so laid and approved by a resolution of each House.
(7B) When an order or draft of an order is laid, the code or revision of a code to which it relates must also be laid.
(7C) No order or draft of an order may be laid until the consultation required by subsection (4) has taken place.
(7D) An order bringing a code, or a revision of a code, into operation may include transitional or saving provisions.—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37A to 39 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power of arrest for possession of Class C drugs]:
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 42 not moved]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Walmsley: We have already had the debate about the powers of arrest for possession of class C drugs. I shall not repeat that debate, although I support the removal of Clause 11. I wish to make three brief points. First, the main reason that these Benches do not support the powers is that we believe they undermine the attempt to develop a credible set of drugs laws focused on reducing harm and concentrating law enforcement on the dealers in hard drugs. We believe that the many benefits of reclassification of cannabis will be undermined and diluted by allowing these police powers to remain in the Bill.
Secondly, in her response to our debate last week on her Amendment No. 6, the Minister commented that I had wrongly stated that the penalties for possession of cannabis would be increased by this Bill. I shall explain how I reached that conclusion. First, those agencies that advised the Government to reclassify cannabis as class C envisaged that a major consequence would be the removal of any custodial penalty for possession. By reclassifying it and then introducing the power of arrest and a two-year penalty the Government are, in effect, increasing the penalty from zero to two years.
50
In addition Schedule 24 increases the maximum penalty for offences of production, supply and possession with intent to supply a class C drug from five to 14 years. Many of those who wish to use cannabis for medicinal purposes, or even for leisure purposes, would prefer to grow their own than to have to engage with criminal dealers who also supply class A drugs in order to obtain their supplies. In doing so, they may wish to supply other users or sufferers of pain for which cannabis is a relief. That puts them in danger of a 14-year sentence rather than a five-year sentence. That is what I mean by an increase. If the Government would only allow people to grow their own and supply a small group of friends without running the risk of becoming involved with the criminal justice system, just as people, including my own grandfather, used to grow their own tobacco, the problem would be solved without any damage to society. It is a practical and reasonable solution proposed by these Benches and many drug policy experts, but clearly the Government are not inclined to listen.
Finally, on the matter of the Conservative amendment which we debated last week to remove other class C drugs from the power of arrest, we on these Benches have a great deal of sympathy with the idea and I trust that we will return to it at the Report stage.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Waddington: I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. It is not difficult to argue that the position adopted by the Government is fundamentally flawed. As I have argued on many previous occasions, cannabis should not have been reclassified from a class B to a class C drug when hardly a week goes by without new evidence emerging of the harmful effect of the drug and the way in which it can cause mental illness. The cannabis now on the streets is far more potent and potentially dangerous. It is odd and irresponsible for the Government to take a step which is bound to convey to son-le people the message that the use of cannabis is not a serious matter.
The Government's stance is entirely illogical; downgrading the drug but keeping the power of arrest. I do not believe that we should vote against the clause because it seeks to mitigate the effect of their folly in declassifying. But I am thankful for that small mercy. It does something to correct the mischievous impression they have created—that the drug is harmless—for which we should be thankful.
It would have been far better if they had singled out cannabis among class C drugs whose use would justify arrest. I pointed out previously the absurdity that the possession of, say, anabolic steroids should be arrestable. But there it is; this is making the best of a very bad job. I would therefore not vote against the clause.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for what they have said. If one

51
were to take the middle course, it looks as though the Government have got it about right—no one is happy, but everyone seems to be content.
Clause 11 negatived.
Clause 12 [Drug testing for under-eighteens]:
Lord Adebowale Lord Adebowale moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert "and has reasonable grounds for believing that the person has a propensity to misuse Class A drugs and that the misuse by the person caused or contributed to an offence"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 49. I know that Amendment No. 48 will be considered separately, but it may be convenient to raise some of the points now. I realise that some Members of the Committee will want to return to that amendment.
Clause 12 highlights the Government's intention to extend blood testing at the point of arrest and pre-sentencing to 14 to 17 year-olds. They also want to include blood testing and treatment conditions as part of post-custody licence. Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I want to turn to the principles of extending blood testing to young people.
The overwhelming objective is to ensure that we maintain the right balance between providing appropriate interventions and doing so at an early stage while treating young people and respecting their rights carefully. That also involves considering what we mean by appropriate interventions for young people aged 14 and over, as well as children who are below 14.
The Bill aims to extend testing and subsequent interventions as regards people who are over 14 and under 18 at different stages within the criminal justice system. While I have supported the expansion of options for adult users aged 18 and over in the criminal justice system, the transfer of testing of young adults is not so straightforward. Our imperative is to ensure that testing young people does not become a bolt-on to existing arrangements for the testing and treatment of adults. We must also be satisfied that the provisions in the Bill will not lead to the position in which criminal justice initiatives for young people become a priority over providing treatment to those young people who have not committed a crime and who can be prevented from committing a crime in the future by prompt access to treatment outside the criminal justice system.
In addition, while drug experimentation and occasional use are relatively common among adolescents, national statistics suggest that fewer than 1 per cent of young people aged 16 or under have ever used heroin or cocaine and even fewer are regular users. Testing therefore may be a poor means of identifying problem behaviours. Certainly the price of not getting it right by providing the wrong intervention at the wrong time is high.
I know that Drugscope and the Children's Society have expressed deep reservations about these proposals. These include serious concerns on whether the proposals contravene the UN declaration on the rights of the child and whether the powers to observe
52
urine testing and holding people in police cells while awaiting results may contravene European human rights law. It would be wrong to dismiss these concerns outright. They share many of the concerns to which I shall now turn.
I declare an interest as chief executive of the social care charity, Turning Point. I know from experience that drug taking is a serious problem, especially among under-18s. Ten thousand young people were in contact with Turning Point in 2001–02, although that includes intervention across prevention, education as well as treatment. At a local level, for instance, in Sheffield we supported 4,000 people and approximately 200 people in treatment. Turning Point's view is that early interventions, including criminal justice interventions, are needed to support young people over 14 whose patterns of abuse may be entrenched even at a young age.
Four points on testing need to be addressed before I am satisfied that the Government have struck the right balance between treatment and protecting the rights of the young person first. The Bill's proposal for testing people who are charged will result in them engaging in a treatment process at a police station, which by no stretch of the imagination is a young people friendly environment. I hope we can receive assurance that the welfare of the young person will not be compromised and that the appropriate links with specialist drug agencies will be made at an early stage.
My second concern centres on guidance and safeguards. The aim of testing at charge is surely to identify problematic substance misuse and related crime and to provide suitable care. I would like assurances on how testing by police at the point of charge will help identify and sensitively meet a young person's broad and often complex range of social care needs that may include education or problems within the family home.
My third concern over testing is over the status of the sample and how the information derived from the results of the test is used. We need assurances that information from test results is handled sensitively. These results should be used only to inform a course of treatment rather than influencing criminal proceedings where they have no bearing on the crime and do not relate to problematic behaviours. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the test results will not be used as additional evidence in support of offences that the person has been charged with, or as an aggravating factor when sentencing. As part of this argument, we must recognise that not all class A drugs, such as LSD and ecstasy drugs, are linked to dependence or offending, making testing for them of little use in identifying problematic behaviours.
My fourth point on testing is that we need a greater understanding of ways in which drug testing will work in practice, particularly clarity of issues around consent and the presence of an appropriate adult—a point already raised by Drugscope and the Children's Society.
My specific amendment focuses on the circumstances that give rise to the testing of young people who are under 18. It seeks to restrict drug

53
testing to two situations. First, there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the person is dependent or has a propensity to misuse class A drugs. Secondly, that misuse or dependency caused or led to a criminal offence. It is very much a belt and braces amendment.
I appreciate that it is the Government's intention to incorporate the criteria that govern testing for adults to young people who are under 18. This includes a requirement that an individual must have been charged with an acquisitive offence and that class A drugs have been misused and contributed to that offence. However, given that Clause 12 introduces testing for under-18s for the first time, I believe that the safeguard should also be set out clearly on the face of the Bill.
The amendment also makes clear that the clause is not about random testing of 14 year-olds, which is the extreme way in which it may be painted. It is important that the police are reminded of their obligations before a young person is deprived of his liberty and a sample is taken from him. In any event, given the gravity of the proposals that extend drug testing to young people for the first time, I hope that the Government will use the opportunity to confirm that these safeguards will he put in place.
The aim of Amendment No. 48 is to probe the Minister's intention with regard to testing for children. It removes the right to change by statutory instrument the age for testing. I know that the other place expressed strong reservations about extending drug testing downwards to children aged 13 and under and allowing this change in law to be introduced through a statutory instrument. I need to be convinced that testing for children would maintain the sensitive balance between providing appropriate interventions and respecting the human rights of children.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 defines a child as a person who is under the age of 14. The most persuasive argument for not testing below the age of 14 is the result of the recent lifestyle survey which indicates that testing for class A drugs for under 14s would not be an efficient use of resources. While it is true that children may develop problems with drug use, there are also important human rights issues in relation to consent and concerns about the legality of testing children between the ages of 10 and 14. I am unsure whether testing children would conform with international and national obligations to treat children in a special and careful way, and to give them certain rights in the criminal justice system. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm the legal consequences of testing for children aged 14 and under. I am certainly aware that a child will need to have parents present if he is to be detained at a police station for testing and that this will have repercussions for the individual and the family concerned. In any event, I would be very interested to learn whether the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, has plans to extend drug testing for children at a later date.
Anticipating the Minister's response. I understand that the Government may want to argue that this power gives them the right to increase the age for
54
testing as well as to lower the age. The way around this would be to make specific provision for increasing the age limit only by explicitly stating that the Secretary of State can by statutory instrument increase. but not lower, the age for testing.
I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 49. There is a current requirement that states that testing cannot be carried out until arrangements for testing have been made for the police area as a whole or for the particular police station. This amendment places an additional requirement that will mean that testing cannot take place until arrangements for treatment have been developed in the police area as whole. Moreover, treatment would need to be appropriate for young people under 18. It would not be sufficient for adult-based service provision only to be available in that area.
I am concerned that the Bill is explicit on the testing requirements but silent on the right to treatment that should follow testing. This concern is shared by Turning Point and DrugScope. If we are prepared to take what many would regard as the drastic step of testing a young person then this House needs to be satisfied that safeguards are in place to ensure that the testing procedure works well and that treatment follows. A failure to deliver treatment would mean invading a person's privacy without delivering any consequential benefit at the other end.
Many noble Lords will be familiar with the Audit Commission's report that demonstrated that provision of treatment is often patchy or inadequate. A failure to provide treatment will severely damage a young person's life and may mean that he will continue his drug use and disengage from services in the future. There is also a risk of relapse if after-care services are not provided. This amendment will ensure that young people have age-specific, tailored services rather than being tested or treated in an adult-based system. I hope that the Minister will give a strong signal that testing for young people will not encourage young people into an adult-based system. which will only serve to exacerbate rather than to deal with their behaviour. My amendment is an important safeguard to prevent that happening.
I also hope that the Government will take the time to research what works and to promote good models for young people's services. The service needs to be specifically designed for young people and not to be a cut-down version of adult services. Young people should be involved in the planning, management and review of services. Services must take account of issues such as accessibility, confidentiality and the need to avoid stigmatisation. An effective assessment process that identifies the needs and aspirations of the young person on an individual basis is also essential. This involves the development of accurate and comprehensive assessment procedures and it must also be appreciated that the process of intervening with vulnerable young people is likely to require the involvement of a wide range of agencies.
Treatment provisions also need to be consistent with other government-led policy which is moving towards young people's needs holistically and from a preventitive

55
health and welfare point of view. Indeed, the Government's own guidelines confirm that children should not be referred to adult services and that under the Children Act 1989 local authorities are responsible for protecting children and young adults and promoting their welfare. This is the most persuasive argument in support of Amendment No. 49. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government will develop pilots and timescales to improve the evidence base because of the specific needs of young people and my concern over testing. I hope that they will examine thoroughly the best ways to help prevent young people from committing crime and to prevent dependent drug use from happening in the first place.
I would also welcome some clarity on how action plan orders will operate for young people following the Criminal Justice Bill, given that community orders only apply to young offenders aged 16 and over, and an assurance that the role of drug agencies in supporting youth defending teams will be enhanced. Has the Minister estimated the number of young people who will access treatment in the next year? What new resources have been put aside for developing young people-specific services? It would be useful to know how the Government envisage that testing for young people will link in with other initiatives such as the long-awaited Green Paper on children at risk.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give a commitment to report back to Parliament to share lessons learnt from pilots and from young people's interventions before proceeding with tests for under-18s. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We have some amendments in this group and I have listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who obviously speaks from great experience and knowledge. We share some, but not all, of his concerns. Certainly we share his emphasis on the importance of treatment and prevention. Our Amendments Nos. 44, 47 and 50 all focus upon the age boundaries at which children can be tested for drugs while Amendment Nos. 51 and 52 concern the age boundaries and definition of those adults who can accompany children during testing for drugs. Our view is that, provided testing is well regulated to ensure no adverse impact on the child's welfare, we support this new proposal for testing of under 18 year-olds for drugs. However, certain age brackets and certain definitions within this clause have caused us some concern and we have put down these amendments to enable us to tease out the Government's thinking on these important points.
Amendment No. 44 concerns the minimum age for testing for class A drugs, which our probing amendment proposes to reduce from 14 to 12. It could be argued that if the drug testing process is carefully undertaken without intrusive measures and with an appropriate adult present the new proposal in Clause 12(3) of the Bill is a step in the right direction. If, and I repeat if, the procedure for drug testing is sufficiently
56
regulated to allay concerns among parents and the children's societies as well as the many interest groups in drug treatment we see no reason why, in principle, this testing should not be extended to 12 year-olds. As Mr Grieve pointed out in Committee in the other place:
"There is ample evidence that drug misuse starts before the age of 14 and … it is perfectly likely that children of 12 will be brought into police stations".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 147.]
It is also perhaps useful to draw to your Lordships' attention Mr David Kidney's explanation in the same Committee meeting as to why testing is appropriate for children, as justified to him by Sergeant Cartlidge of the Staffordshire Police At columns 152 and 153 he said:
"The first is a moral reason: if someone who is young and vulnerable has a dependency that might destroy the rest of their life, we should intervene to try to help them. The second concerns crime prevention: if we know that such drug dependency will drive a young person into increasing acquisitive crime, it would be helpful to intervene to try to wean them off the drugs, so that they are not driven to commit the offences."
So the two main aims must be those of rehabilitation and prevention. Rehabilitation is clearly focused on the child's welfare, and prevention, although in part concerned with maintaining good order in society, has the child's interests at heart in keeping him out of trouble or, at worse, prison.
If the Government believe that class A drug habits in children can be reduced through the drug testing process why is 14 chosen as the minimum age? Could it not be tackled successfully at an earlier age? The Minister's response to that query in the other place was that:
"The school lifestyle surveys of 11 to 15-year-olds carried out by both the Department of Health and the Youth Justice Board found that cannabis was the most widely used drug, and that class A drug use was very rare".
I believe that that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale.
"Those results indicate that testing for class A drugs in those under the age of 14 would not be an effective use of resources".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 162.]
While that is undoubtedly interesting evidence, those are drug tests on school children who, I stress, were at school. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the majority of young people whom the police suspect to be stealing to fuel a class A drug habit may well not be the type to have a high school attendance record. In other words, the Minister may quite inadvertently have reached an inaccurate conclusion because of the way that the sample was selected.
In support of that view I quote the article in yesterday's Observer by Stephen Khan, which was entitled, admittedly rather luridly,
"New wave of heroin sucks in pre-teens".
Not only does the article detail the increasing supply of heroin, but it also states:
"Academic studies have shown pre-teens are now experimenting with heroin".

57
In the article Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow said:
"We asked drug-using 11 and 12-year-olds in Scotland if they had tried some form of heroin. Between 5 and 6 per cent of them said yes. Five years ago the percentage would have been zero".
Such evidence—I have no way of knowing how accurate it is—paints a very different picture of class A drug use among pre-teens. We accept that this is a very sensitive issue which was discussed at length at Committee stage in the other place, but we wish to probe the Government—particularly considering the arbitrariness of other government age categories—as to why the minimum age of 14 has been chosen, considering the factors that I have just been explaining.
While Amendment No. 44 concerns the minimum age at which a child can be tested for drugs, Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 relate to the maximum age of a child who must he accompanied by an adult when tested for drugs. Clause 12 is entitled,
"Drug testing for under-eighteens",
and yet the accompaniment of an appropriate adult during testing seems to be relevant only to a person who has not yet attained the age of 17. That is line 28 on page 7 of the Bill.
In the other place the Minister explained, again at Committee stage on 7th January, that the provisions applicable under,
"the Police and Criminal Evidence Act … require that any person who seems to be under the age of 17 be treated as a juvenile".— [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 165.]
That is a curious use of the words "seems to be". A moment earlier the Minister had told the Committee that:
"The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended by schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 defines … a young person as a person who has attained the age of 14 and is under the age of 18".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 162.]
Not 17. He went on to explain that using the provisions of PACE are easier and more practicable as they do not necessitate the presence of an appropriate adult during the testing process of a 17 year-old.
Both the Children's Society and the United Nations have rather different views on that age cut off. Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that for the purpose of the present convention a "child" means every human being below the age of 18 years. The Children's Society concurs with that statement and I am sure that many noble Lords will instinctively agree that a 17 year-old should fall within the definition of "child" as regards legal procedure. That means anyone under the age of 18, hence our amendment.
A very helpful briefing from the Children's Society, which I am sure many noble Lords will have received, further highlights that concern. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has twice criticised the anomaly of 17 year-olds being regarded as adults during the pre-trial process for the purpose of PACE and remand. This occurred in both 1996 and 2002.
58
Specifically in its 2002 report it recommended that the United Kingdom should review the status of young people of 17 years of age with a view to giving protection to all children under the age of 18. Clause 12 again raises that anomaly in our law in so far as a 17 year-old will not be safeguarded by the advice or presence of a parent or other appropriate adult in the process of being charged, in deciding to consent to a drug test—the refusal of which is itself a criminal offence—nor finally during the process of carrying out the test by mouth swab. A 17 year-old is in every other aspect a minor in both domestic and international law. We believe that the failure to treat them as such in the process of arrest, charge and pre-trial decision making and to provide the same safeguards as those in place for children of younger ages needs a better justification than the Government have so far given.
I understand that the terms "juvenile", "young person" and "child" can have varying definitions under different Acts, or under different subsections of different Acts. During this debate I seek to focus strictly on a person under the age of 18. That follows the logic of the special provisions that the Government have made for the treatment of under 18s when testing for drugs. The Government apparently share our belief that under 18s should be given special treatment when it comes to the procedure involved in drug testing. It seems therefore highly inconsistent for the Government to exclude those who are 17 from this same special treatment when it comes to the attendance of an appropriate adult. Common sense dictates that 17 year-olds should be afforded the same safeguards as other children. That means that an appropriate adult should be present during testing. Why change and confuse an already established set of definitions and further complicate the already highly sensitive area of drug testing for children? The children's best interests and welfare must surely he our central concern, not the use of the most convenient points of administrative reference.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 51 and 52. They still concern Clause 12. The previous amendments deal with precise age limits for those to be tested. whereas these deal with the age boundaries and appropriateness of adults who are to be in attendance during the testing of an under-18 year-old for drugs. We feel that defining the appropriate adult requires a careful balance to be struck, one that guarantees that the time that a child spends in custody is the minimum possible, but equally that the accompanying adult has enough authority, maturity and relevant experience to ensure that the child will be treated properly. Clearly it is wrong to restrict unduly the range of appropriate adults, as we would all want the child to be held by the police for as short a time as possible.
Consequently, the inclusion of Amendment No. 51 seeks to broaden the choice available under new subsection (10)(a), while keeping it within the boundary of a family member. The child to he tested therefore has the additional possibility of having a responsible relative in attendance during the process. We feel that such an adult relative should be over the age of 21. We think that setting a minimum age of 21

59
puts some distance and maturity between the child being tested and the accompanying adult. Without that one could have a situation where the person being tested is on the verge of turning 17 and the accompanying adult only a year older.
While Amendment No. 51 broadens the choice of appropriate adults who can be in attendance during testing, Amendment No. 52 seeks to inquire of the Government just how broad that definition can be. New subsection (10)(a) defines the appropriate adult as a parent, guardian or person representing a local authority or organisation in which the child is in care. New subsection (10)(b) widens the definition of "appropriate adult" to include social workers. We have no objection to these categories which include the most relevant parties; namely, those who have raised the child themselves, those who are taking care of the child at the time and those who have been trained how to look after the best interests of a child.
However, new subsection (10)(c) makes the possibility of the appropriate adult in attendance being "any responsible person". It is hard to see how such a person can be expected to have the knowledge to judge where the child's best interests will be. Hence our amendment, which would remove new subsection (10)(c).
When presented with these thoughts in Committee in another place, the Minister explained on 7th January that PACE has a three-stage test,
"which enables the police to identify an appropriate adult if a parent, guardian or social worker is unavailable".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; col. 165.]
The Minister was presumably referring to Section 37(13)(b) of PACE, which describes those responsible for the welfare of the arrested juvenile, other than parent or guardian, as,
"any other person who has for the time being assumed responsibility for his welfare".
Accordingly, this clearly gives the police yardsticks by which to identify the appropriate adult. Yet it seems that no such yardsticks exist in this Bill. Certainly they do not appear in new subsection (10)(c). Furthermore, we are not just dealing with a juvenile's protection when in custody—there is the additional burden of responsibility, given the potentially intrusive nature of the drug-testing procedures.
New methods of testing for drugs are now being tried, and another helpful briefing from the Children's Society explains the position. New forms of testing involve saliva being taken from the mouth and then run through a machine, but this merely gives a positive or a negative result. Two issues are raised here: the first is whether the Government will have one of these expensive testing machines in every police custody station in the country when these laws come into effect and, if not, how intrusive will the alternative testing have to be.
The second issue is a little more complex. These machines gave only a positive or a negative result, and so, presumably, further intrusive tests, such as urine or blood samples, will have to take place to corroborate
60
or confirm the initial result. We understand that if the child disputes the validity of a test the court will only accept the result of urine analysis as a legal standard of validity although we understand that, in practice, technology in this area has advanced at a great pace.
All these facts do not yet appear entirely clear. As I understand it, these machines have not yet developed past piloting stage. One therefore has a concern that the Government are equally unsure about the degree to which such non-intrusive testing schemes will work at a national level. Both potential outcomes are examples of how the possibility remains for intrusive drug testing for under-18s. This adds extra weight to my previous argument in Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 concerning the importance of the attendance of an appropriate adult for 17 year-olds.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 further underline the necessity for stricter guidelines to be placed upon the definition of "appropriate adult". This is presumably why the Government have provided a detailed specification of the definition of "appropriate adult" in the Bill rather than simply referring to the PACE guidelines.
We think that the words:
"any responsible person aged 18 or over"
leave the field too broad. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 are therefore probing amendments to ask the Government for an explanation of how that phrase will be interpreted.
6 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I support Amendments Nos. 43 and 49 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, to which I have put my name. I echo his cogent arguments, which I have no intention of repeating. I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 in my name and support Amendment No. 50 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
On Amendment No. 43, I think it is vital that drug testing of young people at the charge stage is done only where there are grounds for believing that the misuse of a class A drug is habitual and has caused or contributed to the offence. We know that only about 3 per cent of young people who ever use drugs have a problem habit. We also know that many young people experiment with drugs. For the majority, this does not go on to become a habit or a problem at all. Similarly, while most young people try a cigarette at some stage, many of them never go on to become smokers, despite the fact that nicotine is a lot more addictive than something like cannabis.
It is vital, therefore, that we are not heavy-handed in the way in which we deal with this sort of experimentation. The introduction by this Bill of compulsory drug testing for children for the very first time raises many serious issues. It should, like all our other legislation, be based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are signatories. In this connection, I declare my interest as a parliamentary ambassador for the NSPCC, which campaigns for that very thing. That is why I have laid, and support,

61
amendments that treat 17 year-olds the same as 14, 15 and 16 year-olds in respect of these issues—in other words, the same as anybody under 18, as does the convention.
In relation to Amendment No. 49, we are all aware that the provision of treatment services for under 18s is very patchy indeed. When an adult has a drug test which comes up positive, we can be fairly confident that there are some sort of treatment services available for them, although some are better than others. However, the same cannot be said for children. It is therefore quite unjustified to insist that children undergo such tests and consequent invasion of privacy when the services are not there for them. I will return to whether such testing is the best way of addressing the problem in the debate on Clause 12 stand part.
In the meantime, I ask the Minister why the Government seem to be so muddled about the cut-off ages for different purposes for under-18s? Is she convinced that putting them in a situation where to refuse such a test is a criminal offence is really the best way to get compliance from a young person who finds himself in trouble with the law?
Since the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, mentioned Amendment No. 48, perhaps I may also express my support for that. I would not like the Home Secretary to be able arbitrarily to lower the age limit. I already have considerable reservations about drug testing for 14 to 18 year-olds, so to take it any lower would be a very bad thing.
The Earl of Listowel: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 47, which expresses concern about the maximum age at which children can have an appropriate adult with them when they are tested. There is a general feeling that children are becoming adults earlier than in the past, which may be part of the rationale for this amendment. Quite often, sadly, children in care get involved with the criminal justice system. The most recent statistics show that 10 per cent of children in care had a caution per annum and were three times as likely to be cautioned as other children.
The Government recognise that many of the children who will be caught by this provision are vulnerable. In the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the Government recognised that these children have often had very difficult beginnings; their development can often be delayed, which is why that legislation extended the level of care to them until the age of 21. Indeed, the Government extended further provision to children in education after the age of 21 up to the age of 25. So it does not seem to follow reason for this clause to treat children as if they become adults at the age of 17. I suggest that these are quite under-developed young people, not as mature as other children their age. So I do not quite understand the reasoning behind this. I would appreciate some explanation from the Minister.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all those who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, who moved the amendment. I recognise the experience and sensitivity which he
62
brings to these issues. I hope, since the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, indicated that some of these are probing amendments, that I shall he able to explain to the Committee how I see some of the issues fitting together.
Before I go into the detail, it is important first to underline what a number of noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; that children have different needs from adults, and they will not generally have developed a substance misuse problem or entrenched patterns of behaviour. We should bear that important point in mind when considering the amendments.
Amendment No. 43 seeks to introduce an additional safeguard to ensure that a custody officer shall not detain someone for the purposes of taking a drugs test unless he has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has a propensity to misuse drugs and that the misuse caused or contributed to an offence. We propose that the amendment be resisted because such a safeguard is already in place under the existing provisions for drug testing at Section 63B of PACE, whereby a sample may be taken only if the offence for which the person is charged is a "trigger offence"—offences where research has shown the clearest link between the offence and drug use—or if a police officer of at least inspector rank has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the misuse by that person of a specified class A drug caused or contributed to the offence for which they have been charged.
Amendment No. 45, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, seeks—as the noble Baroness explained—to raise the minimum age for drug testing under Clause 12 from 14 to 17. As has been touched on, there is strong evidence to suggest an association between the frequent misuse of substances and offending and other anti-social behaviour among young people. It is important to identify drug-misusing offenders at an early stage and to take every opportunity to encourage them to access treatment and/or other programmes of help. If a person under the age of 18 is charged with a trigger offence, it is important to identify where possible whether his or her offending is linked to the use of illegal drugs, particularly the drugs that cause the most harm, such as heroin and crack cocaine. We therefore propose that Amendment No. 45 and consequential Amendment No. 46 are resisted.
By contrast, Amendment No. 44 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, seeks to lower the minimum age for drug testing from 14 to 12, so the two amendments go in opposite directions. As I previously said, research indicates that drug abuse among children in particular often relates to class B drugs. The provisions of the clause provide only for testing for specified class A drugs. That would suggest that testing those aged under 14 for specified class A drugs would not currently be an effective use of resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson,

63
highlighted, that was the response made in the other place. We therefore propose that Amendment No. 44 be resisted.
Of course I hear what the noble Lord said about the nature of the research, which was directed in part to schoolchildren. But the body of research on which we have relied supports the contention that we have outlined here and is reflected in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We have to take a medium course in relation to what may prove most effective. We think that this is about right.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I referred to an article in yesterday's Observer. I have no way of knowing the seriousness of the research carried out by the University of Glasgow. Will the Minister undertake that her officials will see whether there is anything in that assertion and in such research? This is an important point where the child's welfare is central. If they are discovering a new trend, it would be helpful if the Home Office could find out why and how and whether the research is well based.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would certainly be happy to look at that matter. A great deal of research has been undertaken by the Home Office. Home Office research study 192 and research study 261—Substance use by young offenders: the impact of normalisation of drugs use in the early years of the 21st century—work carried out by Richard Hammersley, Louise Marsland and Marie Reid—examined the prevalence of substance use and offending among a sample of 293 young people who were clients of the 11 youth offending teams in England and Wales. I think the noble Lord will accept that if they are already clients, they may be an indicative group on which we could rely.
Key findings from that research were that 40 per cent or more of the cohort felt that there was some relationship between their substance use and their offending; and substance use was very high. Eighty-six per cent had used cannabis; 91 per cent had used alcohol; and 85 per cent tobacco. A quarter had taken both cocaine and LSD. The use of the hardest drugs was lower; 18 per cent had taken crack cocaine and 11 per cent heroin. We have sought to craft the path we are taking on significant research, but I will look at any information about the new research to see whether it is outwith the trends that we have identified.
The clause as drafted provides for the presence, from the point at which an individual is requested to undergo a drug test, and for the test itself, of an appropriate adult for those who have not attained the age of 17. Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, seek to raise the age at which a person must not be tested for specified class A drugs except in the presence of an appropriate adult from those under the age of 17 to those under the age of 18. However, that would not be
64
consistent with current provisions in code C of PACE: the code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers.
The provisions applicable under the PACE Code of Practice C require any person who appears to be under the age of 17 to be treated as a juvenile and consequently provide that an appropriate adult is required to be contacted and asked to attend the police station to see the detained juvenile and that thereafter the appropriate adult's involvement in the process should continue. The attendance of an appropriate adult at police stations should be consistent with that of the current requirements placed on the police. The effect of increasing the age to include those under the age of 18 may lead to confusion. It would also necessitate the presence of an appropriate adult for those aged between 17 and 18 solely for purposes relating to the testing process. That may put undue pressures on family relationships, or have a disproportionate effect on resources. We therefore propose that Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 also be resisted.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52, which were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, would amend the definition of "appropriate adult" as the noble Lord has set out to include any close relation aged 21 or over, and to remove,
"any responsible person aged 18 or over who is not a police officer or a person employed by the police".
The clause as drafted is compatible with Code C of PACE. We see no reason to include that extra category of persons. In practice, in many cases, the police would in any case choose a close adult relation to act as an appropriate adult in the absence of a parent or guardian. However, unfortunately, there can be no guarantee that a close relation, of whatever age, would be suitable to act as an appropriate adult. We therefore propose that the amendments be resisted on that ground.
Amendment No. 49 would ensure that the provisions will not come into force in a given area unless appropriate treatment for young people is available there. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, very graphically made that point. I understand that the amendment arises from a concern that young people may be diverted into adult services where specific services for young people are not available.
The intention of the testing and drug rehabilitation requirements in the Criminal Justice Bill is to strengthen and increase the provision available to young offenders. We do not propose to push young people into adult-based services. Much work has already been done to expand the treatment facilities available for young people. All drug action teams (DATs) have completed an assessment of young people's needs in relation to substance misuse service provision. Each DAT provides an annual young people's substance misuse plan, which outlines holistic service provision for young people that is separate from adult services, and treatment services specifically designed to meet the differing needs of young people. The DATs also provide an annual return on progress,

65
so we have a check. The Youth Justice Board is working to expand services further. It is providing funding for all 155 youth offending teams (YOTs) across England and Wales to have access to an allocated named drugs worker.
All DATs working with youth offending teams have undertaken assessments of local need and developed young people's substance misuse plans. The plans outline how services will be expanded so that, by April 2004, all young people who need treatment, including young offenders, will have access to it. We therefore propose that the amendment is not necessary. We resist the amendment but invite Members of the Committee to consider withdrawing it having heard what we have been able to say.
I shall now seek to answer some of the specific questions on matters other than those that I have just outlined, in the hope that we can further reassure Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, asked about the status of the sample and the introduction of proceedings—to some extent, what the test results will be used for. The test results will be used to assist the court in making bail and sentencing decisions and to ensure that appropriate advice and treatment is made available to the detainee.
The whole purpose of drug testing after charge is as a screening tool. It does not of itself tell us about the extent of a person's drug use or linked criminality. Drug testing is used to identify those who misuse specified class A drugs—heroin and crack cocaine— who may need treatment and to encourage them to address their drug misuse and to access appropriate treatment. Test results may not be used as additional evidence in support of any offences of which the detainee has been charged, for other investigative purposes or as an aggravating factor when sentencing. The reason that it is such a powerful tool, as the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said, is that we want to deal with the issues holistically. If we are to address offending and to change behaviour, we need to know the nature of the difficulty with which we seek to deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, also asked how the provisions would be introduced. They are to be piloted, on a limited basis at first, to enable evaluation of the effectiveness of the provisions to be undertaken and to inform possible further extension of the provisions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have the option of bringing the drug testing provisions of the clause into effect by reference to specific police stations and specific police areas. That will facilitate the piloting of the provisions at a few selected sites alongside the continuing drug testing of those aged 18 and over. It will provide for effective targeting of the provisions with a view to future extension in police areas. It would be appropriate for the provisions to be piloted in areas where the pilot for arrest referral for the under 18s is to take place and where there is an existing adult testing on charge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about empirical data and the action plan orders, the estimated number of young people to be involved and
66
the resources put aside. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, also raised that issue. I hope that I have been able to reassure him.
Members of the Committee have asked how we engage young people at the point of arrest to address their needs. It is intended that, by around March 2004, there will have been established in the drug testing pilot areas a model of working that assures that appropriate arrest referral services have been designed specifically to address the needs of young people. The model will be supported by local protocols between youth offender teams, the police, local drug action teams and crime reduction partnerships. That will ensure that an appropriate range of services will be available, with minimum delay, to support work undertaken with the young person in custody.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked about drug testing for adults and how it is being rolled out across the country. It is proposed that, first, drug testing for adults should be rolled out in the 30 police basic command units with the highest levels of acquisitive crime. Testing for young people will be piloted, but in a limited number of BCUs, and will be fully evaluated. Disputed tests are sent to the Forensic Science Service for validation, which is carried out within 72 hours. The 30 police basic command units are provided with testing machines that use saliva. They shall continue to be used and provided in the roll-out.
I was also asked about the age for appropriate adults. As I think I already said, it is compatible with Code C of PACE as detailed. The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, asked about the action plans. The action plan order will be dealt with at Clause 264. If Members of the Committee think it convenient, the Green Paper for young people could be discussed at that stage of the Bill.
I hope that I have dealt with each of the main issues raised. If I have neglected to answer specific points, I shall write to Members of the Committee. Having explained how we see the provisions fitting together, and taking into account the disparity of view evidenced in the nature of the amendment, I hope that I have been able to reassure Members of the Committee that the Government take the issues very seriously. We have based the suggestions on the empirical data that we have before us and we will integrate services to try to ensure that we respond appropriately to the needs of young people. We will enhance our opportunities to intervene in a productive and rehabilitative way to reduce the level of recidivism and, one hopes, reduce the distress caused not only to the victims of crimes perpetrated by young people under the influence of drugs but also the suffering of the drug offenders themselves.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Before the Minister sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, replies, I had not planned to speak, but having heard about the holistic approach to this problem I find myself in disbelief at part of the response. I say that respectfully, knowing the Minister's concern for young people.

67
For many years, organisations, especially social services departments, have worked with the families of drug users experiencing considerable difficulties. Such organisations have a great deal of experience, as do Turning Point and the other voluntary organisations, in the field of the complex programmes needed to help these families. We know that problems are not only to do with drug taking. In many families, although not all, drug taking is to do with the problems that the family is experiencing as a whole. The parents' difficulty in dealing with their own children is among those problems.
During the 15 years I was in Childline, I talked to literally hundreds of children who described extraordinarily complex family dynamics that resulted in their taking drugs as a way out. How will social services and the voluntary organisations be supported while we try to develop innovative programmes when we know what will work in many places? We simply do not have enough people, expertise and resources on the ground to put the programmes into place. I apologise for intervening.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I welcome the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland. We are rightly concentrating on the provisions in this Bill and scrutinising how they will help us to better deliver the change that we seek. However, this must be seen in the context of all the other things we are doing.
We should start by examining the work that the Government have energetically pursued on Sure Start and then look at all the work that we have done together to bring all those who are involved in local delivery into the community legal service partnership, which, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, brings together local authorities, central government agencies—through the Legal Services Commission—charities, non-governmental organisations and all the advice givers and providers in a locality. They do two things: they make a needs-based assessment of what is necessary for that area and then an audit of the providers tasked with delivering those services. Between the two the organisations have been able to fashion a care plan for the area that directs the needs of advice and service provision. Instead of having a maze of service providers or a desert with no service provision, a joining-up is happening.
Those who have participated in this Bill note the work we did together on the Courts Bill, which is still in another place. It will bring together a unified system, which is the second part of the jigsaw puzzle. We are dealing with the criminal justice part because through this structure we are creating the effective tools that we will need for creative intervention so that we remove the greater majority of people who simply go in and out of the system, serving life imprisonment sometimes, but 30 days or so at a time. If one links that with the work we are doing with young people and we look at the provisions in the Bill relating to street bail, we have a creative response to what the Government seek to do.
68
This is part of the holistic response. As we go through the Bill, it is important to see how all the parts of the jigsaw fit together. Each little section has its place and if we work energetically and properly the people of this country will have a system of which they can to be proud.
Lord Northbourne: I intervene briefly, although I had not intended to, because I am disquieted by the idea that anyone will do to accompany the child. Of course, a variety of people could conceivably give the necessary support to the child but that idea seems to suggest that the family, or the care institution to which the child belongs, has no special responsibility. The Bill should make it clear that families matter, that the young person's drug behaviour matters, that care in the children's home matters, and that the people who run the children's home have a responsibility. Primarily, they should have to be there.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that nothing that I have said detracts from what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just said. He is absolutely right. Families have a very powerful part to play. In the majority of cases, the close family member will be the appropriate adult to be called. However, the noble Lord will know from the extensive work that he has done with children's charities on these issues that regrettably, sometimes almost tragically, the family cannot provide an appropriate adult for the child.
Again, we are doing much to address the problem. I do not seek to suggest for a moment that the family will not usually provide the most appropriate adult, but we use the phrase "appropriate adult" so that we can encompass people who may not be part of the child's natural family. They may be the most appropriate adult to attend to give assistance to the child in that particular circumstance. It will enable us to have the right breadth.
Noble Lords will know that we seek to address the re-engagement of families with young people more directly with the work we are doing on parenting orders, both voluntarily and, if necessary, compulsorily, to enable adults to address the child's needs. The child or young person should be at the centre of what we are trying to do.
Lord Adebowale: I thank the Minister for her response to my questions and my speech. I thought her response was very useful and detailed. I shall return to some points. I was very ably helped by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who gave me an opportunity to see how the Bill fits into the wider government perspective.
However, I remain concerned about the resourcing of this part of the Bill, especially the testing orders. Although the Minister referred to the youth offending teams having named individuals for young, people, that is not the same as providing treatment. I note the Minister's reference to the provision of plans by the drug action teams with which I have wide experience. That is not the same as the provision of treatment. It is the provision of a plan.

69
I note that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs on which I sit has recently produced a report of which I am sure the Minister is aware, which indicates that between 250,000 and 300,000 young people of drug misusing parents are currently without recognised treatment. I do not wish to be mealy-mouthed about or to denigrate the efforts of the Government to provide an appropriate response to treatment and, indeed, to examine a holistic approach to treatment for young people. I fear, though, that on the ground the statements made in the House fail to have the desired effect. At this stage of the debate, we need to understand how precisely the Government will know that the plans have resulted in treatment provision. How will the Government know that young people will not find themselves in a police station being tested in wholly inappropriate circumstances, without the provision of appropriate treatment interventions, regardless of what the treatment test says?
Noble Lords will forgive me if I push the matter, but, although I appreciate the noble Baroness's response and her commitment, I still require further evidence that the jigsaw that was so eloquently described—the plans, the moneys committed by youth offending teams, the connections—is not missing a few pieces. We can all see what that jigsaw describes. From my experience, I can say that the descriptions of such jigsaws are often not recognised by the people whom they are meant to affect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 47 not moved.]
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 35, leave out paragraph (c)
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 48 would delete paragraph (c) of subsection (3). As noble Lords will recall, following the extensive debate we have just had, Clause 12 concerns drug testing for under-18s—or should it be under-17s? Paragraph (c) enables the Secretary of State to substitute the specified ages—14, 17, 18—as he thinks appropriate. It is perhaps a guide to the Government's sensitivity on the issue that they have eschewed the use of the good, clear word "change" in favour of the more mealy-mouthed word "substitute".
The age barriers were discussed in connection with the previous amendment. The inclusion of subsection (3)(c) is indicative of the Government's underlying uncertainty in their decisions regarding ages. We appreciate that some flexibility is defensible. In Committee in the other place, the Minister replied to the point by arguing that, as it was a new proposal, the Government wished to have the power to change specified ages as a failsafe. I always find it inherently unsatisfactory when Ministers argue that powers will never be used but that the Government need them none the less. If the Bill remains unamended, it will allow for the minimum age of testing to he reduced by statutory instrument from 14 to 12, something that the noble Baroness eloquently argued against in connection with the previous set of amendments.
With an earlier group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39—we discussed the Government's policies on restricting consultation when revising the PACE codes. Even under the new government proposals for PACE code revision, there was still a procedure for public consultation before change to the codes was implemented. I see no such requirement for consultation here beyond the standard affirmative resolution procedure.
As we pointed out, maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system must be our central concern. Consistency is an important part of that confidence. If numerous changes are to be made to the ages, the police may become confused, and the public may become distrustful. I hesitate to say it but if the minimum age is to be altered as often as, for example, the Government's policy on cannabis has been, people could be excused for not knowing where they stood with regard to their child's legal status.
As a minimum, there should be a requirement for a public consultation procedure along the lines of that for the PACE codes so that important interest groups can make their views known before any fundamental and far-reaching changes are made. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In view of the fact that, under the Bill, children can be tested at the age of 14 and, under this subsection, at an age lower than 14, can the noble Baroness assure the Committee that the provisions are about testing with a view to treatment and have no implications for the age of criminal responsibility? It is important that we know that.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that there was an underlying uncertainty in the Government's approach to the issue of age. I hope that, in responding to the previous group of amendments, I demonstrated that there was no uncertainty. We have set the ages at the appropriate mark to respond to the empirical data that we have. I hope that I have been able to explain that fully.
As I said, research indicates that drug abuse among children, in particular, often relates to class B drugs. The provisions in the clause provide for testing only for class A drugs. That suggests that testing those aged under 14 for specified class A drugs would not currently be an effective use of resources. I highlighted that in my response to the earlier amendments. We suggest respectfully that it is important that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the ability to amend—up or down—the minimum age of drug testing under the clause. For example, evidence may emerge to suggest that we would be justified in extending such drug testing to include persons under the age of 14. There is no such evidence now but, as the noble Lord indicated, that may change. We would have to consider that. The provision enables us properly to take into account the evaluation findings, once piloted and other research evidence has been received, so that we can make an informed decision.

71
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, sits, considered the issue and, on 12th June, published a report. The committee found that the delegation and the level of scrutiny proposed under the clause were appropriate. We invite the Committee to be content with the committee's assessment.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that there will be no impact on the age of criminal responsibility. She can rest assured about that. I resist the amendment. I hope that, having heard what I have said, the noble Lord will feel more content than he was when he moved it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for her support. My concern was not about the fact that we might have to change the ages. My concern was about the public consultation—or lack of it—that was to go with such a change.
We have heard from all parts of the Committee strong views on the importance of the various ages—14, 17, 18, 21 and so on. People do not necessarily agree—often, as the noble Baroness said, they are at odds—but, clearly, they feel strongly about the matter. It would not be right for the Secretary of State to be able to introduce by statutory instrument a sudden change to an age without having had regard to the views of interest groups and other people who are concerned and have huge knowledge and experience. As I suggested, it should be done along the lines of the PACE codes. That is a good procedure which could be introduced for this particular change. With the greatest respect to the Joint Committee, I do not find the argument that we should leave it to an affirmative resolution statutory instrument satisfactory. In the light of the Minister's response, I propose to test the opinion of the House.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 97.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Adebowale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Burnham, L.

Ampthill, L.

Buscombe, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Byford, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Attlee, E.

Colwyn, L.

Barker, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Blatch, B.

Cox, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

72

Denham, L.

Montrose, D.

Dholakia, L.

Moynihan, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newby, L.

Elton, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Noakes, B.

Fookes, B.

Onslow, E.

Fowler, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Palmer, L.

Geddes, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Glentoran, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Greenway, L.

Plumb, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Razzall, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rennard, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Russell, E.

Henley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Higgins, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Sandberg, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Selsdon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Stern, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Stewartby, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Tordoff, L.

McNally, L.

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Maddock, B.

Vivian, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waddington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wakeham, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Weatherill, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wilcox, B.

Monson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dixon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Donoughue, L.

Alii, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Andrews, B.

Dubs, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bach, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Berkeley, L.

Filkin, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Borrie, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bragg, L.

Golding, B.

Brett, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brookman, L.

Goudie, B.

Burlison, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carter, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hayman, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Crawley, B.

Hoyle, L.

David, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jones, L.

73

Jordan, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Judd, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Puttnam, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rooker, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

McCarthy, L.

Simon, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stallard, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Whitaker, B.

Mitchell, L.

Whitty, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Parekh, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Pendry, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 52 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Walmsley: Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill. It may be useful to outline what the testing provisions will mean in practical terms to a young person. A young person aged 14 or over, charged with house-breaking, for example, which is a trigger offence for testing, is asked to agree to a drug test. Should they refuse to consent, their refusal constitutes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of £2,500 or imprisonment, regardless of whether the burglary charge is subsequently dropped or even that they are acquitted.
Should they consent, the blood test would be taken by a mouth-swab procedure. In the case of 14 to 16 year-olds, this would require the presence of a parent or appropriate adult. But if they are 17 then no such safeguard would be provided. As we said earlier, under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 17 year-olds should be treated the same.
A positive test would be made known to the court hearing the bail application and to the youth offending team charged with ensuring further drug-specific assessment. However, there is no assurance that a comprehensive specialist assessment of drug use would have been completed in time for the first bail hearing. It is unclear, but a matter of some importance, how the information relating to the test result will be recorded, how long it will be kept and how the privacy of the information will be safeguarded, whether in terms of police records or in relation to court disclosures. There remains the question of whether such positive drug test results might be used under the bad character provisions of this Bill, whether in relation to the immediate trial for the charge leading to the test, or even in any subsequent criminal proceedings the individual may face.
74
The Children's Society believes that introducing a testing regime of this kind is counter-productive to the aim of improving the effectiveness of efforts to help young drug users. They believe that coerced testing to identify drug use at charge introduces a confrontational and heavy-handed approach to a sensitive subject for young people in trouble. Great progress has been made over recent years with more young people's drug services, specialist provisions for youth offending teams and assessment practices that are designed to ensure young people can discuss their drug use honestly with the focus on support. I am worried that testing at charge risks negatively affecting the assessment and trust-building skills that underpin current and developing practice with young people.
Testing cannot distinguish between one-off, experimental and problematic use. It can also not show whether or not or when the person was intoxicated, how much they used or how long ago. It cannot tell us how they took it, whether by injecting, snorting or smoking which would be important in establishing the risks and the seriousness of their problem. Testing for class A drugs will miss situations where a young person has problems with alcohol, solvents or other illegal drugs that may be related to their offending. Equally, it may still miss people who do use class A drugs because drugs such as cocaine are detectable for as little as 12 hours after use. If the aim is really to find out about the extent of involvement with substance misuse, the relationship with alleged offending and need for help and support, then a class A drug test result—positive or negative—tells us very little indeed. A young person may test positive if they have only used the drug once or where drug use played no role in the alleged offence. I am concerned that a positive test result may have a negative and potentially prejudicial influence upon the legal process in which they are involved.
It may continue to be the case that courts remand some under-18s to Holloway Prison, despite its accepted inappropriateness for young people, because it is the view that it is the only place where they will get drug treatment. This shows the knowledge of drug use can and does affect court decision-making about bail and remand. In many cases these are entirely appropriate considerations. However, there is a significant and understandable risk that by disclosing test results to the court before a full assessment has been made, magistrates may react to a positive test for class A drugs. They may see it as an indicator of chaotic or dependent problems when in fact there is no such problem. There is simply no automatic connection between a positive test result at time of charge and the commission of the alleged offence.
Turning to the rights of children, I believe that these provisions engage UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and Human Rights Act principles and rights. Once again the measures highlight the anomaly of our treatment of 17 year-olds as adults for the purpose of PACE by leaving 17 year-olds without the safeguard of being advised and accompanied by a parent or appropriate adult. They apply the existing adult procedures to children when our UNCRC obligations

75
are to separate the system of justice for children and to treat children as children first. The collection of non-intimate samples for drug testing by the police when it is not evidence for the purpose of identifying the young person, nor necessarily in respect of the charge being brought against them, must surely engage the young person's Article 8 right to privacy and personal integrity.
The use of criminal sanctions to coerce consent to such a test is also an interference with the personal integrity of the individual. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has clearly stated in relation to the collection of similar samples under Clause 8 of this Bill that there needs to be a means of ensuring in each individual case that such an infringement is necessary and proportionate. Although the JCHR was not referring to Clause 12 and has not made any published assessment of this clause, I do not believe that the case has been made for these measures, either on the basis of necessity or proportionality.
I am further concerned that the passing on of a test result to the court without consent may also breach article 8. The claimed purposes of both the test itself and the disclosure to the court are solely to ensure that the young person receives an assessment and, where appropriate, treatment. Such substance misuse, assessment and referral should happen as a matter of course under existing procedures. This throws into question the necessity of automatic disclosure to the court. It should remain the case that the youth offending team can inform the court of a young person's drug use once they have assessed it and if they believe it to be important to the consideration of bail and bail support. If the intention of the Government is to provide better means of identifying need at the police station and better connection to necessary treatment, the answer is to build on existing arrest referral schemes, which bring drug specialists into the police station, and to allow the developing good practice, through asset assessment and youth offending team partnerships with drug specialists, who embed in good practice.
The measures in Clause 12 would engage the police in gathering tests that are not evidence in respect of the crime at hand and draw the results, regardless of their possible lack of significance, into the formal pre-trial process. For these reasons, I urge the Government to rethink these measures and consider deleting Clause 12. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Not surprisingly, I would resist such a move. I should say straightaway what I said in answer to the earlier amendments. The test results may not be used in additional evidence in support of any offences of which the detainees have been charged, or for other investigative purposes, or as an aggravating factor when sentencing. The noble Baroness has concerns and fears about those issues. That is why we have made it absolutely clear that the tests cannot be used for that purpose.
I understand the fear expressed by the noble Baroness, who is right to be concerned. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reassure her that that is not
76
the purpose to which the tests can be put. The purpose of drug testing after charge is as a screening tool. It does not in itself tell us anything about the extent of a person's drug use or linked criminality, which is exactly the point the noble Baroness sought to make. I respectfully agree with her.
Clause 12 introduces changes to the drug testing provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—PACE. Section 38 of the Act relates to the duties of the custody officer after charge, and Section 63B to testing for presence of class A drugs. We have touched upon those issues earlier today. The clause will allow for persons aged under 18, specifically those aged 14 and above, to be tested for specified class A drugs after charge, and for the custody officer to detain the young person concerned to enable a sample to be taken for that purpose. Where the young person has not attained the age of 17, the clause provides for an appropriate adult to be present from the making of a request that the individual undergo a drug test to the taking of the sample. The provisions are intended to be introduced on a pilot basis.
Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 currently allows a custody officer, in the areas where that section has been brought into force, to request a sample to be taken from persons aged 18 and over who have been charged with a "trigger offence". We discussed the definition of trigger offences earlier. They are defined in Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. It allows the custody officer to test for the presence of any specified class A drug, such as heroin and cocaine/crack. A person may be detained for up to six hours after charge for that purpose, and failure to provide a sample without good cause is an offence. Those charged with non-trigger offences may also be tested when a police officer of inspector rank or above authorises the test on the basis of reasonable grounds to suspect that misuse of any specified class A drug caused or contributed to the offence. It is significant that we chose inspector rank at this point; it indicates the weight we believe to be appropriate.
The criminal justice White Paper, Justice for All, confirmed our intention to extend these drug-testing provisions to those aged under 18. We propose to pilot the provisions in respect of young persons aged 14 and above. Should evidence emerge to suggest that we would be justified in extending the measure to include persons under the age of 14, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, would probably like us to do, there is provision to do so. Equally, testing may be restricted to those older than 14 if evidence warrants such a change.
Clause 12 accordingly amends the relevant provisions inserted in PACE—namely, Section 38, relating to the duties of a custody officer after charge, and Section 63B, which sets out the conditions for drug testing—to enable drug testing to apply to those under 18, and specifically to those aged 14 and above. Subsection (2) makes the necessary amendments to Section 38(1) of PACE, which sets out the exceptions under which the custody officer can detain persons after charge, to allow for arrested juveniles, provided

77
they have reached the minimum age of 14, to be detained to enable the taking of a sample under Section 63B of PACE. Subsection (3) amends Section 63B of PACE to provide for the drug testing of those aged 14 and above and to require the presence of an appropriate adult prior to and during the testing procedure in the case of those having attained the age of 14 but not yet having attained the age of 17.
It is important for us to consider the details of the provisions as they all fit together well—contrary to what has been said. One can see a synergy. The subsection inserts Section 63B(10), which defines the persons who may act as an appropriate adult. The definition is compatible with the appropriate adult definition as detailed in the PACE code C, which is the code of practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers. The minimum age for drug testing under the clause is extended from the age of 18 to 14. Subsection (3) inserts Section 63B(9), which will allow for the drug testing of persons aged under 18 to be introduced on a pilot basis.
If one considers how the provisions fit together, the anxiety that the noble Baroness understandably has about them does not appear to be justified. We would suggest that it is a proper and balanced response to a very difficult, complex and sensitive issue. I invite the noble Baroness, on mature reflection and bearing in mind all that we have said in earlier debates, to be content that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. However, I can anticipate that at some other stage she may wish to come back to the issue, knowing the acuity with which she has addressed the issue.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, the duty of taking a sample is vested in the custody officer. Is the Minister satisfied that a police officer is the one who will carry out the duties, and not someone delegated with such a responsibility? Secondly, will she give an assurance that there are a sufficient number of women police custody officers, particularly in the case of young girls from whom a sample may be required? Thirdly, the Home Secretary is expecting the police officer to make arraignments in his area. Is the Minister satisfied that every police station has such facilities available, or are there likely to be instances when youngsters will be shuffled from one police station to the other to find appropriate facilities?
Lord Hylton: When the Minister replies, will she deal with several points that were properly and rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley? For example, what will happen to the information and its recording of the results of the drug tests? Could they be used subsequently to blacken the reputation of the person in question? Might they become a bar to the employment of that person? If that should happen, that is one of the things most likely to set the person into a lifetime of crime. Furthermore, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, observed that magistrates
78
and perhaps others may, as a result of the tests, make wrong assumptions about the person. That is an important point on which we would like to hear more.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her reassurance regarding the occasions when the information from the screening would not be used in court. For the sake of clarity, will she say when, if ever, that information would be used in court, and how it would be framed if it were used?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I wish to deal with the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The very first thing I did was to answer the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, when she asked what would happen to information regarding results. I thought that I made the position clear but I repeat that the test results may not be used as additional evidence in support of any offences with which the detainee has been charged, nor for other investigative purposes, nor as an aggravating factor when sentencing. Those tests cannot be used for any of those purposes. The whole point of the drug testing after charge is simply as a screening tool.
Lord Hylton: I am most grateful but can the noble Baroness say whether the records will be destroyed? Or will they continue to exist in the form of a statistic which does not name the person in question?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say straight away that I do not know the answer to the question regarding a statistic. However, I can say that the record will not be capable of being used in relation to the offender. It enables us to target the offender's needs in terms of assessment but it will not be used as a tool with which to beat the offender in any adverse way. That is what I was trying to make absolutely clear to the noble Baroness. It is a matter about which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will also be concerned as I know of his genuine and long-standing interest in the rights of young people and children. I hope that I have made the position as clear as I know how.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she make something clear? She said that the information will not be used in relation to an individual but are we right in supposing that the identity of the individual will be stripped out of the statistic so that it will not be there to be used?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know the answer to that question save to reassure Members of the Committee that the information will be held in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Human Rights Act. I have not, if I am absolutely frank, looked at the detail because I was reassured that the policy intent was not to use the information in relation to the way in which the offender would be dealt with.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness will recognise that policy intents change with Ministers and governments and that what actually matters is the availability of the material. Will she write to me and place a copy of the letter in the Library?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am certainly happy to write. Sometimes things change for the better. However, that is for others to say.
I turn to some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. The noble Lord asked who would take the sample, whether there would be sufficient women police officers, and whether there would be sufficient capacity within a police station. We have decided that it will be right and proper to pilot the matter so that we can get it absolutely right. We shall ensure that all the areas that participate in the pilot have the wherewithal to do so appropriately within the confines of what we propose.
As regards who will supervise the taking of the samples, that will come under the general supervision of the custody officer who has responsibility for the care of persons detained in police custody. The custody officer will decide whether the drug testing procedure should be followed and will ensure that the taking of samples is in line with the PACE codes of practice and guidance. The request for the sample has to be made by a police officer who must first warn the person concerned of the consequences of failure to provide such a sample. I assure the Committee that training is provided for all those expected to administer a test.
In relation to the question about police station facilities, I have already said that the scheme will be piloted and that a custody officer will be involved as regards the details set out in Section 38 of PACE. I absolutely understand the import of what the noble Lord said about having sufficient women police officers available, particularly if the taking of samples is of an intimate nature. All the usual good practice and procedure will be adopted in relation to those matters. I have no difficulty in reassuring the noble Lord about that.
As I indicated in my response to earlier amendments, we consider that if this matter can be advanced constructively through the pilots it will enable us to gather the kind of empirical data that we shall need to ensure that the procedure and practice that we seek to embed are sound, robust and in accordance with the good practice that we would want and that they deliver the kind of results that the Committee clearly would like to see. I hope that with that the noble Baroness will feel at least a little more content.
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the Minister for her response. I am particularly grateful to her for the reassurance that she gave that the test results will not be used as evidence of bad character. We on these Benches do not like those provisions in the Bill anyway but to add drug testing of under-18s to them would be even worse. However, it is clear from the number of amendments that were tabled to Clause
80
12 that there is considerable disquiet about how it will work. I was a little worried to hear the Minister mention that the Government intended to retain the power of the Home Secretary to reduce the relevant age despite the result of the previous Division. Perhaps that is an indication of what the Minister intends will happen to the Bill when it returns to the other place.
Those of us who are very concerned about the provisions of Clause 12 will watch the pilot schemes with great interest and will undoubtedly come back to the Minister with further questions as that process proceeds further down the track.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 53:
Transpose Clause 12 to after Clause 3.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.28 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews for Partners) Regulations 2003
7.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft regulations will bring into force from 12th April 2004 work-focused interviews for the partners of recipients of certain social security benefits. This new requirement will apply where the amount of benefit in payment includes an amount for that partner and where both are aged below 60.
As a condition of continued receipt of the full amount of benefit payable, the partner will be required to take part in an interview at or after the 26 week point of the claim.
Since we came to power our welfare-to-work initiatives have helped transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. One of our greatest successes has been in helping lone parents into work. In the past five years the percentage of lone parents in work has increased from just over 40 per cent to nearly 54 per cent. We want to do even better.
Work-focused interviews have been the keystone to our success with lone parents. They are the mechanism by which we can ensure that everyone understands the opportunities available to them so that those who want to work may do so.
I draw the analogy with lone parents quite deliberately because what is required is the work-focused interview. What is not required is joining the new deal or going into work subsequently. But the interview empowers lone parents by giving him or her information and placing him or her in a position to make the choices that he or she may need to make.
The regulations will place a requirement on partners to discuss their individual skills, experience and circumstances with an adviser so that they may be made aware of the practical support and financial help that is available to them to find work now or in the future. The partner will be provided with a personal and tailored service and given access to a wide range of help and information on work, benefits and services available.
Apart from attending the interview, no other requirement will be placed upon them. They will not be required to find work or to join a new deal programme, and advisers will operate the scheme in a way that takes account of individual circumstances—for example, the health of the person they may be with, or their own circumstances—in a sensitive way. Taking part in one work-focused interview six months after both of them have been on benefit is not an onerous requirement. Where the partner, however, fails to take part in an interview without showing good cause or explanation for that failure, the claimant's benefit will be reduced until he or she complies. I shall go on to talk about good cause later, but your Lordships will be pleased to learn that both the claimant and the partner will have a right of appeal against the decision.
As I said, we will implement this requirement sensitively. The regulations contain a number of safeguards to protect those who may have difficulty with the requirement. It may not always be appropriate to interview someone at the required time—for example, a partner may recently have been discharged from hospital or may have just given birth. Obviously, in those circumstances the interview will be deferred.
In other circumstances—for example, if a partner has recently had an interview with an adviser as a benefit claimant in his or her own right—the requirement would normally not apply. There may also be circumstances where it is not appropriate at all to call a partner in for interview—for example, where someone is terminally ill. Where a partner has had the interview waived or deferred, he or she will be treated as having met the requirement.
The benefits to which the regulations will apply are jobseeker's allowance (income based, not contribution based), income support, incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, and carer's allowance. These are the main benefits payable to people of working age.
In order to provide good customer service, we have ensured that where the benefit recipient is entitled to a number of specified benefits at the same time the partner will only be required to take part in one interview, and not separate interviews for each benefit. We have also provided flexibility for an interview to be conducted in a location other than in a Jobcentre Plus
82
office, including the arrangement of a home visit where partners cannot be reasonably be expected to visit an office.
I now turn to the interview and to "good cause". The interview should be a meaningful two-way discussion between the partner and the personal adviser. By taking account of an individual's circumstances, advisers will help partners to explore ways in which they can overcome barriers to work and move closer to the labour market. In return, partners will be required to participate actively in the interview.
The test of whether partners have taken part will be whether they attend at the time and place specified, and whether they provide information in areas relevant to their employment prospects, such as their level of education, previous work history and any barriers to the work they seek.
The consequences of a partner not taking part in an interview where neither the partner nor the claimant has shown good cause within five working days can lead to the claimant's benefit begin reduced. However, partners will then have a further month to provide evidence of good cause for not taking part in the interview if they wish to avoid the reduction provided that that evidence could not reasonably have been provided within five working days of the day on which the interview was to take place. So, for example, if someone had an extended period of hospitalisation, this would give that person the space to come back to us.
Examples of circumstances of what constitutes good cause for not taking part in an interview are set out in the regulations—for instance, if someone suffers an accident or illness on the day set for interview or where people have misunderstood the requirements placed upon them because of language or learning difficulties.
The level of the reduction will follow the rate of sanction applied during a claim in other work-focused interview regimes, which is an amount equivalent to 20 per cent of the personal rate of income support for a person aged 25 or over. So currently the reduction would be £10.93 per week, or in the range of 5 per cent or 7 or 8 per cent for a couple with children.
The regulations also stipulate how the sanction will be applied if the individual is claiming more than one benefit, as well as prioritising the benefits against which the reduction should be applied. Of course, no sanction will be applied against any benefit not included in the list of specified benefits and the total reduction will not exceed the amount set.
In addition, the regulations ensure that the claimant retains entitlement to a nominal amount of each benefit, to prevent the claim from lapsing and to ensure that entitlement to any "passported benefits", such as housing benefit or NHS prescription charges, remains.
I hope that your Lordships will understand what we are seeking to do with these regulations. I do not think that we are asking anyone to do anything unreasonable. Partners will be required to do no more than discuss their situation and work aspirations with an adviser so that they are aware of the practical and financial help that is

83
on offer. It is certainly the case that very often, in particular parts of the country, a partner of someone claiming JSA is more likely to be able to find work than the person claiming the JSA and yet that person may not be aware of the opportunities or the help and support we can give. But we will ensure that we make people aware of the opportunities available to them, including, for example, possible eligibility to claim tax credits, childcare and all the rest of the benefits that may come into play.
Participation in a work-focused interview is a central element of this policy. I am satisfied that these draft regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and I commend them to the House.
I emphasise again that the regulations simply provide a requirement that, after six months, partners attend a work-focused interview—one interview only. Nothing else need subsequently follow. They need not join the new deal—although I hope that they will. They need not seek work although I hope that they will. They may not find a job—but I hope that, if that is their choice, they do. But this is not going to be voluntary. That is why a sanction is attached—which I very much hope will not be needed. As I say, I believe that this is the kind of interview that people need to attend and find out what the situation is. Where work-focused interviews have taken place, they have been hugely successful. With that, I hope that your Lordships will agree the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House, as always, will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the context of the regulations. Inevitably, the drafting is sometimes rather technical. One therefore relies on the Explanatory Note. As I have had occasion to say on previous occasions, I do not think that those writing explanatory notes achieve the degree of clarity that one might desire.
I take as an example the first paragraph of the Explanatory Note attached to these regulations. It states:
"These Regulations impose a requirement on the partners of claimants of certain benefits to take part in a work-focused interview Can interview') where the claimant is entitled to that benefit at a higher rate referable to the partner".
I literally do not understand what that paragraph means. Perhaps the noble Baroness would care to look at the note.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am trying to find the paragraph to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am looking at the draft regulations and at the Explanatory Note attached on a final page. I do not understand what the expression "referable to the partner" means. No doubt when the noble Baroness comes to reply she can clarify it. I also believe that the word ought to be "when" rather than "where".
84
Leaving that aside, I believe it is important that the Explanatory Note should be drafted in rather clearer terms than is sometimes the case. I have found several other such examples. However, I shall not bore the House by going into the matter further—save to say that perhaps the noble Baroness will remind us of the definition of "partner" in this context.
The noble Baroness stressed strongly that there was to be only one interview. Therefore, I am somewhat puzzled by the final part of the third paragraph of the Explanatory Note, which states:
"Regulation 8 specifies when a requirement to take part in two or more interviews is satisfied by the partner taking part in a single interview".
The noble Baroness has said that partners are required to take part in only a single interview. I am not clear in what circumstances they may be required to take part in two, but in fact can arrange to take part in only one. Again, the drafting of the explanatory memorandum could be clearer.
In her opening remarks the Minister drew attention to the situation regarding lone parents, and suggested that the success rate had increased from 46 to 54 per cent. However, as I understand it, the Government are currently rolling out compulsory work-focused interviews to all lone parents on income support. During the pilot phase only 17 per cent of lone parents due to have a compulsory interview received an invitation letter and only 14 per cent attended the interview. I have some difficulty in reconciling that figure with the figure of 46 per cent rising to 54 per cent which the Minister mentioned. Even the interviews that were attended have been criticised by various studies of the pilot scheme, including a comment that the interviews that did happen did not seem to encourage those few who attended to get into work. The study found that the proportion of lone parents in work, 18 months after claiming benefit, was lower in the pilot areas than elsewhere. That suggests that the pilot areas were not an enormous success.
Similarly, regarding the position with disabilities, another study said that in practice personal advisers felt that the pilots were driven by placement targets. In another place this evening there is a debate about the problems of targets. The study went on to say that rather than being able to help all clients in making moves towards the labour market, the main priority was given to targets for placing clients on job seekers' allowance into jobs, while other targets, particularly for the number of new claims processed, put further pressure on any scope for working with clients on incapacity benefits.
It seems that the Jobcentre Plus scheme has had only a comparatively limited effect. Looking at the overall picture, it has been difficult to obtain any figures on this issue, although attempts to do so are being made by way of parliamentary Questions. In February the then pensions Minister said that separate data for sustained jobs were not available for the New Deal for 50 Plus, the New Deal for Lone Parents, or the New Deal for Partners. It is important that if someone moves into a job the relevant consideration is how long they remain there. Perhaps the Minister can inform us

85
whether there are any relevant statistics on how many of these people move into permanent jobs. We also have no figures for the cost per job of helping people into employment. Succeeding in doing that is a great advantage, particularly for the individual concerned, but one ought to have some appraisal of cost benefit analysis.
The Minister stressed the penalties for not attending an interview. I am not clear to what extent that has already happened regarding the pilots. I am also puzzled by one aspect which I believe we have discussed previously—that benefits might be reduced to allow for the fact that the partner has not taken part in an interview. Apparently they should never go below 10 pence. I have forgotten why, if the penalty is imposed—it would be hefty penalty if one progressively withdrew all those benefits because a partner was not attending the interviews—the benefit never falls below 10 pence. I may have misunderstood that structure. In any case, the explanatory memorandum does not give any guidance on that matter.
There has been much research into the way in which the pilots and the introduction of various schemes for lone parents, people with disabilities and so on have operated. This seems to be something of a cottage industry. There appears to have been a growth in employment in studying how these various proposals work. We are anxious that they should work. It is of great importance to the individuals concerned and to the economy. Regarding the general principle, one understands why the Government feel that this action should be taken for partners of those who are claiming benefit, so that if possible both they and the economy should benefit from both of them participating in employment. These are difficult matters and the Minister seemed over-optimistic on whether any significant success had been achieved. We must hope that this action results in greater employment, but we have doubts, given the history thus far.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the regulations are paved with good intentions. The Minister will remember a series of exchanges that we have had about the principle of this at every stage of the passage of the legislation through the House. So I do not expect to surprise the noble Baroness greatly by my comments tonight. But perhaps I may save her a small amount of work regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the surviving benefit of 10 pence. Am I right in supposing that that will continue as a passport to housing benefit? If so it serves a useful, necessary and sensible purpose, and diminishes the force of the criticisms that I might otherwise have made and of the indignation which I might otherwise feel.
We have a balance of argument. I can see why the Minister and the Government wanted to introduce some sort of provision for partners. The days when men must work and women must weep are very long gone. We should all be glad of that. So, because someone's partner has been working, that does not necessarily shed any light on whether they should work. The fact that the Government want to have interviews for partners, to see whether they can be
86
found a suitable opportunity for working, is something that we should welcome. However, there is here an undistributed middle that is of some importance. On these Benches, we move heaven and earth to try to get an opportunity to work for those partners who want to do so. We believe categorically in choice.
The Minister has many times given an undertaking, which I accept, that no one under these provisions will be compelled to work. That is clear. However, there is a grey area that was slightly touched on in the Statement on the latest Green Paper on pensions, where people might talk about "encouraging" partners with children to work. That puts us on these Benches in greater doubt. The juggling necessary to combine children with work is a particular skill—just like going under the bonnet of a car engine and seeing what happens there. Some of us have that skill, some of us do not. It is not the business of the state to decide for people, or even to encourage them to decide, which way they should do that. The matter is strictly personal. The state should be helping them to choose whichever way they wish to go, no matter which way that might be. If the regulations were to be a precursor of any serious encouragement to both partners to work when they have young children, that would cause us concern.
The Minister has always said that the purpose of the interviews was that you do not know what you do not know. I take that point. However, although the Minister is undoubtedly right, it seems that people who have partners in work are more likely to be in work themselves.
According to the findings of the House of Commons Library, that appears to be nothing to do with work-focused interviews where we have carried out pilots. It reports that no evidence was found of an effect on labour-market participation and that the analysis of respondents' job-search behaviour found no difference between pilots and control respondents in the proportions of non-working lone parents looking for a job or delaying a search for work. Nor were there any differences between them in the methods used to find a job.
As regards further study of the pilot, there could be a significant finding. We have an immense amount of administrative effort which does not appear to be issuing in any particularly solid result. That is a point at which one might well pause and ask a few questions.
I take absolutely the Minister's point that our requirement is only one interview and that there is no pressure to work beyond that. When the Bill was before us, I made the point that it would produce fear and distress. Carers UK has discovered that that has turned out to be the case. It states that judging by calls to its helpline there is a problem in the style and approach to carers. Many find that insensitive and it seems to place a large degree of worry on stressful caring responsibility. It believes that it undermines carers' self-worth because it suggests that work is considered the only valuable activity.

87
If that is so, it should be a cause for concern. One does not want to cause that kind of reaction and one knows that people dealing with the welfare state often do so in a state of considerable anxiety. No doubt some of it is unjustified, but where that is the case, one wants to make it plain that that is the case and the creation of fear is not a useful process.
Furthermore, there is a specific problem with Bangladeshis. The Disability Alliance informs me that there is no specific word for "carer" in Sylheti, which is regularly spoken among Bangladeshis, because it is regarded as the task of all the women in the family. In this case, it is not easy to explain to them what is on offer and what is not, and who is allowed exemption for caring responsibility and who is not.
The point is also made that invalid care allowance is available only to one person, whereas the care of an invalid may rest upon several people. The other people may not receive any consideration for the care that they are giving. That point might be worth attention and it might even be possible to give it some attention.
It will not surprise the Minister that my chief complaint about these regulations—my chief complaint about this interview—is that it can be made a ground of a benefit sanction. The Minister is painfully familiar with my views on benefit sanctions. I keep asking her for evidence to refute them, as she clearly does not agree with them. She does not have any. On our latest round of Questions for Written Answer on the housing benefit sanctions, the Minister was able to offer me no information on what visible means of support were available to those suffering a benefit sanction. There is no information on whether more of them were admitted to hospital than other people and no information on whether more of them ended up in prison than any other people.
There seems to be a lamentable lack of curiosity. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I shall continue to believe that the imposition of a benefit sanction is a penalty little less in gravity than the death penalty; that it is potentially life-threatening. I have read the judgment of Mr Justice Collins and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in the case of Q. Incidentally, when the asylum Bill was before the House, I gave warnings that the Government were risking precisely that judgment. Some of these people were reduced to a state of real life-threatening misery.
I would like to know, and I hope that the Minister would like to know, how many of the other people who are victims of benefit sanctions are reduced to any equivalent sense of misery. That seems to be material in assessing how far a benefit sanction is a justifiable penalty.
The Minister remarked—a little casually, I thought—that the regulations were ECHR compatible. I wonder how familiar she is with the developments in process about the interpretation of Article 3; that is, inhuman or degrading treatment. She may remember that it was one of the main grounds of Mr Justice Collins' judgment in the case of the asylum seekers. It seems at present to be
88
the basis of Article 3 that to establish inhuman or degrading treatment one must establish destitution plus—destitution plus some other form of gross hardship or injury. Clearly, that is not a stable resting place; it is not a clear definition. It will go either forward or backwards.
I am in no position to prophesy which, but which it is may have a real relevance to the future of benefit sanctions. It could conclude with the whole lot of them being found contrary to Article 3. Therefore, the Minister might exercise a little more scholarly caution in the assertion that the regulations are ECHR compatible. Incidentally, if she reads the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, she will note that he did not say that they were ECHR compatible; he said that the point was open to doubt on both sides. That is not nearly as much of a clearance as the Home Secretary took it to be.
The Minister was not in the Chamber last Friday when my noble friend Lord Goodhart gave the Government a powerful but carefully drafted warning about our future conduct on regulations if the Government should continue to put through measures in them which cause us more discontent than many of the measures that we vote against in Bills. My noble friend chose his words very carefully indeed. I will not repeat them because I am in full agreement with them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if these regulations were welcomed. I thank noble Lords for their welcome. However, I suspect that the responses were slightly more ambivalent. I may be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, with some of the specific points that he raised. On his first point about partners, I agree that the wording is not the most felicitous. It states simply that it applies to partners if the claimant is receiving an additional increase in benefit by virtue of having a partner. It is a truism, but it is for the purpose of clarification. There may be truth in truisms occasionally.
On the definition of a partner, we go to the classic debates that we have had on many previous Bills. A partner is a member of the same couple as the claimant or, in the case where the claimant has more than one partner, a partner by reason of a polygamous marriage and so forth. A couple is defined by reference to the definitions of married couple and unmarried couple in Part 7 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act. A married couple are a man and a woman who are married together and are members of the same household. Unmarried couple means a man and a woman who are not married to each other but who are living together as husband and wife. In the past we have discussed what that includes: they share a common financial budget, they share a household, there is a presumption that they have children together and so on. That is a partner.
The noble Lord then asked about several interviews. Someone can be in receipt of several benefits but only one work-focused interview is required, not one interview per benefit. For example, someone may have carer's allowance and that would be topped up by income support. They would not have an interview for

89
both carer's allowance and income support: they would have just one interview. Many of the reasons for the priority order were explained in the primary legislation.
The first part of the noble Lord's comments were about the lack of clarity or the possible ambiguity—and I accept some of his criticisms—of the explanatory memorandum.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was quite right to explain the point about the 10 pence, being to hold a residual benefit in place to allow one to obtain passported benefits like housing benefit, or free prescriptions and so on. It is a decency insurance net. The noble Earl's second point was to suggest that, though this might be a good thing and was well-intended, all the evidence about what has happened to lone parents suggests that it is not a particularly effective way to proceed.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the Minister goes to the more substantive point, can she explain what the first paragraph of the explanatory memorandum means? I simply do not understand it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is referring to the explanatory memorandum at the back:
"These regulations impose a requirement on the partners of claimants of certain benefits",
and they are listed in Regulation 11(4), in the order of priority,
"to take part in a work-focused interview Can interview') where the claimant is entitled to that benefit at a higher rate",
because he has a partner. So "referable to" is because he has a partner. That is what it means at any rate, I can assure the noble Lord. I agree about the infelicity of the wording.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it does not say what the Minister has just said. It says,
"where the claimant is entitled to that benefit at a higher rate referable to the partner".
She has explained what that means. I cannot possibly put that construction on it. Officials who draft this kind of thing and put forward nonsensical paragraphs explaining things really ought to get a rocket.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will accept my explanation and allow me to get on to the substantive point. I have said I agree that some of the language is less than felicitous. I do not know how much more he expects me to say on that. I will go on to the substantive point as I am sure that your Lordships know we have other regulations that we need to explore in a moment.
I do not agree with the assessment of the efficacy of the process that we set in train when we introduced work-focused interviews for lone parents. Since they were introduced work-focused interviews have led to a 36 per cent increase in the number of lone parents joining the New Deal, which is voluntary. The New Deal, associated
90
with and, in many cases triggered by, the work-focused interviews shows something like a doubling of the rate of lone parents, held constant for age, gender—not gender—and educational qualification, entering into work. Something like 371,000 lone parents have joined the New Deal and half have found jobs. Those lone parents who go through the New Deal appear to also enjoy higher wages and a wage premium of between 6 and 9 per cent, particularly if they are in full-time work. I cannot give precise evidence about sustainability, but it is certainly sometimes the case that lone parents come out of the labour market during the long summer holiday period if, for example, their childcare arrangements break down or the child's health becomes fragile. It is the case that where they have come through the New Deal, have qualifications in consequence and where we seem to see higher wages, there is a greater likelihood for them to be able to hold on to the job.
Sometimes a lone parent may take several occasions to come in to the labour market, just as other young people may do. It depends entirely on the social and educational capital—the work skills—that the lone parent brings into the labour market. I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and say that it is not the work-focused interview alone, it is what the work focused interview has led on to— joining the New Deal, going into work, acquiring education and training, very often getting, as a result, eligibility for tax credits, enjoying a significantly higher income and springboarding their children out of poverty. If a lone parent goes into work the risk of poverty for their children falls by 75 per cent. That is a striking statistic. These results are a package but all the evidence is that the first step, to bring, sometimes reluctant, people to an interview can open doors and open windows that would otherwise be closed, particularly in areas where there is a low history of work and a high level of social exclusion.
I now turn to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He says that it is not the business of the state to determine how people juggle work and childcare. I agree with that, but it is the case that if both partners, the claimant and the partner, are both unemployed and they have children it is not unreasonable to assume that between them they can manage the childcare without specifying the gender. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will know that if a couple have children then between them they need only work 30 hours to get the full benefit of the tax credit system, which is very substantial indeed. One partner could work 16 hours, one could work 12 and thus manage the childcare even if they did not seek childcare payments through the tax credit system. It is sensitive and sensible in respect of childcare.
Secondly the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about carers. I was slightly concerned because I have not seen the material that he mentioned but I have been able to get some additional material for him that may be helpful. It was the case that earlier we carried out a written consultation exercise, contacting 34 organisations of which 11 responded. Concerns were raised but Carers UK responded to the consultation on these draft regulations and did not raise concerns regarding the

91
interview being intimidating. It may be that we are crossing wires slightly. I stand to be corrected on this, but some of their concerns did not apply to these particular regulations but were involved in an earlier consultation exercise and I hope that as a result of that exercise we have been able to abate their worries.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, then made a point about Bangladeshi women. I take that point, which I thought was sensitive, but it remains the case that some 3 per cent of all children are the children of Bangladeshi/Pakistani parents and 8 per cent of all poor children are the children of Bangladeshi/ Pakistani parents. One of the major reasons for that is that 73 per cent of partnered white women are in work and only about 23 to 26 per cent of Bangladeshi/ Pakistani partnered women are in work.
If there is a single explanation for child poverty—it is almost a predictor of deprivation for children, which is so bad for them and for our society—it concerns their distance from the labour market. When looking at India or Africa, who does one seek to help into the labour market? To whom do you give education? One gives it to women. If the women come into work not only does the family have a second income, but that also brings education into the family and the language and aspirations of the children are lifted. I hope that the noble Earl would extrapolate that into the situation of some of our poorest ethnic minority families whose children, although bright and able, are simply not being mainstreamed as we would wish them to be.
The final point of the noble Earl concerned benefit sanctions—a benefit sanction of about £10. If a couple are on JSA with two children they would have an income of about £250 and we are talking of a sanction of about 4 to 5 per cent. The noble Earl asks what happens to their health. Most sanctions can be alleviated quite quickly if someone meets the terms or the requirements of the condition and goes for the interview or actively seeks work. We could not do what the noble Lord asks. He knows, as a distinguished professional in the field of research, that one cannot test for something unless one has a base line from which to start. Unless one has analysed the health and wellbeing of everyone who is a claimant and tried to work out the impact of two, or three, or four weeks' of benefit sanction that cannot be done.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister knows that for many years we have been pressing the Government to conduct research on the level of minimum income necessary for good health. That would provide a base line. The Government seem to be extremely reluctant to supply it. In that circumstance, I wonder how the Minister can know what she has just told me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, one of the reasons for not going down this path—this is not a debate that I would normally entertain—is that 50 per cent of lone parents smoke; they smoke because they are poor; they are poor because they smoke; and there is a heavy correlation between what they do as a result
92
of that and their poor health and the poor health of their children, 75 per cent of whom suffer from respiratory illnesses.
What does the noble Earl suggest that we do about that? We do not normally shout about it or stigmatise people because of it. We try to raise levels of aspiration. We can introduce lone parents to nicotine help if that is what they seek and we hope that as a result their health and the health of their children will improve. If there is a sanction, how much of that is due to their smoking and how much of it is due to being denied a small element of their benefit? It is probably less than they spend on smoking each week. The average lone parent spends about £15 a week on cigarettes and the sanction is £10.
I do not know how we could conduct the research that the noble Earl suggests. I do not believe that it is technically possible. The noble Earl has an honourable record in challenging sanctions and he is absolutely right to press us on what we believe we are doing and on the implications. Without a sanction, all benefit conditions become voluntary. Why should anyone seek work—they could stay in bed, play the guitar, or whatever—if there is no sanction? They do not receive their JSA unless they are actively seeking work. Are we saying that all requirements associated with benefits should be voluntary?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the Minister knows perfectly well that I am not saying that. I have always said that I am prepared to have a sanction that is compatible with the continued good health of the claimant. I would like to know at what level that should be fixed, but that involves research that the Government have not yet carried out.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Lord had accepted my argument for a sanction representing 4 to 5 per cent of income, which is rather less than someone spends on cigarettes per week. How on earth can we determine what element of their poor health may be due to the sanctions and what element is due to their existing smoking? There is absolutely no way of telling. I am puzzled that the noble Earl does not accept my argument on this. Ultimately, I believe that these sanctions are modest.
We are asking partners of claimants to take seriously the obligation to attend a work-focused interview which I believe is an opportunity not a threat; it is about empowerment and choice. As I have seen with lone parents in the past, if we do not have a sanction, and people believe that it is voluntary, people will not attend. They prefer not to bother. That is one of the problems that we often face with lone parents and their children. Once they come in to do the work-focused interview and come into the New Deal their aspirations rise and their children benefit as well.
I suspect that the noble Earl and I will not agree on this. Over the years I have changed my mind on this in the light of information and research reports that I

93
have read. I hope that when the noble Earl reads the same literature he will join me and change his mind too.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it has been apparent that the noble Baroness has changed her mind on some issues that we have debated in the past. Did the sanctions apply during the period of the pilot? I am puzzled by the study that says that only 17 per cent of lone parents received an invitation for an interview and only 14 per cent actually attended an interview. Were the sanctions in action during that pilot scheme?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in some cases sanctions were in action. But let me write to the noble Lord, because this order is about the New Deal for partners not the New Deal for lone parents. If he wants me to follow up the detail about what happened to some of those pilot schemes—how many people were sanctioned, how many of those were accepted as good cause, and what happened then—I will be very happy to write to him. I think that is the best way rather than trying to bounce the statistics around tonight.
With that, I hope your Lordships will accept the regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease (England and Wales) Order 2003
8.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(Lord Whitty) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order extends to avian influenza and Newcastle disease powers introduced by the Animal Health Act 2002 in relation to foot and mouth disease. I am sure I do not need to remind anyone of the foot and mouth outbreak. We learnt lessons. We must be properly prepared for any future outbreak, whether it is foot and mouth or any other disease.
Although the Animal Health Act was somewhat contentious in this House, we introduced it in order to bolster our powers and introduce new powers for foot and mouth which allowed powers to be extended to other diseases by order approved by a resolution of both Houses. That is the background to the draft order.
Your Lordships will be aware of the outbreak of avian influenza on the Continent this year. There were 250 confirmed cases, mainly in the Netherlands, and over 31 million birds had to be slaughtered. The outbreak, occurring as it did so near to the UK and spreading to Belgium and Germany, naturally heightened concerns here. As a result of the outbreak, the Dutch authorities have shared their experience
94
with us. One of their findings is that they believe that up to 20 premises were already infected when avian influenza was first suspected. In order to get on top of the disease and stop it spreading, the Dutch authorities introduced preventive culls, involving commercial holdings within a radius of 3 kilometres around infected farms. In the main affected area, all commercial poultry within a radius of 10 kilometres around infected farms were slaughtered.
We have considered the need for the possibility of a preventive cull here, should an outbreak occur. In the Netherlands, where the structure of the industry is slightly different, there was a very high density of poultry holdings in the areas affected. but these were small farms with shared labour. Our industry tends to be more concentrated in that we have fewer locations but with more birds in them. The veterinary advice being given to me and my colleagues is that the need for a preventive cull in the United Kingdom is unlikely. Nevertheless, in the light of the Netherlands experience and the strong advice from the Dutch authorities, the need for such a cull is not ruled out. Having the powers would be essential to our armoury.
Your Lordships will recall that during the debate on the Animal Health Act there was much concern that we should use vaccination wherever possible as an alternative to a cull in relation to preventive culls. Vaccination, however, is not practical for avian influenza, at least with the current technologies. Birds would have to be dosed individually by injection, and immunity can take up to three weeks. Some poultry require two doses. Vaccination, moreover, does not prevent birds becoming infected and shedding virus, mainly via faeces. Thus we do not see vaccination as an alternative effective tool in this context.
If we were ever to use these powers there would need to be a disease control slaughter protocol. This describes the purpose, factors and procedures behind the use of a preventive cull. We have one in place for foot and mouth disease—it is incorporated in the FMD contingency plan. We intend to produce a separate one for avian influenza and for Newcastle disease.
The 2002 Act allows two further measures to be introduced by affirmative order. They involve the provision to slaughter vaccinated animals and the power of entry for testing and sampling. I have already said that given current technology it is unlikely that we would vaccinate, and therefore the first measure does not apply. As far as powers of entry for the purpose of slaughter or vaccination are concerned, they apply automatically under the 2002 Act. It is only powers of entry for the purposes of testing and sampling which need to be extended by this affirmative order. In the event of an outbreak, delays in our ability to test poultry for virus or disease control could lead to the spread of disease and prolongation of an outbreak. Hence, these powers of access for testing are needed.
The advice given to Ministers is that we are as much at risk of an outbreak of Newcastle disease as we are of avian influenza. It would therefore he deficient of us to prepare for an outbreak of avian influenza without

95
covering Newcastle disease. Both diseases require amendment to the same pieces of legislation. Therefore, it is important to do both together today. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th June be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee]
—(Lord Whitty.)
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through this statutory instrument. Many of us are very concerned about the avian flu outbreak on the Continent, because it spreads very quickly through the poultry sector. The noble Lord was right to give us the figures on that. I had them as well, so I will not repeat them. However, I have one or two questions for him.
This instrument is being introduced in our House; I do not think it has been debated in another place. It is the first time that we have had a chance to look at it. In his comments the Minister referred particularly to "commercial poultry". Will he look at Article 4(3)(c), which defines,
"any poultry the Secretary of State thinks should be slaughtered"?
I have some questions regarding that phrasing, because if the order is only for commercial poultry, the statutory instrument should define it as such, but it clearly does not.
What animals—that is bad English—or what poultry are included in the definition of "any poultry"? Does that include game birds, for example, or exotic, expensive birds kept in wildlife parks? Would somewhere such as Slimbridge have some of its animals killed in a cull if the Minister thought it fit? What about endangered species and pets, which many people have? I believe that after cats and dogs, birds are the most popular animals kept. I am concerned that the Minister clearly said in his comments that the order refers to commercial poultry, yet the statutory instrument states "any poultry". I would be glad for that to be clarified.
I appreciate what the Minister said about vaccinations. We had a long debate on the Animal Health Bill and we would obviously be in favour of vaccination rather than slaughter. In this case, as it stands, medical science is not far enough advanced along that line and therefore there is no option, so I do not take the Minister to task on the matter.
Why does the order refer to the 1981 Act, since I understand that in the Animal Health Act 2002 the matter is covered under Schedule 2A on page 13? We need to clarify that point; we should not have to go back to previous Acts if the new updated Act can cope with it. From my interpretation of reading through, that is how I viewed the matter.
The Minister is right to say that we have fewer and much larger farms and therefore many more birds; and so our problem may be different from that on the continent. I accept that the order is necessary. With those few comments and questions, I thank the
96
Minister for bringing it before us and explaining it, but I would be grateful if when he winds up he could answer my questions.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the order, but I would like to clarify a few points. Some while ago in your Lordships' House the Minister mentioned that Defra had a horizon-scanning department—I think that is how he termed it. I am slightly surprised that, given that horizon-scanning ability, there was an outbreak in March, but we are only now getting the order in July, so I am questioning the speed with which the department scans the horizon.
I have been reading the comments of the chief vet with regard to avian influenza. He is clear that,
"While wild birds are as susceptible as domestic poultry to the disease … Water fowl, especially ducks, posed a potentially greater risk in that they could carry high pathogenic strains of the virus without showing signs of disease".
The point in my quoting him is that Article 4(4)(c) says that poultry should be culled which,
"have been exposed to the infection of avian influenza or Newcastle disease",
and on some occasions it will he difficult to judge whether they have been exposed.
I wonder what sort of guidance keepers of ducks, in particular, can expect from Defra. I would not want to think that the result was that all free-range keeping of poultry would be so constrained so that they would not be exposed to these diseases. I have in mind the Welfare of Ducks Bill, which was introduced in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, quite rightly, because ducks need water and they often do not obtain it. This may he a step further in making it more difficult for poultry-keepers to ensure that they obtain it.
I wish to make a point about the number of regulations. The Government have said that they encourage small producers. I looked at the British Poultry Council's very helpful web site to see how many pieces of legislation that, as a small poultry keeper of around 100 chickens supplying the market with very high-quality free-range birds, I might expect to deal with. There is almost one regulation or piece of legislation for each of the 100 birds. There are 97, of which 39 are concerned with housing, keeping, feeding, transporting, marketing and slaughtering, and 58 relate to processing and labelling. I urge the Government, when they feel that they have time, to consolidate those provisions as was done in the Water Bill. That would be particularly helpful to small producers, who cannot spend their entire time reading legislation; otherwise, they will never have time to produce anything.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the welcome given to the order by both Front-Bench speakers. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was wrong in saying that the House of Commons had not considered the order. For the record, it was considered in the House of Commons this afternoon.

97
The noble Baroness questioned my reference to "commercial poultry". She is right that the definition of poultry in the order includes domestic fowl, turkey, geese, ducks, guinea fowl, pigeons, pheasants and partridges and would therefore cover a range of fowl outside commercial premises. The structure of the industry is such that exposure is likely to arise within commercial premises. However, the powers would extend to breeds defined as poultry under Section 87 of the Act. The powers may be extended, although we would need a separate statutory order to do that.
The problem with avian influenza is that almost any bird can carry it. Indeed, the most likely incursion to this country would be via a bird. That is a slight problem, but, in general, it is likely that any preventative cull would be in the commercial sector.
The noble Baroness asked why the order referred to the 1981 Act. Footnote (a) to the order explains that the Animal Health Act is an amendment Act to the 1981 Act. Noble Lords will recall that that difficulty arose during the passage of the Animal Health Act. Although the noble Baroness is right to say that the issue was covered in the 2002 Act, it was as an amendment to the 1981 Act. Reference is therefore made to the 1981 Act, as it has now been amended.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to horizon-scanning in the department, which happens on this front as on others. We did not introduce the order on the basis of the outbreak in the Netherlands because the Dutch authorities thought that they could contain the disease in the initial stages without engagement in a substantive preventive cull, as did we. The Dutch authorities have shared much of their report with their European colleagues. It is clear that the outbreak was very similar to foot and mouth in that the disease was not detected until at least 20 premises had already contracted it. In those circumstances, the authorities had to engage in a preventive cull to stop the further spread of the disease to areas where they had not yet detected it. In the light of the experience of the Dutch after the outbreak, we decided that we needed to introduce the extended power.
The noble Baroness asked whether the order would cover free-range poultry. Regrettably, free-range poultry are more vulnerable, in a sense, because the most likely arrival of the disease would be via a stray wild bird from the Netherlands. I am afraid, therefore, that free-range birds will not be exempt from the order.
I note the noble Baroness's reference to the complexity of regulations covering poultry and the need for consolidation, or at least a better explanation, of them. I shall take that message away.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he answer my question about the birds in wildlife communities such as Slimbridge? Is there a chance that such birds might be considered, should a disease outbreak be known in a certain area? They are commercial flocks in a way, although not in the same sense as the Minister mentioned earlier.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the fowl in Slimbridge would not be covered by the list of poultry that I read out. We could extend the cover, but that would need a separate statutory instrument, which is not before the House tonight. The definition does not include the type of fowl at Slimbridge.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice Bill
8.31 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 13 [Grant and conditions of bail]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 8, line 40, leave out "for his own welfare"
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 55, 56 arid 57. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support for these amendments. The amendments concern Clause 13, the subject of which is grant and conditions of bail. The specific subject that we wish to probe in this group of amendments is the conditions to be imposed on bail for under 18 year-olds. As in our debate on Clause 12, our concern is to ensure that the child's welfare remains the predominant priority. Speaking in Committee in another place, Mr Grieve expressed a concern that
"children's welfare issues will no longer be the responsibility of the civil courts".".— [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; co1.170.]
He said that intervention is taking place earlier when full representation is not readily available. We also have doubts over the appropriateness of a custody sergeant setting the conditions of hail, however well intentioned, without the presence of the relevant welfare authorities.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was quoted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the UN Convention:
"In all actions concerning children …the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
Without the guaranteed involvement of the appropriate family member or welfare authority, the granting of bail may cease to be primarily concerned with the welfare of the child and would instead be in the best interests of administrative convenience. We understand that the provision has been included in the Bill at the recommendation of the Law Commission, which observed that a defendant might be remanded in custody when release on bail with imposed conditions would have sufficed.
Although we approve of any reasonable proposal that minimises the chances of a child spending time in custody, this provision could place a heavy burden on the police, and, at the same time, present them with conflicting responsibilities that may be difficult to reconcile. I do not expect that these amendments are

99
entirely properly drafted, but they concern an important issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to support Amendments Nos. 54 to 57, which are probing amendments. Although I am always pleased that the welfare of children is well to the fore in the minds of all who deal with them in the criminal justice system, I do not think that the child's welfare should ever be seen as justification for bail conditions or anything to do with custody. It is not for the justice system to decide on the child's welfare, but youth offending teams and the social services. Non-custodial responses should always be the norm for children and it should only be in exceptional circumstances that they are not granted bail. I find it difficult to see how it could ever be in their interests or for their welfare for them not to be granted bail.
As I said, I support the amendments as probing amendments. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister responds to the amendments and what reassurances he can give us.
Lord Hylton: I am puzzled by the amendments. Clause 13 appears to set out cases in which bail conditions may be imposed. Am I right to say that, in such circumstances, bail will be granted?
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): In speaking to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 57, I want also to speak to Amendment No. 58, which is grouped with them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is right in saying that Clause 13 is concerned with circumstances in which bail would be granted, but granted on conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is right to say that Clause 13 follows a recommendation made by the Law Commission. I shall explain why, and I hope that in doing so I may provide the assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, sought.
As things stand, under the Bail Act 1976 a defendant under 17 can be remanded in custody on several grounds. One of those grounds—it may not arise frequently, but it is there—is if it would be for his or her own welfare or in his or her own interests to be remanded in custody. That power exists at the moment. We have no provision that would enable bail conditions to be imposed in the same circumstances.
The Law Commission pointed out—rightly, in the Government's view—that, in circumstances in which the court was of the view that it was necessary for the welfare of or in the interests of the young person to take a step, custody would, at the moment, be the only option. I accept that those may be unusual circumstances and that that is not the usual reason for refusing bail. If conditions had been imposed—a good example might be a condition to reside in a hostel—the court would be of the view that custody would not be necessary and it would be satisfactory to grant bail on that condition. Subsection (1) amends the Bail Act 1976 so as to provide that additional option, an option beneficial to the young
100
person because it provides the possibility, which would not otherwise exist, of allowing bail in circumstances that otherwise could lead to a refusal.
It is not expected that the provision will be used to impose conditions on young defendants that are inappropriate or in inappropriate circumstances. As I explained, the objective is to fill a gap in the current provision, which might result, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, in someone being remanded in custody when he or she could have been released on bail if only appropriate conditions could have been imposed. That is the intention behind Clause 13(1). I hope that that explanation of the limited circumstances in which it arises will reassure Members of the Committee who spoke.
Amendment No. 58 is simply a drafting amendment, as the Committee will see. At the moment, the provision to which it refers talks about "Part", without identifying what it is part of. The amendment makes clear what that is. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Lord Dholakia: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions in relation to Clause 13. The Bill does not propose to remove or amend paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act under which the defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that he should be kept in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare. If that is the only reason to refuse bail, some other secure setting should be provided. This is allowed under Clause 13(2)(c) and Clause 13(3)(b). Can the Minister confirm that this would apply in such cases?
My second point concerns pre-sentence or medical reports. Can the Minister further confirm whether the lack of timely preparation of such reports would not act adversely in terms of refusal of bail. Many times it is not the fault of the individual; sometimes the court and its officers do not prepare their reports in time. The individual ought not to suffer because of that.
Lord Goldsmith: As regards the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I agree. It would be unsatisfactory if it were necessary to detain a young person in custody when some other secure place could be found short of custody which would satisfy the requirement of providing the protection that the young person needs. The clause provides that by enabling a condition to be imposed—for example, the young person resides in a hostel which thereby provides a secure place and obviates the need for custody.
Turning to the second issue raised by the noble Lord, he will know that it often is required and is very much in the interests of the defendant—whether a young person or not—that particular reports are prepared before a sentencing decision is reached by the magistrates or by the court. It is very important that the court should know the background and circumstances and therefore have the full range of options available. In many cases there will be a

101
statutory requirement not to proceed to a sentence or a particular form of sentence without. such a report being obtained.
In order that those who provide these reports can do their job properly, it will sometimes take time. It will always take some time. I have no doubt that the courts, and the probation service where it is responsible, will do all that they can not to prolong unnecessarily the time taken. During the period that such a report is being prepared, it may be necessary to provide a secure place for a young person. It is not their fault that that is happening, but it is a requirement that in their own and the public's interests a proper report should be obtained. I hope that deals with the questions posed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. He has assuaged our fears; I am not sure that our fears were not groundless in the first place. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 9, line 7, leave out "that Part" and insert "Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Offences committed on bail]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9. line 42, leave out "the defendant"
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 59, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 60, both standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal. These are both simply drafting amendments. The word "defendant" appears in what is grammatically the wrong place. The intention is to correct that grammatical error with these two amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 9, line 43, at beginning insert "the defendant"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Articles 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights have very important safeguards—the right to liberty, the presumption of innocence, respect for private and family life, and freedom of association. The proposal in Clause 14 is that bail should be refused to an adult defendant who is on bail in criminal proceedings on the date of the offence. The only exception is if the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that he would commit an offence if released on bail which reverses existing hail presumptions. By opposing that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill we are concerned to
102
inquire of the Government precisely what is the thinking behind this change? The presumption moves from a right to bail unless there is a significant risk of offending or absconding to entirely the other way round. We look forward to hearing what the Government have to say.
Lord Renton: It was the present Government who persuaded both Houses of Parliament to pledge the convention on human rights onto our statute book. I was in favour of that. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out, we have to be very careful in ensuring that our own law does not in any way conflict with the convention, even in minor matters. The Government should consider carefully the effects of Clause 14 upon the Act embodying the convention on human rights. For that reason I am glad that the noble Lord has moved that we should rewrite Clause 14.
Lord Borrie: I am most interested in the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. My reading of Clause 14 is that this is a well-justified tightening of the rules on bail both to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and to prevent abuse and to retain the discretion of the court, which is the most important matter.
Paragraph 2A of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976, according to the Law Commission in a report a couple of years ago, could be seen as contradictory to the European Convention on Human Rights. The Law Commission said the Act needed amending to make plain that just because the defendant was on bail at the time of the alleged offence, that was not an independent ground for refusal of bail. It is meant to be—I hope that Clause 14 does this—only one consideration that the offence was committed on bail. This is surely a very valid consideration that the court should take account of in determining whether there is a real risk of the defendant offending yet again while on bail. This surely is one of the key legitimate grounds for refusing bail, along with the other ones with which we are familiar such as the risk of absconding and the risk of interfering with witnesses.
Lord Goldsmith: Bail is a very important part of our criminal justice system, but it is right also to recognise that there are sadly many who are provided with bail who yet go on to commit other offences, as there are many who are provided with bail who yet go on not to surrender to custody. Home Office research has shown that as many as one in four of those who are granted bail go on to be convicted of a further offence committed when they are on bail. For offences such as vehicle crime and shoplifting, that research indicated that the figure is as many as over 40 per cent who commit further crimes while on bail.
That is clearly a source of legitimate concern for the public—that someone who has committed an offence is granted bail, yet commits a further offence during that period. Equally—and I make the point at this stage although it is more relevant to Clause 15 than

103
Clause 14—those who are granted bail yet do not turn up to their custody create a great problem for the criminal justice system. It is obviously a waste of time and resources if someone fails to surrender to custody when the court is ready to deal with the case. But more than that, it is a source of frustration and distress to victims and witnesses who turn up for the case to be dealt with, only to find that a defendant who has been given this opportunity—that is, given bail—has failed to turn up himself. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is entirely justifiable that, as the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights makes plain, a reason for not granting bail would be the existence of some risk that a person would commit an offence while on bail.
My noble friend Lord Borrie is absolutely right in saying that the present position under the Bail Act 1976 is one that the Law Commission has suggested takes the position too far. Paragraph 2A of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to that Act purports to make the fact that a defendant was on bail at the time of the alleged offence an independent ground for the refusal of bail—full stop, as it were. The Government are drawing back from that by proposing that we should consider the true justification for the refusal of bail in such a case which is not that the alleged offence was committed by a defendant who was already on bail, but the risk of a further offence being committed derives from that fact.
Most people would regard the fact that an offence was committed when a defendant was on bail as very significant in assessing the risk that further offences could be committed, as my noble friend suggested. Subsection (1) therefore repeals the existing provision in paragraph 2A and replaces it with a requirement for the court to refuse bail to an adult defendant who is on bail in criminal proceedings at the date of the offence, unless it is satisfied that there is no significant risk that he would so fail if released. That is obviously a very important final piece to the clause. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, it leaves it for the court to have the ability to say that notwithstanding that an offence has been committed while on bail, it is appropriate to grant bail because there is no significant risk that the person would commit a further offence.
I suggest that that position is entirely consistent with our ECHR obligations. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is critical in such areas that we should comply with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government's view is that the clause does that, because it remains open to the court to say that notwithstanding that there has been an offence, there is no significant risk of the person committing a further offence while on bail.
While dealing with those matters, it is right to draw attention to the rather different provision that applies in subsection (2), which would apply to defendants under 18, to whom the reverse presumption would not apply. Different language is used, and the court is to give particular weight to the fact that the offence was
104
committed on bail in deciding whether or not the defendant would be likely to reoffend if released on bail.
I hope that the Committee agrees that in putting these amendments forward we have had full regard to our European convention obligations. Compared with the 1976 Act we are extending the ability of the court to be able to grant bail in appropriate cases and have ultimately struck a balance which is acceptable. I hope that against that background the Committee will agree that Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the noble and learned Lord explain to me as a lay person exactly what the difference is between the way a person is treated in subsection (1) as opposed to subsection (2)? I do not understand what the difference is when the person is under 18. More weight is given to a certain fact in subsection (2), but is weight not given to it in subsection (1) as well?
Lord Goldsmith: Yes, of course, but subsection (1) goes further because the court is required to refuse bail unless it is satisfied—and the test is there set out—
"that there is no significant risk of [the person] committing an offence".
In reaching that conclusion the court will have regard to all the circumstances. Undoubtedly a stronger test would apply to the adult than to the person under 18. I hope the Committee agrees that that is the right approach.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes): The Question is that Clause 14 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content", the contrary "Not Content". The Contents have it.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call Clause 15.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I intended to reply briefly to the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The clause has already been passed. I paused slightly before I put the Question.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: With the greatest respect I did not hear a pause, if one can hear a pause. However, I shall confine my remarks to the next clause to which they are equally applicable.
Clause 15 [Absconding by persons released on bail]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 10, line 12, leave out from "custody" to end of line 13.
The noble Lord said: This is my opportunity to speak which I shall take.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General indicated that the Government were very concerned to comply with the convention and to ensure that

105
convention rights are upheld. In relation to Clauses 14 and 15 he will know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out that it was unable to accept his view as expressed previously. No doubt that view will be expressed again in a moment. Provisions which deny a person hail unless he or she can convince a court that there is no significant risk of their reoffending—I refer to Clause 14—or failing to surrender for trial seem to us to constitute a disproportionate interference of the right to liberty under Article 5.1 of the European convention. A court would be prevented from considering the other convention rights of the defendant, of members of his or her family and of other defendants
The amendment is designed to leave out the words,
"but this does not require the court, if so satisfied, to grant bail (disregarding other considerations)".
That means that the court may come to the conclusion that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, the defendant would fail to surrender to custody. But even though it comes to that conclusion, it is not required to grant bail. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. If a court is to determine the circumstances set out in the proposed amendment to the 1976 Act—to the effect that the defendant is not to be granted bail in the circumstances so specified—and if it comes to the conclusion that there is no significant risk, why does it not follow the natural consequence of that finding and allow bail? On what other basis is bail to be refused? That is the problem—no significant risk that he would fail to surrender to custody. It seems to me that with that conclusion the proper decision for the court must be to grant bail. I should welcome enlightenment from the noble and learned Lord as to why the Government take a different view. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Would the noble and learned Lord like me to speak to Amendment No. 64 now, or would he prefer to move his amendments first? Which would be most convenient?
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment is grouped with this one. It would probably be convenient, therefore, if the noble Lord were to speak to it now.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Amendment No. 64 relates to Clause 15, and to persons released on bail. I hope that the wording is largely self-explanatory.
The amendment relates to a worry brought to our attention by the Magistrates' Association that no consideration or allowance with regard to bail has been made for those with mental disorders. While proposed sub-paragraph (3) in Clause 15(1) makes provision for bail to be permitted where,
"it appears to the court that the defendant had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody",
the defendant would still be denied bail if,
"he failed to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time".
106
Proposed sub-paragraph (4), referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, further limits the chances of bail being granted by stating that a failure to give the defendant a copy of the record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a valid excuse either. The Magistrates' Association believes that that opens up the possibility of a defendant with a mental disorder being denied bail for failing to comply with these conditions when it is entirely possible that he may not have understood the full implications of them.
It cannot be in the interests of anyone—the police, the Prison Service, the judicial service, or particularly the person in question—further to increase the strain on the system by refusing bail to people who, while confused, have no malicious intentions in failing to comply with bail conditions.
We should have been more comfortable had the proposed new sub-paragraph (4) in Clause 15(1)—
"a failure to give to the defendant a copy of the record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a reasonable cause for his failure"—
been eliminated, because the Auld Report, which the Government have quoted and used extensively, states on page 430n that,
"bail notices should be couched in plain English, printed and given to the defendant as a formal court order when the bail decision is made, so that he understands exactly what is required of him and appreciates the seriousness of the grant of bail and of any attached conditions".
That would have reduced our concerns on this point. In the absence of that, Amendment No. 64 is designed to provide a failsafe which will enable the court to grant bail at its discretion to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
Lord Renton: I support what my noble has said in relation to Amendment No. 64. The point that must be borne in mind about mental disorders is that they can vary enormously. Some will be so severe that the defendant concerned has absolutely no control over his actions. Others may be only slightly involved in an error of judgment. But the discretion of the court is necessary in whatever circumstances arise here, and therefore I believe that the amendment proposed by my noble friend is a very useful one.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall speak to Amendments Nos, 61 and 64. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, did not speak to Amendment No. 62, from which I infer that he does not intend to move it. However, I do not want to leave it unanswered if that was in fact an oversight.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I should have spoken to Amendment No. 62. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made much the same point, that a failure to give a copy of the record shall,
"not constitute a reasonable cause for a person's failure to surrender to custody".
We find that unnecessary and restrictive.
Lord Goldsmith: I am happy to deal with that now, or the matter might return later. It is better at least to explain the position as I understand it. I shall therefore speak to Amendments Nos. 61, 62, and 64—and also to government Amendments Nos. 63, 65 and 66. They deal with different topics.
Amendment No. 61, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would remove the concluding words of the new paragraph 6(1),
"but this does not require the court, if so satisfied to grant bail (disregarding other considerations)".
The noble Lord asked why would it be appropriate to deny bail if there was no significant risk that if released on bail a person would fail to surrender to custody. The answer is that there might be another good reason for not granting bail—for example, if there was a risk that that person would interfere with witnesses or the course of justice. There are a number of circumstances under which bail can be refused. All that this is doing is to make clear that if there are reasons for refusing bail independent of the question of absconding, then the court will retain the power to refuse bail, which it would have under the Bail Act 1976 in any event.
It could not be right to say that although one condition has been dealt with, even though there is another good reason for refusing bail, that that should be excluded automatically. So we could not accept the deletion of the words. Of course, the words are an amendment to an existing Act, which contains a number of provisions about the presumptions, subject to these amendments, in which bail would be provided, and so the other provisions of the Act should apply.
Amendment No. 62 seeks to remove paragraph 6(4), which, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, provides that,
"a failure to give to the defendant a copy of the record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody".
That is no more than to repeat the provision that already exists in the Bail Act, in Section 6(4). There is no change by making this provision. In any event, the Government believe that this will rightly avoid technical arguments that a defendant could not have been expected to know his bail date because the court had failed to give him the required copy. The defendant might have been in court and heard very well the magistrates say, and perhaps his lawyer afterwards, "This is the date that you are supposed to attend". There would be no doubt that he had known the date—and to say later, "I didn't turn up because I haven't had a copy of the bail record", would be unacceptable. There might be circumstances which would lead the court to take the view that he had reasonable cause not to attend. But it could not just be the fact that there was no copy of the record.
I turn to Amendment No. 64, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, there will be degrees of disorder from which a person falling within the definition referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, could suffer. I entirely take the point that it would be unjust if someone who was not responsible for his actions fell to be remanded in custody
108
because of the risk that he would not surrender. A person who is mentally disordered ought to have been identified as such, and diverted away from the court, before this stage in the proceedings. If that has not happened, but it is nevertheless clear that the person is disordered, then I suggest that the court would be entitled to find, and would be likely to find, that that person had "reasonable cause" for his failure to surrender. So the presumption against bail would not apply. That remains in this case for the court to consider. Did the person have reasonable cause for failure to surrender? That is the reason for resisting the amendment, although recognising and understanding the thinking which lay behind it.
I turn to the three government amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 63 is to correct a disparity in the treatment of defendants aged 18 and below. Under the Bill as it stands, a defendant under 18 who has absconded not only is not subject to the presumption created by Clause 15(1); he would moreover benefit from a presumption in favour of bail owing to the removal of paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act. That result would not be sensible and the amendment therefore requires the court in the case of defendants under 18 to give particular weight to the fact that they have failed to surrender to bail in assessing the risk of future absconding.
Amendment No. 66 simplifies and improves subsection (2) because it provides for a straightforward three-month limitation period to run from the defendant's surrender to custody, arrest or court appearance in respect of the offence, whichever is first. Amendment No. 65 is simply a drafting amendment and I hope that I need say no more about it.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend Lord Hodgson replies, perhaps I may with great humility reply to what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General said about Amendment No. 64. At first he seemed to accept the proposition that the circumstances arising from mental disorder would vary enormously, but then he gave the impression that we should not leave the matter to the discretion of the court. I would have thought that if justice were to be done, there must be variation. The court must have a discretion to apply whatever is required in the particular circumstances of the particular mental disorder.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Will the noble and learned Lord explain further why the Government did not follow the clear recommendation of the Auld report as to how bail notice should be couched, printed and handed out? He touched on it, but I thought it a glancing blow only. We are trying to achieve a balance throughout the Bill, particularly in this clause. The issue of bail, as he rightly reminded us, is important and one about which there is great public concern. The Auld report gave a clear recommendation, but the noble and learned Lord did not quite give it the drive through the covers that it might justify.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble and learned Lord replies to that question, and after he has received the important information just communicated to him by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, perhaps I may ask him to deal with my point about the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He did not refer to them in his reply. The Joint Committee mentioned the case of Le Tellier v France where the European Court of Human Rights held that pre-trial detention must be limited to a reasonable period of time and the court must examine all the circumstances for or against a public interest in detention, justifying any detention with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The court identified five factors which may justify detention pending trial: the risk of absconding, the risk of interfering with the course of justice, the prevention of crime, the preservation of public order and the need to protect the defendant. But the court made it clear that the individual's particular circumstances and personal characteristics must be taken into account and the reasons given for refusing bail must not be abstract or stereotyped, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was making a moment ago.
The problem about Clauses 14 and 15 is that they impose a straitjacket on the court that it must be confined by in considering the particular case in front of it. It is required not to give consideration to the particular circumstances and personal characteristics of the individual. It follows that Clauses 14 and 15 do have an abstract or stereotyped response to either the question of re-offending or the possibility of the defendant absconding. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has some weight in your Lordships' deliberations and if it feels that these provisions deny a person bail and they do constitute a disproportionate interference with Article 5(1) then we need to have a justification from the Government for why these provisions are put forward. Otherwise a court considering the matter at some future date may well say that these clauses are incompatible. The noble and learned Lord did not deal with that in his response and I ask him to do so now.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: Three quite separate points had been put before I sat down. I will try and deal with them in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, questioned me further on the issue of the mentally disordered defendant. What I wanted to do, and hope I did do, was to draw attention to the fact that in the provisions that are set out in Clause 15, the presumption that is set out in Paragraph 6(1) is subject to Paragraph 6(3), which would be the new Section 6(3) of the Bail Act, 1976. It provides that where it appears to the court that the defendant had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody he does not fall within the paragraph unless it appears to the court that he failed to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time. The point that I was anxious to make is that when somebody is suffering from a condition where it is not right to say that he is responsible for not turning up,
110
where he cannot have been expected to do so having regard to the condition, then the court would be entitled to say—I would expect it to do so—that he has a reasonable cause for not attending and therefore it is inappropriate for us to apply this presumption. It may then look at the case more generally and may, or may not, decide that in all the circumstances custody is appropriate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, wishes to speak and I give way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Is he is saying that the reasonable cause to which he refers could be mental disorder?
Lord Goldsmith: I do not want to be too telegraphed about this matter. It may be that the reason that the person has not attended is due to a mental disorder and that the magistrates or the court consider that in those circumstances it is appropriate to say that the person had reasonable cause not to attend or could not have been expected to attend. That is why I venture to suggest that the noble Lord had helpfully reminded the Committee that the degree of conditions could vary from very extreme to not so extreme. Of course, the court would have to look at the circumstances.
Secondly, I was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for not having dealt with the matter of the terms of a bail notice. The Government expect and wish that bail notices should be provided. It is important that that takes place. The sole point with which I was dealing—it is the sole point with which Amendment No. 62 is concerned—is whether the mere fact that such a notice has not been served should in itself constitute a reasonable cause for not attending. I suggest that based on existing law and based on common sense, the fact that such a document has not been served cannot be a reasonable cause. That does not mean that there may not be reasonable cause based upon a number of circumstances which to the court appear appropriate. That was my reason for responding to the amendment in a way that the noble Lord thought was a glancing blow. I thought I had driven it to the covers and perhaps rather further.
Lord Dholakia: I believe that the Minister is dealing with an example of mentally ill offenders. Many noble Lords have served as magistrates and will be aware that many people who appear before them are inadequate in various ways. Many times bail is granted with conditions. Surely the easiest way is for there to be an obligation on the court to ensure that bail notices are clearly specified—not only the attendance but also the conditions—rather than putting the onus on an individual having to justify why he or she did not appear with the excuse mainly that he or she just did not understand the conditions.
Lord Goldsmith: I repeat, as the 1976 Act states and as appears to the Government to be right, that failure to give a copy of the record of the decision to grant bail shall not constitute a reasonable cause for failure to attend. I suggest that as a matter of common sense that

111
does not in any way detract from the desirability that notices should be provided and that they should be clear. However, as a matter of common sense, that cannot be a reasonable cause not to attend when one has been told in court, one has heard what has been said and others have reminded one and told one at the time. One cannot simply say, "Well, for this technical reason I did not get a copy of the document, therefore, I am entitled not to turn up; I am entitled to put the public, the court, the witnesses and the victims to inconvenience". In our view that will not wash.
The third point is the compatibility of the provision with ECHR requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the Human Rights Committee, a committee for which I have great respect, having sat on it before taking my present position. Ultimately, it is a matter of what the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court requires, and that does not consist of just one case but a number of cases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly accepted, one of the clear circumstances in which it is appropriate, according to European jurisprudence, not to grant bail is in circumstances that concern the risk that someone would fail to surrender to custody if granted bail. This provision deals with precisely that. Generally speaking, it cannot be acceptable for someone to be released on bail, which is the basis for saying, "You will come back, and the witnesses and the victims will attend so that the court can deal with the case", and for him or her to fail to attend. Not surprisingly the European Court, while rightly saying that there must be reasonable times imposed and matters of that kind, states that that is a perfectly legitimate circumstance in which bail can be refused.
Ultimately, courts themselves, as public authorities, are also bound, as the noble Lord would be the first to remind me, by the requirements of the Human Rights Act and the European convention. The Government's view—and as it happens my view—is that the provision is compatible with our obligations under the European convention.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Referring to the first amendment to which I am speaking, which would amend subsection (1), I now understand the meaning of lines 12 and 13, from "but" to "considerations", the part that we seek to exclude. I happen to think that it is very badly worded. I did not understand it before, and one or two alterations would make it clear what the noble and learned Lord had in mind. May I suggest a form of words which he can read in Hansard tomorrow? My suggestion is, "but this does not require the court, even if so satisfied, to disregard other considerations for not granting bail". I think that is what he said was the meaning of that particular phrase. I do not pretend to have any particular expertise, but if I did not understand it first time around, it is possible that other people might not, so I respectfully suggest that the wording be clarified.
112
On the general issue—the human rights issue—we are back in the situation which permeates the Criminal Justice Bill and other legislation that is brought forward by the Government in this field. We are back to trying to impose, as I said earlier, the straitjacket upon the adjudicating body, whether it be magistrates or the judge in the Crown Court. All the matters to which I have referred from the European case, and cases, and all the matters to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, are already taken into account by magistrates in the exercise of their discretion in granting bail. Why it cannot be left to the adjudicating body to decide whether it is appropriate to grant bail in these circumstances—having regard to the individual in front of them and the particular circumstances, whether it be a mental or physical disability or failure to receive the court order—I do not know.
The notice from the court—the copy of the record of the decision to grant bail—is not quite as simple as the noble and learned Lord thinks. In very many cases, a large number of conditions of bail are imposed. There may be six or seven or eight including reporting, where a person is going to live, whom he may have contact with, and so on. It is extremely easy for a person charged with an offence to overlook one or other of those bail conditions. It is therefore particularly appropriate that he should have, in writing, quite specifically, what the conditions of his bail are.
I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage, but it is a serious issue. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to look at the wording—possibly my off-the-cuff amendment of it would make what he is aiming at rather clear—and to consider the whole position generally, particularly in the light of the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Lord Renton: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I ask the Government to bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said about the general effect of the clause and its general effect as amended by the Government. This is a part of the law in which, in the interests of justice, the terms should be absolutely clear. It affects people's freedom, it affects the protection of the public by depriving people of bail or putting them into custody when there is a risk to the public. It is not part of our duty in either House of Parliament to have legislation affecting these matters put in such long and complicated terms. It would be wise if, between now and Report, the Government considered the complete redrafting of this clause.
Lord Goldsmith: I rise because I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, put that as a question to me. I beg to differ with him and the noble Lord. Lord Thomas, as to the alleged lack of clarity in the clause, which fits in any event within an existing Act of Parliament that carries with it particular presumptions, as I have said, subject to these clauses. But of course I always listen to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I give him that assurance.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
"(1A) After paragraph 9AA of that Part (inserted by section 14(2)) there is inserted—
"9AB (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, this paragraph applies if—

(a) the defendant is under the age of 18, and

(b) it appears to the court that, having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he failed to surrender to custody.

(2) Where it appears to the court that the defendant had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody, this paragraph does not apply unless it also appears to the court that he failed to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time.

(3) In deciding for the purposes of paragraph 2(1) of this Part of this Schedule whether it is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not), would fail to surrender to custody, the court shall give particular weight to—

(a) where the defendant did not have reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody, the fact that he failed to surrender to custody, or

(b) where he did have reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody, the fact that he failed to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon as reasonably practicable after the appointed time.

(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a failure to give to the defendant a copy of the record of the decision to grant him bail shall not constitute a reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody.""

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 65 and 66:
Page 10, line 36, leave out "subsection (12) or" and insert "either or both of subsections (12) and"
Page 10, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert—
"(13) This subsection applies if an information is laid for the relevant offence no later than 3 months from the time of the occurrence of the first of the events mentioned in subsection (14) below to occur after the commission of the relevant offence."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Appeal to Crown Court]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, leave out line 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68 and touch on Amendment No. 68A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will speak.
Clause 16 creates a new right of appeal to the Crown Court against the imposition by magistrates of certain conditions of bail. That was recommended by Lord Justice Auld in his review, and it complements the
114
removal by Clause 17—to which we shall come shortly—of the existing High Court power to entertain such appeals.
As the Bill stands, the conditions that may be challenged in that way are requirements relating to residence away from a certain area, provision of a surety, or giving a security, curfew, or electronic monitoring. It was argued in another place that a condition to reside at a particular address was potentially as restrictive as one to reside away from a particular area.
The Government agreed to consider that argument, and we have been persuaded by it. So the amendments tabled by the Government—if the Committee agrees to them—give a right of appeal against the imposition of a condition that the defendant should reside at a particular place, with the exception of a bail hostel.
We also said that we would consider a requirement not to contact a particular person, which is the subject of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I wait to hear what he says about it, but I have indicated to him already that the Government are not resistant to his proposal, with certain adjustments. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General has kindly made clear, we have tabled Amendment No. 68A in this group. With the Committee's permission, I shall move Amendment No. 68A in a modified form by omitting the last two words of the amendment; that is, the words, "or person", so that the words to be inserted by the amendment are:
",or
(e) that the person concerned makes no contact with another person".
As the noble and learned Lord made clear, this is an addition to Clause 16(3), listing appealable conditions. This is a further appealable condition. The noble and learned Lord referred to the discussion in another place. The Minister replied that he did not believe that the conditions were,
"so great a restriction on a defendant's liberty as to require a right of appeal",
but he conceded that he,
"would like to look at the proposal and to consider further the point made by the hon. Gentleman [Mr. Grieve] in respect of paragraph (h)".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 7/1/03; cols. 176–8.]
Paragraph (h) is now paragraph (e) in Amendment No. 68A and makes reference to not contacting a particular person. We are very grateful to the Minister for taking that consideration on board. That condition of bail stands out because there are circumstances where a defendant's liberty might be curtailed to an unreasonable extent by its imposition. Freedom of association should be protected by the ability to appeal against restrictions placed on it.
Another consideration is that such a condition curtails the freedom not only of the defendant but of the person whom the defendant is prevented from seeing. Accordingly, the condition potentially has

115
doubly far-reaching effects on the liberty of the defendant and that of the other people specified in the condition. The bail condition as laid out in Amendment No. 68A is quite frequently opposed; therefore, we are grateful for the Government's sympathetic response to the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support Amendments Nos. 68 and 68A. My only qualification is that I do not see why it is necessary to specify the conditions of bail that may be the subject of an appeal. I would have thought that the right of appeal should apply to any condition of bail. Although, at this hour, I am not in a position to recall any specific additional condition of appeal, there are frequently conditions other than those listed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister why the provision is limited in that way.
Lord Goldsmith: I am content to accept Amendment No. 68A as modified, given the support that it has received and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I understand that it is acceptable to modify the amendment in that form.
I wish to respond to one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. There is no amendment before the Committee to add to the clause any other condition as being subject to appeal. There is no amendment to remove the conditions that exist. Given the lateness of the hour, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that it is not therefore appropriate for me to comment on what I would have said to other amendments had they been moved. I beg to move Amendment No. 67.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, line 29, at beginning insert—
"(aa) that the person concerned resides at a particular place other than a bail hostel,"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 11, line 32, at end insert ", or

(e) that the person concerned makes no contact with another person"

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals to High Court]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before calling Amendment No. 69, I must advise the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I will not be able to call Amendment No. 70 due to pre-emption.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 12, line 12, leave out subsections (2) to (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment probes the Government to tell us why it is necessary to abolish the inherent power of the High Court. The High Court has a supervisory jurisdiction. It governs everything that happens in lower courts. I do not understand why that inherent power, which can be invoked in several circumstances, should have been abolished in subsections (2) to (5). I await an explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said. However, I wish to make a very minor drafting point. The word "inherent" is quite unnecessary. It is used twice—in the first line of subsection (2) and the first line of subsection (3). It would be sufficient simply to refer to "the power of the High Court".
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked why we should remove this right. The answer, in the words of another, is that it is a hit of a muddle and a wasteful duplication of process. That other was Lord Justice Auld. I will read what he said in his review, because I hope that noble Lords will see that it gives a complete answer to the point that was raised and shows why the provision is sensible. He said:
"We have a permanently manned Crown Court all over the country which can deal with the matter by way of appeal, and those detained in custody no longer have to await the next visit on circuit of the High Court Judge or apply to a judge in Chambers in London to seek release. It is a separate and parallel, not appellate, jurisdiction. In my view, there is no longer any need for a High Court Judge to consider afresh the grant of bail after refusal by a magistrates' court or the Crown Court. If the magistrates' court and a Crown Court Judge, the latter on an original application or appeal by way of re-hearing, acting within the proper bounds of their discretion, have refused bail, it is an anomaly that another judge, albeit a High Court Judge, be entitled to exercise a further discretion in the matter",
The provision is required because there is an unnecessary and wasteful duplication of process. The rights of the defendant, which are, of course, very important, are entirely adequately safeguarded by the fact that the magistrates will have considered the matter and a judge in the Crown Court on appeal or by way of original application will have considered whether bail should be granted. It is for those reasons that the Committee in another place accepted after deliberations that the clause was welcome.
Government Amendment No. 70, which is grouped with Amendment No. 69, is merely consequential on an earlier change to Clauses 81 and 82, which removed specific provision for the variation of bail conditions.
Lord Renton: Could the noble and learned Lord deal with my very minor drafting point? Is the word "inherent", which is used twice, necessary at all?
Lord Goldsmith: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for not having picked up on that point. I do not regard the word as inappropriate. It is quite common to refer to some of the powers of the court, especially the High Court, as being inherent, which

117
indicates that they do not derive from any particular statutory provision, but that they are inherent—I cannot find a better word. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that that puts the matter clearly beyond doubt and that it is not inappropriate.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Is there not an inherent weakness in what is being put forward by the noble and learned Lord? If one chooses to go to the Crown Court in virtue of its inherent jurisdiction—one goes to the Crown Court first by way of the original application—there is to be no appeal from that decision if the clause is agreed to. Is that altogether satisfactory?
Lord Goldsmith: The process that would take place—I was going to say in the vast majority of cases, because I can think of only one exception to the rule and I am not sure how many others there are—would be that the first decision about bail in any case would be for the magistrates' court. The matter would then go to the Crown Court. The application could be renewed at the Crown Court or, in a sense, appealed to the Crown Court. In those cases there would be two opportunities for the position as to bail to be considered. The exceptional case that I was considering—and I am not sure whether I am technically right about this—would be if a voluntary bail had been preferred, which might mean bypassing the magistrates altogether. I am not confident about that being the only exception or necessarily right in itself.
Generally speaking—this was the view of Lord Justice Auld, a very experienced Court of Appeal judge—it is unnecessary to have an additional jurisdiction alongside that of the Crown Court judge. That is why the Government take this approach.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is not so much an "alongside" jurisdiction as a long stop jurisdiction. If the Committee will forgive me for being anecdotal, I will say that I remember a case in which a defendant surrendered to his bail on the first day of his trial. By a mischance, his surety had not attended at court for his bail to be renewed. Bail would have been renewed in the ordinary course of events, but, because the surety did not arrive, the defendant was taken off to Brixton.
Then, the surety arrived, but it was 4.15 and the judge had gone home, as judges tend to do at the Old Bailey. I withdraw that comment; it is not fair. They work very hard. Mr Geoffrey Robertson and I—he was my junior at the time—attended before the duty High Court judge. We dragged him from his dinner and obtained an order. At about 10 o'clock at night, I think, we went down to Brixton and retrieved our client, so that he was not required to spend the night in custody. He would not normally have been in custody.
118
That was not something that happened every day, but it was useful to have the long stop provision. I see no reason why that inherent power should not continue.
Lord Goldsmith: I understand from that anecdote that it happened a long time ago—Mr Geoffrey Robertson was the noble Lord's junior—and that the case involved an Old Bailey judge, among the most experienced of our criminal judges, and that the application resulted in the defendant avoiding one night in custody. In a sense, the story makes the point. If an extremely experienced criminal judge, such as an Old Bailey judge, has, in his discretion and knowing all the circumstances of the case, reached the view that it is appropriate to withdraw hail or withdraw it in those circumstances, why should that decision be overridden by another judge who happens to be a High Court judge but—dare I say it—might have been from my former chambers and had commercial or civil experience but not the criminal experience of an Old Bailey judge? I stand unrepentant, notwithstanding the anecdote. This is an appropriate clause.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am sorry to prolong the matter. Even somebody from the noble and learned Lord's old chambers could see the justice of the application made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in the circumstances that he cited. In that anecdote, there is no criticism of the Old Bailey judge: he had gone home. He had to withdraw bail, when the surety did not turn up, and he was no longer there when the surety did turn up.
That is all that we are looking for. It is not enough to say, "It was a long time ago, and it is a very rare circumstance. Anyway, what's a night?". In each of the circumstances, the anecdote warrants keeping the clause.
Lord Borrie: I am not sure that it does. Have we forgotten that the surety failed to turn up? I know that that was not the fault of the accused, who might have had to spend a night in gaol as a result, hut it is a fact. What if he had not turned up for hours? That would have been too bad, and the accused would have had to stay one night.
Does that justify there being the long stop that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggests? To my mind, it has been out of date since 1970, when the Courts Act created the Crown Court and all the rest of it. In 2003, we are now just about catching up with the situation. High Court judges should no longer be expected to be the back stop or long stop, as the noble Lord put it. I listened closely to the anecdote and I did not really feel that that hard-luck case justified the retention of the High Court judge's role in life in the circumstances mentioned.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If that was the only circumstance in which the High Court judge was required to be a long stop, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. But that is not the case. One simply cannot envisage or categorise the circumstances which

119
will arise in all sorts of cases. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, of course the Old Bailey judge was not making a decision to refuse bail. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out, he was unable to grant bail in the absence of the surety, who just turned up late. I use it as an anecdote and not as a principle; in those circumstances, the long stop was useful. It does not require anything more than that the High Court judge should be capable of taking a decision of that kind where the liberty of the subject is involved.
After all, the High Court judge is there entrusted with the responsibility—as are all judges—of maintaining the liberty of the person. Although I apply to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider what has been said and question with his officials whether it is necessary to do this. I am not persuaded by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that it has taken us 33 years to catch up. In fact, I think that it is 31 years since the Crown Courts were brought into being. I am not persuaded that that is the proper approach. I am much more concerned with what happens to individuals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 12, line 28, leave out from "bail" to end of line 29.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Appeal by prosecution]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 13, line 8, after "imprisonment" insert "for two years or more"
The noble Lord said: Clause 18 concerns appeals by prosecution against bail. The Auld report made recommendations on revising the system for bail. The clause seems to have been drafted by the Government to follow some of the recommendations of Lord Justice Auld and would enable the prosecution to appeal against the grant of bail in respect of all and any offences punishable by a custodial sentence of any length. As I understand it, it used to be permissible with regard to offences carrying a custodial sentence of five years or more only.
We accept that those who persistently offend while on bail need to be reined back. Surely, the Bill as drafted risks clogging up the courts with appeals of all variations against potentially minor cases. Misdemeanours undoubtedly are committed on bail. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General already has referred to some of these statistics in earlier amendments. Are they widespread enough to warrant the possibility of a higher prison population figure?
Lord Justice Auld explained in chapter 10, paragraph 90, page 433 of the report, that some of those who offend while on bail are guilty of committing what are called in America "quality of life crimes" which although not necessarily serious cause an unbalancing effect on the "community's sense of security". While one should not underestimate the effect of such antisocial behaviour, do such actions require the very strong and draconian line that the Government are now proposing to take? There must be some doubt whether the right balance is now being struck.
If the Auld report was referring to more serious offences, that would be a different matter. Since there are no statistics, we cannot really tell. There has been a helpful briefing from the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association which points out that if the Government want to restrict bail further, they need to provide clearer evidence that the public are put at risk by the operation of the law as it stands. It has also stated that it is not aware of any supporting evidence or statistics. Nevertheless, one statistic that is thrown around regularly and with good reason is the size of the prison population in England and Wales. That now stands at around 73,500 and has risen by around six per cent just this year.
Leaving aside the civil liberty issue, will not the Government's proposals in this clause create a further burden on the already fast-growing prison figures and threaten to overwhelm a prison service already operating at arguably more than full stretch? Moreover, is there not the practical danger for those who are remanded, having been refused bail, that far from encouraging rehabilitation, it will serve to reinforce any tendency towards criminal behaviour?
We believe that a rethink is needed. Our amendment allowing prosecutions to appeal against bail where the custodial sentence in prospect is two years or more offers a more sensible and balanced way forward. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In supporting this amendment, I should like to approach it from a different angle. This Bill and many criminal justice Bills support an industry of satellite litigation. As a member of the Bar one should not really object to that because it means more work. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, agrees with me. But litigation is piled on litigation. The right of appeal for the prosecution means another hearing, the use of court time and the payment of counsel for prosecution and defence. Some limitation should be put upon it. This modest amendment of two years or more is practical as well as right in principle. We on these Benches support this amendment.
Lord Goldsmith: This is not about satellite litigation. This is not about providing work for lawyers. It is about circumstances in which, in the view of the prosecution, bail has wrongly been granted to somebody. The public may need protecting against that person during the period until the offence comes to be tried. I noted the point made by the noble Lord,

121
Lord Hodgson, about statistics. The statistics that I referred to before seem to me to speak volumes, Nearly one in four of defendants granted bail goes on to commit an offence of which they are convicted during the period of bail. There are a substantial number— nearly one in eight—who fail to surrender to their bail with all the consequences. This means a waste of time and resources and frustration for victims and witnesses when they find the case does not take place. These are serious issues which affect the quality of life of the British people.
This amendment proposes a different limitation on the offences where the right to appeal by the prosecution may arise. We do not find this a sensible limitation. We do not see that it is sensible to limit cases to those where imprisonment is capable of being two years. We follow the line that Lord Justice Auld took that such an appeal should arise in all cases of offences which are imprisonable, having regard to the fact, as he said, that there may be offences which are not of the most serious in the calendar of criminal offences but may cause considerable nuisance and detriment to quality of life, especially if repeated. For someone to have committed what may not have been the most serious offence, and for it then to be repeated precisely when that person is on bail. can cause a strong belief in the public that the law is simply being made a fool of.
I do not accept that the proposed limitation is sensible. However, I hope that noble Lords will be reassured to hear that the right for the prosecution to appeal against a grant of bail is not used in a wide or cavalier fashion. On the contrary, the internal guidance provided within the Crown Prosecution Service recognises that the right to take a case to appeal should be used judiciously and responsibly. The most recent guidance produced internally uses the expression—which is why I used it before—that we must look principally to see whether the public need protecting from the defendant. If that test is applied, I hope that it will be agreed that, whether the offence has a maximum of two or five years, it is proper to look to see whether or not this is a case in which bail has been wrongly granted.
Of course, the fact that the prosecution appeals against a grant of bail does not for a moment mean that the appeal will succeed. The outcome is entirely within the discretion and judgment of the court to which it goes. If the court takes the view that it was entirely right and proper to have granted bail, it will say so and will no doubt go on to make some comment about the desirability of the appeal having been brought in the first place.
I hope that my remarks on the Crown Prosecution Service approach will give some comfort to the noble Lord. It is unnecessary to limit the provision in the arbitrary way proposed in the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response arid to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his support. It is always helpful, as a non-lawyer, to have a lawyer giving me some practical examples.
I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, and I accept the statistics that he repeated. However, when Ministers reach for phrases such as "internal guidance" and say that we do not have to worry about this draconian legislation because of such guidance, I am less impressed. We are really talking about how the measure will work. It is quite a re-balancing of the system, and we were trying to find a balance at another point on the fulcrum. To return to the cricket analogy, if the Minister's earlier comments were a drive through the covers for four, this was a dab down to third man for a single.
We should like to read what he said, discuss it with some of the expert bodies that have briefed us on this point, and consider whether we want to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, as he appears about to do, and in answer to the noble and learned Lord, I remind him that paragraphs 175 and 176 of the Auld report's recommendations stated:
"Magistrates and judges in all courts should take more time to consider matters of bail … Listing practices should reflect the necessity to devote due time to bail applications and allow the flexibility required for all parties to gather sufficient information for the court to make an appropriate decision".
The Auld report itself says that we should take more time over bail applications and, no doubt, more time over appeals on bail applications.
Lord Goldsmith: I was going to make an offer to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but I shall comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has just said. Nothing that I have said for a moment suggests that we do not want each court that deals with a bail application to consider it fully and properly and to take the time that is necessary to do so. I do not understand why it is thought that the comments made sensibly, if I may respectfully say so, by Lord Justice Auld undermine what I have said about the prosecution right of appeal.
My offer to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is the following. Among the expert bodies that we would like to consult I should be happy to meet with him and others to talk about the way that the Crown Prosecution Service, which is the department for which I am ministerially accountable, exercises the powers that we are discussing. That may help the noble Lord reach a view about the way that this power—I do not accept that it is a draconian power—of appeal (it is no more than that) will be exercised.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: That is indeed a generous offer which I may very well take up. I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his comments. As I was about to do when I was hit from two directions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Fire Services Bill
  (Second Day)
  Monday, 7th July 2003
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I remind Members of the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, we shall adjourn for 10 minutes. Otherwise, we are on Amendment No. 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I remind Members of the Committee that the noble Lord has already spoken to and moved the amendment and that we are continuing a discussion.
  Debate on Clause 1, Amendment No. 11, resumed.
  Lord McCarthy: For clarification—we had rather confusing statements previously—are we going on until 8 o'clock or 7.30 as the end of business? Will that be a general rule in future in the House or does it apply just to this Bill? We were told last time that we would be going on until,
  "Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 289.]
  until we got the Bill finished. Was that true or was it just a joke? Will we finish merely the Committee stage or will we go straight into the Report stage? Some clarification appears to be in order.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime (Lord Rooker): I cannot give any clarification. This is a government Bill, the other House passed it and this House is due to consider, revise, assess and analyse it. At the end of the day, the time will necessarily be made available for the House to come to a conclusion on it. I cannot say how many days or exactly which days; I am not the business manager. The general position is that this is a government Bill and we will proceed with it through the House until we reach a conclusion. On when we might finish tonight, frankly, I will decide on the basis of progress at the appropriate time to move the resolution, and I shall do so having had discussions with my colleagues representing the opposition parties.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With leave, may I clarify a point in the question of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy? I appreciate that it was put to the Chair and that it is not the job of the Chair to answer the question. I thought that that was the job of the Whip
  GC 2
  who is in charge of business, but the question was answered by the Minister. I have been in a number of Grand Committees and I attended one Grand Committee that went on for weeks and was a matter of very strong government policy. The Whips who were in charge of the business observed—I have checked on this with the Whips—the normal rule, which is that a Grand Committee rises at 7.30—adjourns is a better phrase—or at the end of business that has been taken at 7.30. That is what the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches said last time was her understanding. I have been told, and I believe that this has been put to the usual channels—although the extent to which they agreed it was obscure when I read Hansard last time—that this is an abnormal Grand Committee, and the noble Lord the Minister has now said that he is in charge of how long we sit. I thought that the House and the Committee were in charge of the normal conventions. If our rules are to be changed by ministerial order, I suppose that there is very little that the Committee can do about it. I wanted to be sure that that is what the position was.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, by reading a note from the business manager. He says that the noble Lord,
  "is right to say that this would be a departure from usual practice, which is to rise around 7.30 p.m.
  "He is wrong if he asserts that there is anything improper about this. It is clearly allowed for in the attached note, embodying the usual channels conventions about the sitting times of Grand Committees. There are no 'rules"'.
  If I may, I shall read a relevant passage from the note. It states that although the practice in the 2002 Session has been to rise at 7.30 p.m.,
  "there have been exceptions, presumably by agreement…Grand Committee seems normally to adjourn around 7.30 p.m., and I gather that Hansard would appreciate an undertaking not to sit later than 8 p.m. if this can be avoided. I imagine that morning sittings will be unusual; but I note that there was one in this Session, on 11 April".
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to my noble friend for knowledge of that document. I do not know whether the document is available to all of us. We would be very grateful if a copy of it could be placed in the Printed Paper Office to enable us to understand the position. However, is it possible as a matter of courtesy for those who are in charge of the business to give us notice before we start of when they intend to press business beyond 7.30 p.m.?
  Lord Rooker: No.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am asking the Whip who has quoted the position.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The Minister and I speak with the same voice. He has set out the tradition. He will make a decision on when we rise, whether

  GC 3
  7.30 or 8 p.m., based on a discussion with me and the progress of business this afternoon. I hope that that is clear.
  Lord McCarthy: The Minister cannot tell us before he decides, but surely he can tell us when he does decide.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, decides, he will tell the Committee.
  Lord Rooker: I continue where I left off in our sitting last Thursday, at col. 292 of the Official Report. I had made a preliminary observation—indeed, I agreed with my noble friend Lord McCarthy—about the success of the Clegg report, but I had not said much about Amendments Nos. 11 and 13. I should like to concentrate on one specific aspect of the amendments.
  The amendments require the Secretary of State to establish negotiating machinery if the negotiating body or a member of the body disagrees with the Secretary of State's proposals to make an order fixing or modifying the conditions of service. Of course that goes to the heart of the Bill's purpose—that the Secretary of State should have the power to draw a line under any dispute. That is what the whole Bill is about, and we would seek to disagree and oppose anything that cuts across that.
  As I made clear, we would consider using these powers in the Bill only if we thought that there was no realistic prospect of agreement being reached voluntarily. As 1 said in previous debates, it is open for the parties concerned to use the voluntary procedure and the arbitration procedure applied for in their own agreement. So it is difficult to imagine that even the best arbitrator could seek to reconcile the differences between two parties in circumstances where they cannot agree voluntarily. It would be quite wrong to expect them to do so.
  We had an independent review of the Fire Service carried out last year by George Bain and his colleagues. The conclusions of that report were widely accepted, and the Government responded to the conclusions in the White Paper published last week. I would also remind noble Lords that, despite being invited to contribute to the review, the Fire Brigades Union declined to do so. That was its free choice; no one was forcing it to participate. However, the result is that its view was missing in a sense from the deliberations.
  Against that background, inserting a requirement for arbitration on proposals by the Secretary of State to end the dispute—proposals which would be made only in the event of what one assumes would be irreconcilable differences between the two parties—seems a complete and abject waste of time. That is particularly the case when it is open to the negotiating body to make a report to the Secretary of State and when it is open to the parties concerned to go to arbitration at an early stage. Therefore, the idea that the parties could not go to arbitration is nonsense. It is provided for in their own agreement.
  GC 4
  Again I remind noble Lords that the Bill does not attempt to write the rules for the long term. It is hoped that the Bill will never be used, and it will be consigned to the dustbin after two years if it is not used. It is designed to deal with a specific and extreme situation. We are not dealing with setting up machinery for the future; presumably another Bill will be brought forward to deal with that. I do not know when that will be but, as a result of the White Paper, the Government will propose legislation when a parliamentary opportunity arises.
  Therefore, it is hoped that there will be plenty of opportunities to debate, outside the confines of the recent dispute, the future of the Fire Service, its negotiating position and the negotiating machinery. The recent dispute may have been settled but there are still procedures to be followed through as a result of the agreement reached by the two parties. Therefore, in that respect, we do not see that any useful purpose will be served by incorporating Amendments Nos. 11 and 13 in the Bill.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Would it be convenient for the Minister to take a question which arises exactly from what he has just said? As 1 understand it, the Government's position is that, as he said—I am trying to get right what he said—the Bill is an interim measure and will be consigned to the dustbin if it is not used within two years and there will be another Bill for the long term setting out policy on the Fire Service. Does it follow from that that the Government do not wish to take power in the interim measure which could be used to pre-empt anything that might arise for the long term? I am not talking about present intentions; I am talking about legislative power and what goes on to the statute book.
  Lord Rooker: I do not fully understand my noble friend's question. The fact is that the Bill is specific to the issue that we have already debated. There is no beating about the bush—the Bill is time-limited for two years, assuming that the Bill passes into law with its present sunset clause. It does not assume, prevent or pre-empt anything that might appear in future legislation as a result of the White Paper. I do not know—I suspect that, at this stage, even the Government do not know—when legislation will follow the White Paper. We are some considerable time away from the next Session and I have no idea what will be in the next Queen's Speech. Whether such legislation will be included in the business of the next Session or the Session after that, I cannot say.
  However, the two things are wholly disconnected. This Bill is for a specific purpose and for a specific time period. It is hoped that it will never have to be used. It does not pre-empt anything. Following the proposals in the White Paper, we shall start with a new Bill, effectively from a clean sheet of paper. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend because there is no hidden agenda of connection between this Bill and any Bill

  GC 5
  that might be introduced in the future. This is a discrete Bill for a specific purpose and for a specific period of time.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry but I want to say one word about that. No one suggested that there was a hidden agenda. I do wish that the Minister would not repeat his style of last week by suggesting that we have said things to him which we have not said. I asked whether the Bill should not contain powers that might, if used—perhaps by a Secretary of State who is not the present Secretary of State—within the two years pre-empt the longer-term policy. I am surprised that my noble friend did not understand the question. I do not believe that I have expressed the matter quite so well but I have tried to summarise it. My noble friend may not want to answer it further now as he may have said everything that he wants to say. But there is no question of hidden agendas.
  Lord Rooker: I have nothing further to add. It is plain as a pikestaff and should be crystal clear that this is a one-off Bill for a specific time period. If it were activated, that would be done only in the most extreme of circumstances. If it needs to be activated, we shall do so, but we hope that we do not have to do so.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord McCarthy: I have three points to make—two of which are in reply to the points made by my noble friend. It seems to me that his first point would rule out third party dispute resolution in all circumstances, which makes it difficult to understand why he thought that Professor Clegg did so well. He said. I think, that it would not work in circumstances in which the parties could not agree—but it does not come into operation unless the parties disagree. If conciliation, mediation and arbitration worked only when the parties agreed, we could pack up ACAS. The whole point about TPDR is that it attempts to do something which the parties at this moment in time have demonstrated they cannot do themselves—that is, agree.
  The great majority of the references—in fact, probably all, but I have not checked the data—to the Comparability Commission were where the parties disagreed. If they had not disagreed we would not have needed the Comparability Commission. I believed that my noble friend agreed when I said that if we had had the commission in place some six or nine months earlier we might not have had the winter of discontent. But it was delayed and, when it was in position, it could not settle all disputes. So it is silly to say that one does not want TPDR unless the parties are agreed.
  Secondly, my amendment may be unclear. My noble friend's second point was that he could not accept it because it stopped the Secretary of State having the final word. It does not do that. One of my earlier amendments in regard to the application and interpretation of agreements did that—it was most extreme—and I attempted to explain how third party dispute resolution could be used, particularly on the application of agreements, because it would close
  GC 6
  down the issue and the Secretary of State would be unable to intervene. But this amendment does not do that.
  The two amendments we are discussing provide that the Secretary of State has to take into account what has been produced by third party dispute resolution. Anyway, one could use different words. That is why we made a fuss at Second Reading. We said that the Bill can be amended but it cannot be cured in Committee. Different words could be used—they may be better than the ones I have used—but I do not wish to introduce an amendment into the debate which takes away the right of the Secretary of State to have the final word. All that the amendments seek to do is to enable the Secretary of State—in one amendment he can do it under his own initiative—to seek an independent assessment.
  An independent assessment, in terms that ACAS would recognise, is quite precise—the parties together decide the arbitrator; the parties together decide the terms of reference. If those elements are not there, it is not independent arbitration. That is what we are seeking to put into the Bill for the future.
  This brings me to my third point. I do not know whether I have much chance of doing so but I am trying—as I said I was trying to do on the previous occasion—to pour a little oil. The trouble for the Government in this Grand Committee—they have not said it but I believe it lies behind their attitude—is that they believe we are filibustering. In the Labour movement, many people filibuster all the time. I have done a lot of filibustering in my life. But you filibuster when you are waiting for your majority to arrive. Usually you have got a few Trots and you hope that if you sit there for long enough, and bore people for long enough, some people will come out of the pub and make your majority. That is filibustering.
  The Government know very well that we have no majority. They have the power; they have the authority; they will get their Bill through. The only thing they have not got is the best of the argument. They have got everything else. What is the point of filibustering?
  We are doing this because we believe that the Bill will harm the Government, harm the trade unions and harm the Fire Service. We thought about this when the previous Bill on industrial relations was introduced last year. We tried last year—much as we are trying this year—to explain that the Government had got things wrong and, on one particular occasion, to argue that the Government had got the law quite wrong. In the end, the Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, went away and found that we were right. Like the gentleman he is, he removed the clause. We do not expect anything as grand as that this time, but that is why we are doing what we are doing. We are not filibustering; we are attempting to explain. Obviously we are not succeeding in explaining. We shall go on attempting to explain but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
  Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 2, line 1, at end insert "or disposal"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 15, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, with which it is grouped. The amendments deal to some extent with issues that have already been debated, as they are concerned with the consultation that the Secretary of State must undertake before making an order containing a direction about the use of property or facilities. However, Amendment No. 15 is slightly different. The clause does not include the word "disposal", although the disposal of property or facilities is specifically referred to in subsection (1)(b).
  Is there some reason why there must be consultation about the use of property or facilities with people who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are likely to be affected but whom he does not need to consult about disposal? That would seem rather odd, as disposal would clearly affect a wide range of people—not only Fire Service members but representatives of the local community, notably local authorities.
  Incidentally, the present wording gives the Secretary of State the duty to consult, but only those who in his opinion are likely to be affected. I suppose that it would be open to him to decide that, in his opinion, no one at all need be consulted. However, that is not part of the amendment, which is concerned with why it is necessary to leave out the word "disposal" when disposal of property or facilities is specifically referred to in subsection (1)(b). The amendment is probing, and I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that point. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My noble friend has spotted that a word is missing. We are happy to accept the amendment because it was certainly not our intention to leave out the word. I hope she will understand that we have to check the point with the parliamentary draftsmen, but we are sure that the amendment can be agreed.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 19A:s
  Page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (5).
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is a request for an explanation as to why retrospective powers are needed. Thus far, the debates have left my noble friends and me in some perplexity about that point. Retrospective powers are always questioned, of course, whichever government they come from. They need very careful and special explanation.
  GC 8
  I asked someone in the Fire Service what he thought a retrospective order would be about. He told me, "Oh, it'll be to approve pay rises in the past". I considered that to be a little unlikely, and I do not know that he had much ground for it. Of course, retrospective powers are qualified to the extent of subsection (5)(a) to (d), which allows there to be retrospective effects to fix or modify pay or allowances, and of course there is different provision for different cases, provision for exemptions, and incidental and supplemental provisions. Incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions always cause a little trouble with retrospective powers.
  What exactly are the relevant types of case? The Government must have some very clear ideas or they would not have included the highly unusual power to make retrospective provision. What is one to say if asked for advice, by either employers or members of the fire brigade, as to what their position is if retrospective provision is made modifying pay and allowances, and if something has been done in the past on either side that infringes the new rights?
  As I understand it, a retrospective order would alter the rights as from the date of retrospection; that is, if we made an order today that is effective from last Wednesday, from last Wednesday those are the rights and duties. If something is done between last Wednesday and now, someone is in breach of the legal provision of the order. Is that right in this case? If so, what advice is being given—or will be given, if it is appropriate—about acts that will infringe the new order that retrospectively changes rights and duties from last Wednesday?
  All retrospective provisions have that problem, and all governments are very careful to explain exactly what they mean and what the effect is of a retrospective statute or order in terms of the rights and duties of the citizens affected. We tabled the amendment to leave out subsection (5) because, on the explanations thus far, questions of that kind have not been answered. I beg to move.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I gather that this is in every sense a probing amendment and I seek the help of the noble Lord to construe it. I understand that subsection (5)(a) is related to orders made under Clause 1(1)(a), while subsections (5)(b), (c) and (d) relate to orders made under Clause 1(1)(b). If that is right then the retrospective provision relates only to subsection (5)(a) and not to subsections (5)(b), (c) and (d). But that does entirely clear the hurdle of inquiry because it leaves the question of whether it is or is not proposed that, with retrospective effect, one could reduce wages by order. If it is not, then that ought to be made plain. At present that is left wide open.
  I ask the question because this part of the Bill would remain under amendments to Clause 1 which I am about to table for consideration on Report, so I am concerned about it. I ask the noble Lord if he could deal with my query.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Perhaps I may raise a rather similar point. The subsection we are seeking to delete would remove the power,
  "to make provision with retrospective effect fixing or modifying the pay or allowances of fire brigade members".
  Yet subsection (6) appears to negate subsection (5)(a) with regard to retrospective provision, since an order made under that subsection,
  "does not include power retrospectively to reduce the pay and allowances payable to a person".
  I am very glad to see that set out in the Bill, but it seems to negate what is set out in subsection (5)(a). I say that because "modifying" pay or allowances could of course involve making reductions.
  It would be sensible to redraft the subsection in order to come to terms with subsection (6), which I welcome.
  Lord Rooker: For the avoidance of doubt, to "modify" means to increase. Since subsection (6) makes it clear that pay and allowances may not retrospectively be reduced, then to modify must mean to increase. There is no problem here in terms of probing the intent of subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (6) is declaratory, simply for the avoidance of any doubt, and serves to make it clear that we are not taking any powers to reduce income. So to modify would mean to increase.
  Subsection (6) is a straightforward, standard provision and is not innovative in any way. It means that, as set out in subsection (5)(a), (b), (c) and (d) that the orders refer to retrospective pay and allowances; that is, to modify—to increase—elements that may be uncertain, such as dates and times which depend on when the legislation is enacted, thus triggering changes that will need to be made. An order may necessarily include increases from an earlier date, but it would not include reductions. This Bill is not about reductions in pay.
  In effect, we need the power because if it were not provided for, the Secretary of State might have to make a whole series of different orders if he wanted to give slightly different directions to different fire authorities or groups of authorities—because of the way the fire service works. Some authorities are county authorities, while some are joint authorities. Similarly, the provision is needed if pay award increases are different for different groups of fire brigade members. If we lost the power set out in subsection (5), it would create massive uncertainty and doubt over what the Secretary of State could and could not do. The subsection sets it out clearly: the Secretary of State cannot reduce pay, but he can make changes in one order that would cover many fire brigades, groups of fire brigades or groups of workers. If the power were not included, then I suspect that there would be doubt and uncertainty, leading to my learned friends having a field day in the courts and thus further delaying the increases in prospect.
  I can tell noble Lords that this is a standard provision. Having said that, I do not have to hand a previous Act with which to compare it, but I am
  GC 10
  assured that it is a standard provision. There is no intention to use these powers to reduce the pay of those involved in the fire service, as subsection (6) makes abundantly clear.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: While accepting the noble Lord's explanation about different groups and the difficulties that could arise, if to "modify" really means to increase, I wonder whether he could ask the parliamentary draftsman if there is any fundamental objection to stating "increasing the pay and allowances" rather than "modifying" them. Although I fully understand the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with respect, it does not quite justify the tension of the word "modify" when to modify in fact means to increase. I hope that the noble Lord takes my point.
  Lord Rooker: I almost said in my first response that it is a fact that we are not talking about increases, although "modifying" by and large will mean increases. We are not about to decrease pay. On the other hand, modifying provisions for different groups of workers means that some may stay the same while others receive increases, although it may be argued that they should all stay the same. I suspect that that is why the parliamentary draftsman has used two subsections to make the point that, while the flexibility is provided in subsection (5), the restraint—for the avoidance of any doubt and to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State does not wish to exercise the power retrospectively to reduce pay and allowances to a person—is provided in subsection (6). I suspect that that is why the provisions have been drafted in this manner.
  Subsection (5) goes much wider than subsection (6), which concerns only pay. As I have already made clear, the provisions may vary for different groups of fire brigades and for different groups of workers. Not everyone does the same job and therefore the pay rises may or may not be the same. The functions of subsections (5) and (6) are wholly different. Subsection (6) provides a restraint, as it were, on any reduction of pay and allowances.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that subsection (6) relates back to subsection (5)(a) and not to (b), (c) and (d).
  Lord Rooker: Yes. Subsection (6) refers to the pay element, which is considered only in subsection (5)(a). The remaining paragraphs relate to other matters in an order that the Secretary of State may make. Those matters would not be related to pay or allowances.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sure that Members of the Committee are grateful to my noble friend at the Dispatch Box for his full explanation. In the light of it, obviously there is no possible ground for pressing what is essentially a probing amendment.
  However, while I make no criticism, in view of what he has said, I wonder whether it might be useful as a belt-and-braces exercise and so as not to give a false impression—which the present wording has obviously

  GC 11
  been given to many noble Lords—to point out that subsection (5)(a) could begin by referring to the only case to which this retrospective power is to apply; that is, the case of an increase. While it may include modifications associated with relativities, I understand that it would apply only to increases. As it stands "fixing or modifying" alerts people to a problem which is only partially explained when it is considered along with subsection (6). That subsection then makes it clear that there is no power retrospectively to reduce.
  This query shows how sensible is consultation with the workers because it appears that my friend in the fire brigade got it absolutely right. He said that this applies only to retrospective increases, and his understanding appears to be more or less correct. But there are other parts of the Bill which I have discussed with him on which perhaps there is a need for greater explanation. We shall reach those in due course.
  However, in view of the full explanation given by my noble friend, and with only a humble suggestion that perhaps the wording in subsection (5)(a) might be looked at again, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  "(5A) No order made under this section shall—

  (a) determine or modify the composition of a negotiating body which negotiates conditions of service of members of a fire brigade, or specify who shall act as representatives of such members, or who shall be an officer or chairman of any such body;

  (b) not conflict in any other way with the independence or right of free organisation of an independent trade union representing members of a fire brigade, or the rights of those members to choose their representatives in full freedom, as expressed in any Convention of the International Labour Organisation which has been ratified by the United Kingdom."

  The noble Lord said: This amendment is a little complicated. First I should draw the attention of noble Lords to the words:
  "No order made under this section shall—
  determine or modify the composition of a negotiating body which negotiates conditions of service of members of a fire brigade, or specify who shall act as representatives of such members, or who shall be an officer or chairman of any such body".
  Those with experience of industrial relations might say, "Well, of course not. Who could possibly suggest that? It is a matter for the parties involved". The amendment continues by stating that it shall,
  "not conflict in any other way with the independence or right of free organisation of an independent trade union representing members of a fire brigade, or the rights of those members to choose their representatives in full freedom, as expressed in any Convention of the International Labour Organisation which has been ratified by the United Kingdom".
  We are trying to protect the rights of the recognized Fire Brigades Union—this Bill affects only one union and one bargaining unit—to decide who represents it on the machinery. Especially, and this is what makes it rather urgent, in the light of the proposed review of the
  GC 12
  National Joint Council and the disputes procedures. The agreement signed between the parties—the unions and the employers—which settled this dispute stated that the National Joint Council will review the organisation of the procedure for dealing with other and local disputes by 31st October.
  So it is down to a review of the whole machinery. The current machinery is the result of Professor Frank Burchill's inquiry of March 2000, especially the disputes procedure. It provides a considerable number of different levels from the normal situation and a form of ex parte arbitration. As has been said several times in our debates, this procedure was not particularly useful in the course of the dispute. Both sides complained about it. One of the things the parties agreed is that it shall be reviewed. The National Joint Council will do it by next October. That is a very large task.
  However, the Secretary of State has pre-empted this discussion. In his White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, he tells us what he thinks should take the place of this procedure. He wants to see a very widespread change. On page 52, paragraph 7.13, he states:
  "We also agree with the Independent Review that a new negotiating body should involve representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Officers Association, and the Association of Principal Fire Officers".
  That is changing the workers' side.
  "We see no prospect"—
  he says, although negotiations as far as I know have not yet started—
  "of such changes being made by agreement".
  I know of no example, in advance of negotiations, of a person who is really the supremo on the employers' side making a statement of that kind.
  "That is why we intend to specify who should be involved. We envisage three separate negotiating bodies".
  and he then sets them out. But what follows is the really remarkable statement. Again, although I have tried the literature, I must say that I have no knowledge at all of anyone ever saying this on the employer's side:
  "The composition and chair of each body would be determined by the Deputy Prime Minister".
  It is not argued about; it is determined before we start:
  "The arrangement for non-uniformed staff would continue as now…we intend to take powers to give guidance to any negotiating body which it would have to take into account in its work".
  The Deputy Prime Minister will nominate and fix on the chairman for this body. It may be the Deputy Prime Minister himself; I do not know.
  I cannot express this issue in strong enough terms. This is something quite unique
  Lord Rooker: I do not want to interrupt my noble friend's flow, but for the avoidance of doubt, the powers about which he is talking are not in the Bill. The Secretary of State has no powers in the Bill to do the things my noble friend says he wants to do. That is in the future, for another Session—I know not which—but it is not in the Bill.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord McCarthy: We were allowed to table the amendment. No one told me that it was not in the Long Title.
  Lord Rooker: I am not saying that. I am just saying that in this Bill the Secretary of State does not have the powers to fix and determine the composition or the procedures of the National Joint Council. Those powers are not in this Bill. My noble friend says that he should not have the powers, but they are not in the Bill in the first place. My noble friend is speaking as though they are because he is talking about the plans in the White Paper. That is for a distant Bill in the future, not this one.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, with respect—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: We are getting a little out of order. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was moving his amendment. The Minister sought clarification. If the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, wishes to intervene on this point, perhaps the amendment could be moved. I think the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has not yet finished moving his amendment.
  Lord McCarthy: I am quite happy—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No, before we have a second intervention, perhaps the noble Lord could move the amendment.
  Lord McCarthy: Very well. I do not understand this issue, because there needs to be agreement by October. Otherwise we shall have a failure to agree. I am told by the Minister that, nevertheless, the provision for the Secretary of State to have such powers is far off, long beyond the date when there has to be agreement. That is a hit odd. What is the good of talking about this issue, which will take a long time and for which you will not have the legal powers, when you have to reach agreement by October of this year?
  I am not at all certain—and those who know more about the law that I and who support me, will no doubt back me on this—that under this Bill you would not have such powers if you were negotiating. You could argue that you did not want the existing terms and conditions in the Bill—and it talks about terms and conditions. Part of the existing terms and conditions is that workers have a recognised union. They have an agreement with the management which is part of their terms of employment, that in fact they can insist on this and that they must obtain proper notice if they are going to have it changed. It is all part of their terms and conditions, of which they have had a copy. I am not at all certain that you could not use the power in this Bill.
  I should be very glad to hear you say, "It does not matter whether we do or do not; we are not going to use them. We are going to allow these people to settle their terms and conditions, including their dispute procedures and their national council procedures, without using these powers because we do not want to interfere for a very long time ahead". But somehow I feel that I shall not be told that.
  GC 14
  I would like to carry on and make one or two other points about how monstrous this is. At one point the Minister actually tries to bring in ACAS. I have read everything ACAS has published, both in and out of print—the ACAS code of practice, which goes back a very long way, and the more recent ACAS publications. I have them here if anyone wants to see them. There is not a single word in any ACAS document to support this; nor does Professor Bain support it. He said there should be changes, but he did not say that you should put in a chairman who might be the Secretary of State. This is absolutely totally barmy. It is monstrous. If an employer ever tried to do it, I consider that—to make my argument about this—a breach of recognition. Union has recognition.
  The Secretary of State, whether he did it before or after October—I warn him—would be giving a case for the union to go to the CAC, a body established by this Government, to argue that it had been de-recognised, that it had lost part of its bargaining unit—unilaterally and without negotiation—by the Secretary of State. It would undoubtedly be against the ILO and against the European Social Charter. I wonder whether the unions have heard about it themselves. One might say, "Well, it is only the Fire Brigades Union", but I think the TUC would like to know about this monstrous thing. I doubt whether it really appreciates all this. So, to us, it is very serious. If the Minister is right and it cannot happen for a very long time, let us hope it never happens at all. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support the amendment. Although I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that there is nothing actually in the Bill that warrants the amendment, I dealt with the problem that arises on implementation of Clause 1(1)(b) in relation to the White Paper. I said:
  "Clause 1(1)(b)…as implemented by the White Paper is not only requisite but 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".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 234.]
  There are two passages in the White Paper that prompted me to say what I did. I left my copy on my desk, I am afraid. The amendment deals with the matter. Although the issue is not in the Bill and may not therefore be strictly necessary, there cannot be any fundamental objection to including it to make sure that people, including myself, think that the White Paper was to guide implementation on this Bill—as on other Bills, perhaps. I thought that that was so. If I am mistaken, it can do no harm to include the amendment as a safeguard and for clarification. For that reason, I support it, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker says about it.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I hope that my noble friend the Minister will understand—I am sure that he does—that this is not a particularly popular Bill and that this is not a matter of the usual suspects being awkward; it really is not. Many trade unionists feel very concerned about the Bill. As we know, the Fire Brigades Union has already urged that it should not

  GC 15
  proceed. We know that it will of course proceed, and it is up to those of us who feel this way about the Bill to do the best that we can to amend or modify it as it proceeds in Committee.
  We have been told that the Bill will be of limited duration and that it is intended to cover only specific and extreme situations. However, my concerns have not been lessened as a result of reading the White Paper. I know that we are not discussing it now; no doubt the opportunity to do so will arise when, eventually, there is legislation before Parliament. We are entitled to believe that the White Paper gives an indication of the Government's thinking about the future. Page 52 of the White Paper makes it clear that it is the Government's intention to keep a fairly tight rein on any negotiating machinery.
  As the Bill is drafted, substantial powers will accrue to the Secretary of State and it would be possible without amendment for steps to be taken in relation to the way in which terms and conditions of employment are fixed, which would not be in accord with the way in which we would like to see industrial relations conducted or the way in which they are normally conducted. To that extent, I support what my noble friend Lord McCarthy said. This is an important amendment and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration in the light of what has been said.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment and I want to discuss aspects of it in relation to the Bill. We are only discussing the Bill, and the question is not what the intention of any Secretary of State at present is. The question is: what are the powers that noble Lords are about to legislate for a Secretary of State in the next two years? That is the only question.
  The powers in the Bill—the Minister was quite right when he intervened on my noble friend—give the Secretary of State the power, under Clause 1(1)(a) to,
  "fix or modify the conditions of service of fire brigade members".
  "Conditions of service" is not defined in the Bill; it is described under Clause 2(2) as including,
  "pay and allowances, hours of duty or leave".
  Obviously, those are within "conditions of service", but they are not the full meaning of "conditions of service"; otherwise, the word "includes" would not be used on normal canons of construction. "Conditions of service" is a wide phrase; we will come to its precise meaning in relation to a future amendment in a different context.
  For the moment, I advance the submission that conditions of service have a relationship to procedural provisions that have their impact on the rights and duties in legal terms of employees. The extent to which procedural conditions in collective arrangements are incorporated into individual contracts of employment is the subject of a vast area of case law. In some cases, they are said to be included but in others they have been said not to be; it depends on the circumstances. My submission is that in the context of the Bill, "conditions of service" could well—indeed, would be
  GC 16
  likely to—include a case in which the modification related to the procedural and substantive aspects of the arrangements that have at their nub the National Joint Council.
  I appreciate what my noble friend Lord McCarthy said—I had not thought of it before—that that affects the whole position of recognition. He is right in that. What I had thought of was that that affects the rights that derive from international standards in relation to freedom of association. I refer especially to the ILO Convention No. 87 and the ILO Convention No. 98, which are applied to public employees in ILO Convention No. 151. I also refer to the European Social Charter. If there is any dispute about that, I am happy to read out the provisions but I apprehend that that will not be necessary because it is obvious.
  The powers in the Bill—or the Act, if it goes through in this form—could include what government policy wants to do in relation to the National Joint Council, which has immediate impact on "conditions of service"; I use the phrase in the legal sense. There will be an occasion when I must set out the case law on future amendments but I am not doing that at the moment because I hope that it will be accepted. I am sure that the Minister's advisers will have put the case law on this matter before him.
  That being obvious, it is very disturbing to realise that the Government are taking the power now to deal with matters whose policy appears in the White Paper. Curiously enough, my noble friend Lord McCarthy read out a passage that makes the case, but a previous passage should be placed on the record. It occurs on page 52. My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the page generally. The whole page is relevant but I shall read out only one sentence. Paragraph 7.12 states:
  "First, we will take power to determine the number, composition and chairing of the negotiating body or bodies for England".
  That relates specifically not just to new national joint councils, which will be created, but to the existing National Joint Council. It therefore relates specifically to the relationship of that National Joint Council to conditions of service. It therefore relates to the Secretary of State's power in the next two years to make an order that would modify conditions of service in their relationship to the National Joint Council. It would give him the power under this Bill, which he may not want. If he does not want it, then for heaven's sake, accept our amendment. All our amendment is saying is, "You do not have this power until you get your big Bill". That is all we are saying in these amendments. If we have the words wrong, then by all means tell us. I have sufficient experience to know that the words have to be put to draftsmen. However, changes to words matter to me and they matter to the law.
  By all means, let us have this amendment if the power which the Bill gives the Secretary of State is not wanted. If he does not want it, let him renounce it. That is all the amendment is saying. The industrial relations argument which my noble friend advanced in moving the amendment is a very strong underpinning of his case. I support the amendment.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: As I said in an intervention on my noble friend Lord McCarthy, it is not the case that the Secretary of State does not want the powers. However, even if he did, the Bill does not provide them. It does not matter what kind of elephantine scheme one draws up, unless someone can show me where in the terms and conditions of tire brigade members it says that the constitution of the National Joint Council is part of those terms and conditions, we do not have a debate. The constitution of the NJC is not part of the conditions of fire brigade members. So the Bill cannot change the constitution of the NJC. That is not part of the conditions of service of fire brigade members. So we are engaged in a debate on a different Bill which is for a different parliamentary Session.
  It is not a matter of saying that the powers are there but the Secretary of State does not want to use them. We do not want to use any of the Bill's provisions. However, within the narrow confines of this amendment on the constitution of the National Joint Council, such a power is not wanted, and it is not provided for in the Bill. There is no power for the Secretary of State to do that. This is not a way of pre-empting or bringing forward what may be a consequence of the wholly separate White Paper provisions.
  I agree that the White Paper—certainly in its comments on the negotiating machinery—paints a different picture. The Government agree with the recommendation of the Bain review of the Fire Service that a new negotiating body should involve representatives of the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Officers Association and the Association of Principal Fire Officers. We are also aware that the employers have plans to reform their side of the National Joint Council. Obviously, we will keep a watching brief on all those changes. However, this Bill does not confer the power to affect the constitution or the negotiating machinery.
  I freely accept, and I know that it upsets people, that the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to draw a line under a dispute—that is, to impose a settlement. That is the power and I know why my noble friends are annoyed about it. However, that is what it is about. It is not about changing the constitutional machinery of the National Joint Council. As that is not part of the conditions of service of fire brigade members, it cannot be changed by the Bill. There is therefore no need for an amendment that provides that that cannot be done. The Bill as drafted does not provide for it.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am sorry to hear the Minister say that because his case rests on a misapprehension. I am not in the least upset or annoyed—never get annoyed if I can help it. I assure him that I am not annoyed. It is just that, with the greatest of respect, he has not understood the case that I have made.
  I am afraid that it is necessary to quote cases which the Minister appears to have overlooked. I have only the references with me, but if he would like I could happily go away and photocopy the entire judgments.
  GC 18
  If I may, I shall explain it in very simple words. The conditions of service of an employee do not include merely what is written down on the paper: there are expressed terms of employment and implied terms. My learned friend Professor Freedland of St John's College, Oxford, is about to publish a new edition of his book on the contract of employment. A vast part of that book has been, and in the new edition will be even more so, about implied or incorporated terms of employment. Those incorporated terms of employment, by implication in many cases, frequently incorporate terms from collective documents which apply to the workers and to the employers.
  The employers often rely on incorporated terms, although they often deny that they are incorporated. There is often a big argument about it in court. It is not a question of lawyers enjoying themselves with the issue. Lawyers are instructed to argue the points. I f the Minister looks at the case of British Leyland UK Ltd v McQuilkin, in 1978, in the Industrial Relations Law Reports 245, he will find a case about which an enormous amount has been written. In the end, the court held that collective arrangements are not to be incorporated into the contracts of employment individually. That caused enormous astonishment to the commentators.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord give way?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If I may, I shall just finish the point.
  I do not know whether the Committee wants me to quote the dozen other cases on which I have now managed to put my finger. I hesitate to quote a book of my own, but if the Minister wants to look at chapter 4 of The Worker and the Law, he will find it all set out. If he would like to look at Professor Freedland's old edition or new edition, he will find—the Minister is amused by what I have just said.
  Lord Rooker: Far from it. I am crying all the way to the Latin that is in my reply.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: From a sedentary position the Minister uses the method that he used in the previous sitting, for which we have received no apology, of playing the man and not the ball—in Latin, this time. I was about to translate into Latin, but I hesitate.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Is the noble Lord in a position to give way?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If I may, I shall continue.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Of course; yes.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
  Let me put it in words of one syllable. In a vast number of cases the issue arises of whether collective arrangements are implied into the individual contract of employment. Having looked at the agreement, the

  GC 19
  disputes procedure and the terms and conditions—which, as I understand it, are the normal terms and conditions of firefighters—I think it highly arguable whether parts of the National Joint Council procedure are likely to be implied into those contracts of employment.
  In his reply, the Minister did not respond to that point at all. He did not seem to think that there are such things as implied terms in a contract of employment. Unless he can show that it is absolutely impossible for parts of the collective arrangements to be implied into the contract of employment, he does not have a case for saying, as I believe he said, that the Bill does not provide for that possibility. It does. Simply as a matter of arguable law, that possibility exists under the Bill's powers. If he does not want that to be in the Bill, for goodness' sake say so. Accept an amendment that says so. Then there will be no problem and we can all go home.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise for having interrupted the noble Lord's dissertation twice. As I always give way at the drop of a hat, I assumed that he might do so. I apologise for that.
  I have two questions for the noble Lord. We have heard about what is incorporated in contracts of employment. Is there a standard contract of employment for all members of the fire brigades? If so, what is in it that implies or incorporates the subjects of this discussion? I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord's great legal dissertation, but surely that is the nub of the question.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If the noble Lord wants to hear a dissertation I will give him one. But he does not; he wants an answer to his question, which he reasonably and properly puts. The standard terms and conditions for the employment of a member of the fire brigade are capable of incorporating—indeed, arguably, do incorporate—aspects of the procedures of the collectively voluntarily agreed arrangements which include the National Joint Council. That is my proposition.
  No doubt if the Minister and I met in a different context, both being instructed on opposite sides, he would say that we could make whichever argument we wanted for or against that argument according to who instructed us. However, it is not an unarguable proposition, as the Minister suggested. On the contrary, it is a highly arguable proposition. If I had to choose, I would choose that it is right. However, I would want to join him in going through the entire procedure and identifying the particular aspects relating to the National Joint Council and its composition, and to the union's right to nominate its own members and to agree with the employers on the chair. It is extraordinary to allow the Deputy Prime Minister to nominate the chair—the chair, of all things—in a voluntary body.
  All those issues impact on the individual contract of employment. Arguably, many of them—though not all of them—form an implied part of the matters on
  GC 20
  which employees can rely. What is implied is a question of the intentions of the parties. If we ask the fire authority and a fire brigade member, "Do you mean that these matters which relate to the conditions of service will be dealt with in the National Joint Council procedures?", of course they will both answer, "Yes". One can go through the agreements and find that type of issue. If we then asked, "Do you mean the National Joint Council as agreed between the pair of you, putting up your own representatives?", they would say, "Yes". If we then asked, "Do you mean that it would be chaired by someone nominated by someone—some Minister—outside?", they would say, "Good Lord, no; of course not". That is what would happen under the current arrangements. I do not know what the fire authorities would say about it in future, but I know what the workers would say. I submit that I also know what the employers would say at the moment.
  With the greatest respect, the idea that the Bill does not contain any power that could modify that position is just wrong. That is my submission. The Minister may be able to find a case. However, finding cases is not just a matter of looking up into the sky and picking out some heavenly body that attracts the eyes of the observer. Finding a case is finding a series of logical propositions in law from a judge that supports one's argument. That is why one refers to cases. If the Minister does not have any cases, I do not know where he can go.
  My submissions back the amendment and I support them. I believe that I have made a case. I believe that the Minister should at least say that he will take it away and look at it.
  Lord Rooker: I think that my noble friend has holed himself below the water in this case. I do not believe that any judge would seriously consider the comments he has just made as worth a row of beans. He made a very clever legalistic interplay between what is in this Bill and what is in the White Paper. As I have repeatedly made clear, they are totally different issues. He cites one sentence and then says, "The Deputy Prime Minister will impose the chair". That is nothing to do with this Bill. Parliament will have a full opportunity to debate that on another Bill.
  I fully accept that aspects of collective agreements are written into contracts of employment by implication; that has been the order of the day for many years. However, my noble friend used the term "aspects of procedures", whereas the amendment talks about,
  "the composition of a negotiating body".
  Anyone could look at the terms and conditions of service of a fire brigade worker and work out the composition of the National Joint Council. It is absolute and utter nonsense that the employers' side could be changed by the firefighters, but that is what my noble friends are implying. When we come to conditions of service—
  Lord McCarthy: Will the Minister give way? This matter will become clearer when I move the next

  GC 21
  amendment, but we are saying that the procedures represent rights. The workers have the right to use the disputes procedures—for example, to raise grievances. One could take away those rights through the provisions of the Bill.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: That is not true. I have repeatedly made it clear, although my noble friends have refused to listen or to accept what I say—at least, they are listening but they do not accept that I am talking in good faith—that the negotiating procedures, including arbitration, of the parties that are already part of the current agreement are freely available for them to use at any time they want. That is the whole point of the exercise. The idea that they cannot do so is nonsense. It is absolutely true— I said so last week and I repeat it today.
  Therefore, the issue comes down to the conditions of service, on which all kinds of things have been hung. As I understand—am not a lawyer—
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: No.
  Lord Rooker: No, I am not, but I say to my noble friend that sometimes I have a little more common sense than the lawyers and I do not use as many words as they do. I apologise for that but I cannot read in long paragraphs. However, I am reliably informed that in the definition of conditions of service is the word "includes". That is an important word, as are the words that follow it. So far as concerns the lawyers, it means that only certain things may be added to the list of pay, allowances, hours of duty or leave. The list is not as long as a piece of string.
  I sought expertise because I was wondering how on earth to pronounce eiusdem generis. I am sure the lawyers say that this is the same kind of thing; in other words, that the word "includes" means that only things of the same kind can be added to a list. One thing not in the list is the constitution of the National Joint Council because that is not the same kind of thing as issues relating to pay, allowances, hours of duty or leave. I rest my case.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister may rest his case. I appreciate that in England it is a disadvantage to be clever on these matters. In Scotland, the term is used in an approbatory way. I find that in Wales it is acceptable, but in England it is always used in a pejorative sense. One is not being clever; one is saying some very simple things. First, the eiusdem generis rule applies only where there is a definition or finite description. A clause which sets out that word "A" includes "B", "C" and "D" is not something to which an eiusdem generis rule will apply. If the Minister wishes, I shall fetch the authorities on this matter, but his advice is bad on that. Where there is an inclusive description, it allows for argument as to what else is included. That is my first point.
  The second point is that he accepts that things are implied in contracts of employment. I urge him to look at the authorities which show how complex that
  GC 22
  question is. I do not have a habit of saying that other people's arguments are nonsense, but I do have a habit of submitting that they are wrong if I consider them to be wrong. I would never say that a judge could not possibly find against me, and I would not say that a judge could find absolutely 100 per cent in favour of me. Laymen always believe that their case is right. Lawyers have to learn that there may be another point of view.
  I have submitted that it is highly arguable that aspects of the National Joint Council arrangements, including, in particular, its composition, chair and so on—nothing is more fundamental to arrangements than who is there to discuss and settle disputes on these matters— which are relevant to the individual rights, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy put it, of workers and employers can be incorporated by implication into a contract of employment. I stand by that proposition and, until the Minister can produce an authority which says that that is impossible, he should accept the amendment.
  Lord McCarthy: I have only three or four points to make. First, I am still trying to pour oil on this matter but I am not getting very far. We do not say that the Secretary of State intends to use the powers in the Bill for the purposes that we wish to set aside and make possible in the amendment. Of course, we do not say that. We are not saying that he wants to do, intends to do and will do that. Of course, he will not.
  Secondly, we cannot say that, if he tried to do so, he would not have the legal balance. It is an arguable case. In any event, I do not really care because I am trying to go deeper and to raise something more fundamental than that. I am trying to warn the Government and the party about what they are putting in the White Paper.
  I return to the point that I made at the beginning. There will be negotiations—for all I know, they are taking place now—but in what atmosphere? Trade unionists can read this and see what the Secretary of State is suggesting he will have power to do and would like to see happen when a subsequent Bill is brought forward. When the parties are negotiating to try to find a way out of a dispute and to achieve a simpler, more effective disputes procedure—which was very much one of the basic reasons that the dispute lasted as long as it did—they will say, "This is blackmail. The employers are not serious because they have big brother coming up at the back. They have these powers coming up. They are saying to us, 'Agree to this monstrosity. Decide who the workers' side is going to be, otherwise it will be worse when we get the Bill"'. That is not the way to start.
  It may be said, "It's against the ILO. We don't care for the ILO". It may be said, "It's the European Social Charter. We don't care". But—this is my final point—let us listen to the ACAS code of practice. This matter concerns who chooses whom in the sides in collective bargaining. It is clear that, given recognition, unions provide those who put forward collective views. They must be accredited union representatives, chosen by

  GC 23
  unions and responsible to them. That is what ACAS says. This matter goes back to 1971 when the Conservatives were in power.
  The ACAS code states that the parties seek agreement on the number of groups to be covered. Of course, that is all negotiated. No one is saying that the Secretary of State or his representatives cannot have policies. But, again, the ACAS code states that it is for the unions to decide the conditions for election, age, length of service and so on. But this is an issue of mutuality, and one problem is that the Government do not understand any more. It is amazing, but they do not understand mutuality. It is for the unions to decide the conditions of election, age, length of service and so on, and it is for management to decide the facilities and report back for elections and so on. It is a mutual process.
  What the Secretary of State will one day take power to do and is telling the unions—they can read it anyway—is that that is where he wants to go. Where tasks are undertaken by full-time officials, they are trade union officials. That is in the ACAS code. That is what happens whenever there is recognition. Those are the rights that workers enjoy when they come before their employer and have recognition.
  However, the White Paper and a Labour Government want to destroy the whole process. I say, "Be careful. Be warned. Try to enter these negotiations not threatening them with a big stick. Try to accept what is agreeable and what can be accepted. Don't go down this road". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  "(5B) An order under this section shall not include any requirement on a negotiating body connected with its procedures related to the negotiation of conditions of service of fire brigade members, other than as provided in subsection (3), and in particular shall not provide that disputes may be referred by way only of a joint reference to a disputes procedure used for the determination of issues relevant to the fixing or modification of conditions of service of fire brigade members."
  The noble Lord said: I am sorry to say that, again, we are going back over the same ground. This matter concerns the White Paper and, no doubt, the Minister will become annoyed.
  Lord Rooker: The answer will be the same.
  Lord McCarthy: Yes, I know, and he has not heard the argument.
  Lord Rooker: But the answer will be the same.
  Lord McCarthy: I know, but he is going to hear the argument. The amendment states:
  "An order under this section shall not include any requirement on a negotiating body connected with its procedures related to the negotiation of conditions of service of fire brigade members, other than as provided in subsection (3), and in particular shall not provide that disputes may be referred by way only of a joint reference"—
  this is the heart of the matter—
  "to a disputes procedure used for the determination of issues relevant to the fixing or modification of conditions of service".
  GC 24
  I shall cut out all that when we argue—although I hope that we shall not argue—about whether this issue is covered by this Bill or a subsequent one. We shall not agree, and therefore I shall not inflict it upon the Minister or the Committee.
  I want to say only that the provision is a monstrosity. The Government do not understand the principle of mutuality. Once again, that is what they will say to the boys and girls when they seek to renegotiate the disputes procedure. They will say that if the procedure is not acceptable to the sides, then their objective will be to impose it by law at some future date.
  The concept of joint reference to a disputes procedure is a joke and a farce. The disputes procedure is the balance. It is the workers' part, just as the disciplinary procedure is the employers' part. Those balance the two sides and always have done. In fact, in past industrial relations Acts, the Government have legislated to give workers a right of this kind. But there would not be a right at all if a worker had a grievance and he or she had to go to the employer and say, "I have a grievance against my supervisor", or, "I have a grievance against the contract", or, "I have a grievance about the way that I am treated", and the employer said, "No, no, I can't sign that. Go away". That is not a grievance procedure; it is a joke.
  Of course, grievances and disputes are one side of the exercise. I could not find the quotation from Flanders v. Clegg, but it would have been found to be self-evident. However, I found a quotation from one of the newer fellows, Professor Salaman, who wrote on industrial relations trade union practice and expressed the point about the interactivity and inter-relationship between, on the one hand, grievance and disputes procedures, which belong to the workers, and, on the other, disciplinary procedures. He states at paragraph 19.2 of his book:
  "The grievance/dispute process is concerned with the right of employees to express, and seek to resolve, dissatisfactions they may have in respect of any aspect of their work situation. Consequently, all organisations require some grievance process to resolve this dissatisfaction—irrespective of whether trade unions are recognised or not. It is complementary, but opposite, to the disciplinary process",
  which, of course, belongs to the employer. He continues that it is,
  "complementary in that they both seek to express and resolve dissatisfaction, but opposite in that the disciplinary process is initiated by management whereas the issues which form the substance of the grievance/dispute process are originated by employees".
  Everyone who knows anything about industrial Relations—every personnel manager and every supervisor—knows that, but not the Government. If they cannot do so now, I ask the Government to think again and not do so in future. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: I apologise to my noble friend for speaking from a sedentary position. I should have been standing when I said that the answer will be the same. I refer back to everything that I said in regard to

  GC 25
  Amendment No. 20, which is relevant. The current situation whereby the Fire Brigades Union has an ability to unilaterally invoke the National Joint Council's dispute resolution mechanisms is not affected by the Bill. The amendment is not needed. The Bill does not touch on it.
  Lord McCarthy: It is not really much to say, "The only answer I can give you is that it is not covered by the Bill". That is disputable. I should have liked the Minister to say, "It is a pretty doubtful exercise". But he did not say that. Let us hope that someone will read what has been said, will think about it and say, "What idiot decided to put this in the White Paper?". It seems to be the only hope that we have. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
  Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 2, line 19, leave out -two years" and insert "one year"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25, with which it is grouped, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She will be surprised that we have moved on quite so fast, although one should not complain about that.
  Clause 1(7) provides that no order shall be made more than two years after the Act commences, which, I believe—unless the Government have some procedural device up their sleeve—will not be before mid-September at the earliest and probably later; in other words, some four or five months after the Bill was originally introduced.
  As I understand it, the Bill was introduced to deal with a particular dispute which is now over. I acknowledge that the sunset clause included in the Bill was not there before and we welcome the fact that the Government have introduced it. I rather liked the comment of the honourable Member for Manchester Central, Mr Tony Lloyd, in another place who said that the sunset clause was designed for a difficult Bill. I beg the Committee's pardon, I am looking at the wrong page. When the Minister was challenged on the concept of a sunset clause he was about to stand up and tell him,
  "'Minister, I am your sunset', but being the sunset for the Labour Government is a task rather bigger than I wish to take on".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/03; col. 38.]
  The Minister in another place argued and confirmed that the Bill should be a temporary measure. He said that it was necessary for the Secretary of State to have powers in place until there is new legislation based on the White Paper. In less formal language, I read that as the Government retaining for themselves a legislative cosh until they have the next piece of legislation in place. I am sure that the Minister will say that I am wrong about that, but that is an interpretation that will be widely made in the context, as many acknowledge, that the Government much prefer settlements to be negotiated and not imposed.
  GC 26
  We are told that the Government do not want a hiatus between the lapsing of this Bill and the implementation of the new one. Mr Raynsford said that they did not think that would be healthy or sensible. We do not believe that it would be healthy or sensible to retain the power for the two years provided in the Bill. I spoke to this issue at Second Reading and there is a clause stand part debate to come. I do not need to repeat the arguments against the Bill that I made at Second Reading and I do not in tend to prolong the Committee stage by so doing. They are on the record.
  The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, seeks to substitute "eighteen months" for "two years" rather than my substitution of "one year" for "two years". The noble Baroness may be able to explain why 18 months is preferable to one year. I am rather glad that I referred to her amendment because she will now be given an opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I apologise for my momentary absence. The Bill contains a sunset clause of two years, which I recognise has been agreed in the other place. However, it was agreed before the unions said they would consider the settlement. We all hope now that there will be a successful outcome.
  The timetable laid down for negotiations and discussions after Royal Assent, which we can reasonably assume will not be very soon, will ensure that these matters are all completed within 18 months and therefore the Bill will need a shorter time length if it ever becomes law at all. That is the reason for reducing the period from two years to 18 months. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee— to whom I apologise for not being here to hear her speak—has made a good case for reducing it to one year.
  Lord Rooker: I shall do my best to address both amendments. The thrust of the amendments is the same but the timetables are slightly different. In some ways, the timetable is not an unimportant matter.
  I appreciate that the two-year sunset clause was not contained in the Bill at the Second Reading stage and was inserted during its passage through another place and it is true that a settlement of the dispute has been achieved. However, we still have to consider the timetable of the other agreements. The White Paper in regard to modernisation has been published and no one will claim that its recommendations will be achieved overnight. We therefore need to retain the powers in the Bill to be reasonably sure that the improvements we want to see are well on the way to being achieved.
  A time limit of 18 months would take us to the beginning of 2005—I am not being prescriptive about the date—which sounds a long time away. It might just be sufficient if a Bill to implement the White Paper policies was to be introduced in the next Session and received Royal Assent. But that cannot be guaranteed. With a 12-month time limit, there would be a serious

  GC 27
  risk that the powers would lapse before any Bill setting out the long-term strategic framework would receive Royal Assent.
  We also need to bear in mind that the normal pay settlement date for the Fire Service has usually been in November each year. The deal now agreed will change that, bringing the date forward to July. So, if there are any problems with the agreement and the dispute flares up again, we could be faced with the possibility of having to make an award not only for November 2003 but also for November 2004. If we were in that situation, it would not help to be working against a 12-month time limit running out before the November 2004 settlement date.
  In any event, experience—particularly over the past 12 months—has taught us that we need a backstop. Reform of the Fire Service and the legislation that it will entail is a Government priority but obviously I cannot say that it will be in the next Queen's Speech. At my humble level in Government I cannot be certain of that, nor can anyone else. The Bill will be a stopgap which will enable us to deal with the immediate future but not tackle the long-term challenges. As I have said repeatedly, we are not proposing that.
  At the moment there are good and excellent grounds for optimism because of the agreement between the employers and the Fire Brigades Union. We sincerely hope that we will not need to use the powers at all but we would be open to criticism if, in 12 months' time, we found ourselves facing further disruption and frustration without the powers in the Bill, having had them and given them up. Two years gives a greater degree of certainty which, in the circumstances, is reasonable bearing in mind the change in the pay date and the milestones which are to be achieved under the current agreement. That will see us well on the way to a future modernised Fire Service.
  While I accept that a case can be made for 12 months or 18 months—indeed for the minimum period possible—I hope that I have given sufficient comfort that, given the way in which the dates come together, two years should see us safely into the new system.
  One could argue that three years would be unreasonable because it would indicate that the Government were not treating the modernised Fire Service as a priority. But we do intend to treat it as a priority and have taken the powers for no longer than we feel reasonably necessary—that is, two years. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand the Government wanting two years. The logic of the Bill is that they must have quite some time to do what they want to do. I hope I have followed my noble friend's reasoning. The Government want to exercise the powers to ensure that the improvements they desire are well on the way to being secured. Those improvements will affect not only the use and disposal of property but conditions of service. Therefore the proposition has a great impact—without repeating any word of it—on the debate about the previous two resolutions.
  GC 28
  Twelve months would not be enough because what I shall call the big Bill—the long-term big Bill—may not have secured Royal Assent. With the pay settlements in July—which I believe is a very material factor—the Government may, as the Minister said, "need to make an award". I comment on that only because it repeats the suggestion of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister that this was some kind of "arbitration". He used that word many times in another place. I apprehend that it is not wrong of me to refer to his statements because, as the Companion makes clear, one should refer to the other place only on matters of government statements.
  But he is not making any kind of arbitration award. As we have seen from the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, arbitration of any kind is outwith the concepts that underlie the Bill. It is a government imposition of terms. It is interesting that the Minister talks about making an award. Words matter to me—I accept that. If I may put it this way, judging from what he said the Bill is to shepherd something in as a stop-gap. It is the shepherd dog to the collection of the big Bill into the fold.
  Of course two years are needed for that, with great respect for the noble Baronesses who tabled amendments about shorter periods. It only makes sense if the powers are to be available. In the form that we have explained to the Minister, they are available. Of course the Government cannot see exactly when they want to use them, but the width of the powers is clear. That makes the case for two years. In fact, it might make the case for a longer period, so the Government are being quite modest. The fact that the Government want two years and to make orders that do not necessarily come to an end after two years, unless they choose to make them do so. is a logical hole. It is therefore of great importance that this debate should put the context around the debates on the other amendments.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: Will the noble Lord agree that the sunset clause was imposed in the other place, and was not an original part of the Bill? Therefore, it seems not unreasonable to test whether that sunset clause gives the right amount before the sun sets.
  We have grave doubts about the Bill on all sorts of fronts, as I have made clear. To us, the important thing should be that the provision is in for the most limited time necessary, if it is to go in at all. Looking at the timetable that has been set out for the negotiations and discussions, 18 months would be perfectly within those limits. That is why I tabled the amendment—so that the Bill is not effective for a moment longer than it needs to be.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for asking me the question. I appreciated that the sunset clause was put in by amendment in another place. I agree entirely that how quickly the sun goes down on the Bill is at the centre of all our thoughts. We all pray for night to overcome it. The provisions were put in by amendment, and I

  GC 29
  deeply regret that the Government did not table such provisions themselves. Nevertheless, on the logic of what the Minister has explained, I see why they want them for two years and not less. I was not in the least criticising the amendments, but saying that I could understand, on the logic put to us by the Minister, why the Government want two years. That thought infuses the arguments on other amendments.
  Baroness Hamwee: I have thought for some time that, if one accepts the Government's thinking, two years is not enough. I am surprised that they did not go for three years. The period is likely to take them into the frantic time just before or around a general election, with all the pressures at the end of a parliament, or perhaps of a new Session. However, I do not propose three years, but one year.
  I described the provisions as a legislative cosh that the Government wanted to keep up their sleeve until the big Bill was in place. That seems to amount to an expression of no confidence in the current procedures to get us all through the next couple of years. The Minister said that the Government were optimistic. I talked for a moment at Second Reading about the psychology and whether the provisions might have completely the opposite effect to that suggested. If I were on the other side—not strictly on the other side, but in another corner of the triangle—as an employee, I would behave rather worse. It would make me rather more belligerent, not less, to know that the Government could use such a measure..
  The Government have started down the road, however, and if grief is caused, it is caused. I hear the Minister's reasons why the Government believe that two years is appropriate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 2, line 21, at end insert "and an order made under this section which has not been previously revoked shall lapse automatically three months after the end of that two year period"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 26 asks the Government to accept that, if the Bill is to have a sunset imposed on it, to say that the sunset falls at the end of two years is not really enough. As it stands, the powers granted by the Bill—that is what I am interested in—allow the Secretary of State to make orders and for those orders to remain as law for as long as he likes, subject to disapproval by negative resolution, until he chooses to revoke the orders.
  It would build confidence in the entire procedure if the Government felt able to say, "The orders will also come to an end as the sunset descends". The amendment suggests that orders made under the Bill should automatically lapse three months after the end of that two-year period. We are not in the least wedded to three months. If the Minister has some other reasonable period to build that confidence, no one would push for three months as obviously right.
  GC 30
  There should be some offer, even if it were only the offer to have the orders automatically lapse as the sun of the big Bill rose in one end of the globe and the interim measure sank into the sunset at the other. Even that and not a finite period of time would build confidence in the interim nature of the Bill. At the moment, the Bill itself may be interim, but the powers exercised in orders under it are not. I therefore urge the Minister to accept at least the spirit of the amendment, and to give more confidence in the whole process by saying, "Orders made under the finite Bill shall be finite, and, if you don't accept three months, we shall find a formula to be introduced to the Bill so as to make the sunset available properly to all". I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to consider the principle of the amendment with favour. It is quite apparent that something will be left over at the end of the two years. The point was made very well by Liberal Democrats at Second Reading and, frankly, it was not met by the answer that it received. On this occasion, reconsideration should be given to it.
  Baroness Hamwee: I support the amendment. I know that it can be irritating if one speaks to amendments in later groupings, but my amendment, Amendment No. 28, has far more in common with this amendment than with Amendment No. 29, with which it is grouped, so I shall make the point now. I suspect that the Minister will not have any more to say on my amendment other than that it may not nearly be as well drafted as Amendment No. 26, which is far more eloquent. Amendment No. 28 amounts to orders lapsing at the end of the two years rather than three months after the two years, which is really the only difference.
  Whatever the technical demerits of the drafting, my points underlying Amendment No. 28 are that, if there is to be a two-year effect, it should be a two-year effect. Permitting successive Secretaries of State to impose conditions once an order is in place is unacceptable. As has been said, it means that the sun does not go down. The provision in the Bill means that it hovers on the horizon for ever.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I can appreciate the noble Lord's wishes to ensure that the sunset clause really means the end of the order-making powers. However, we feel that there is a flaw in the amendment. If an order had been made before the expiry of the sunset clause with the effect of making a pay award to fire brigade members, the amendment would mean that the pay award would be negated three months after the two-year period. Fire brigade members would then have to revert to their previous pay rates, which would clearly not be a good idea or desirable. Other matters that might be covered by orders include duty systems and shift patterns. If staff moved into a new shift pattern—one that they might well prefer to existing shifts—the order making the new pattern could expire. Where would that leave them?

  GC 31
  The fact that something is imposed by order does not necessarily mean that it is unwelcome or should be reversed, which is what the amendment does after the sunset clause has effect. The problem with the amendment is that it really seeks to unscramble an omelette. Action taken in reliance on the order—pay raised, equipment moved, property sold—cannot be reversed without causing chaos. That applies whether or not the changes are palatable to the Fire Brigades Union. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate my noble friend's reply, which was what I expected. It makes a very serious point about the amendment, which is in that sense defective. I therefore appreciate that we have to take it away and look at it again. Of course, the answer to his argument is that the order should lapse at a particular point, however it is defined, after the sunset has imposed itself on the Bill in regard to conditions of service imposed by the order, except where they are more favourable than the conditions of employment that preceded the order.
  It is perfectly simple to meet the point. As a matter of fact, in many statutes, a variety of words are used for the provisions, and terms that are more favourable to the employee is a common type of condition in employment law. There is no reason at all why the orders should not lapse where they are more favourable to the fire brigade members than the conditions of service that preceded the order.
  If we think about that before we reach Report, we may come back with a version of the amendment that would meet the argument put forward on behalf of the Government, and in turn we hope that we would then meet with an agreement on their part to accept it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 2. line 21, at end insert —
  "( ) No order made under subsection (1) shall enable the Secretary of State to take any action provided by that subsection after the period provided by subsection (7)."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall not repeat what I said on Amendment No. 26. However, having listened to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, to that amendment, I should like to hear what the Government have to say on Amendment No. 28, which adopts a different approach to the point. I beg to move.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I want to say only that the noble Baroness was absolutely right. Amendment No. 29 is wrongly grouped with Amendment No. 28. If we must take responsibility for that, then we do so fully. I shall not speak to Amendment No. 29 because Amendment No. 30,
  GC 32
  tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, covers the ground. I seek simply to explain the position to the Committee.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 28 is designed to stop orders made under the Bill being used to extend the sunset period and thus get round the constraint provided by Clause 1(7). I want to assure the Committee that we have no intention of attempting any such thing. We accepted the principle and the practice of a sunset clause in good faith. Moreover, I can tell the Committee that the Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to do that anyway.
  Clause 1 permits the Secretary of State to make orders affecting fire brigade members or fire authorities. It does not permit him to make orders giving himself further powers or extending the time limit set in the primary legislation.
  The noble Baroness may have in mind subsection (5)(c) and (d), which allows for orders to make provision for exemptions and exceptions, and incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions. But I can assure her that those paragraphs do not allow for an extension of the sunset period.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am sure that there must be a clearer way of expressing those points. I shall have to take this away. While not for a moment do I suggest that the noble Lord has not given me the assurances in good faith, I hope to be able to read the words and find the same reassurance as I heard when he spoke. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanhammoved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (8) and insert —
  "( ) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament."
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment would ensure that any proposed order would be brought before the House for consideration.
  There are huge problems with this Bill, as we have discovered over the course of our consideration of it in Committee. Concerns have been expressed on both sides of this House, as was the case in the other place. If any order is to be made relating to this Bill, then that order must be laid before both Houses for a positive resolution in its favour.
  I can almost hear the Minister's response saying that there would not be time to do that. It might be that an emergency decision would need to be taken on a negative resolution, but that will not do with regard to this Bill. Sufficient concern has been expressed about it to justify the request that any provisions brought forward under it by statutory instrument ought to be laid before both Houses for consideration before they are passed into statute. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: One of the great worries with regard to this Bill is emergency legislation; that is,

  GC 33
  an order made in a state of emergency as distinct from orders made otherwise. On those there is a serious argument about arbitration hut, on the emergency aspect, there is not. Action may have to be taken at any time, but what would happen?
  I think that the Houses of Parliament sit for about one third of the 52 weeks in a year.
  Lord Rooker: The Houses sit for two thirds of the time.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: What would happen if an emergency arose when the Houses were not sitting? This seems a very unsatisfactory proposal. How will the Secretary of State be able to deal with the emergency, under the Bill either as it stands or as I am seeking to amend it? The emergency aspect is the most worrying. The only way it could be dealt with, in effect, is that when a situation arose where immediate action had to be taken in the public interest, the Secretary of State should have the power to make the order—if that agreement were carried in an amendment.
  The Secretary of State would always be subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Although for all practical purposes it would not happen, if a Secretary of State in attending to his duties sought to declare that there was a state of emergency when in fact there was not, the court would be the effective control, if it were needed. I do not think that it would be needed, but whether or not that is the case, it does not have to be built into statute because the supervisory jurisdiction already exists.
  That is appropriate. In an emergency situation which warranted immediate steps to be taken in the public interest, the Secretary of State would have full powers to make the order. But he could not do so if Parliament were not sitting, which really would dish the whole object of the exercise.
  Lord Evans of Temple Gutting: The amendment requires orders made under Clause 1(1) to be approved by resolution of both Houses. As currently drafted, the Bill provides that orders made under Clause 1(1)(a)— that is, in respect of conditions of service—should be subject to the negative resolution procedure, as anticipated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. Orders made under Clause 1(1)(b)—those containing directions to fire authorities—are exercisable by statutory instrument but not subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the 21st report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, published on 11th June last, which considered the delegated powers contained in this Bill. As Members of the Committee will know, the committee considers evidence on whether delegated powers proposed in Bills are appropriate, along with the degree of parliamentary control over the exercise of each power. The committee's 21st report concluded that there was nothing in this Bill to which it wished to draw the attention of the House.
  GC 34
  Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on parliamentary sittings and crises arising, it is absolutely right that if Parliament is not sitting, nothing can be done. However, it would depend on how a crisis was defined. We could all imagine a crisis where Parliament would he recalled. At present, if a problem arises which needs to be resolved by both Houses, that can be done only when both Houses are sitting.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply, and my noble friend for his intervention. I have many concerns about this Bill, but one important concern is that it will give the Secretary of State almost unprecedented powers to intervene in a potentially serious situation. That serious situation is that the negotiations currently under way are not concluded in a manner satisfactory to the Secretary of State. If that were to happen then it seems to me that it would be more of a problem for Parliament as well as the Secretary of State than it would be for the Secretary of State alone.
  Indeed, as my noble friend pointed out, it would be an emergency situation, but it would also be an enormously difficult circumstance and really not one conducive to one swipe of the pen on the part of the Secretary of State. We feel that it would require more than that; it would need the authority and backing of the House. Further, that would depend on whether the Secretary of State was seeking to impose certain terms and conditions of service, a pay settlement or whether he was seeking to instruct local authorities on getting rid of or amalgamating fire stations.
  Under the situation in which we find ourselves—that is, the situation which has brought this Bill before us because the Government are uncomfortable and unsure of how to proceed in what has been a situation of defiance—Parliament would offer a very necessary process of scrutiny of proposals in order to help the Secretary of State reach any final decisions.
  While I hear the reply from the Minister, given the terms in which the Bill is couched, I am not convinced by it. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 2, line 26,at end insert—
  "(10) No action shall be brought in any court to enforce the duty of a fire authority under subsection (9) except by the Secretary of State by way of an application for enforcement of the duty."
  The noble Lord said: In a sense, this amendment opens a new area of debate in our Committee. The amendment appears on its own because it deals with an issue separate from the other amendments. A grouping originally proposed by the Minister's department threw this amendment. along with some 12 other varied proposals, into a grouping which did not address any of the same matters. So in order to have a meaningful debate, my noble friends and I exercised our normal rights as set out on page 110 of the

  GC 35
  Companion to remove our amendments from the gigantic conglomerate list in order to debate them in a manner which would be meaningful in your Lordships' Grand Committee.
  I must refer to a certain matter, and I shall explain why. We were later accused of improperly changing the rules by altering the draft groupings at quarter past 12. I do not know where that time came from. In fact, we changed the groupings before 12 o'clock, which was the time that had been agreed with officials. Moreover, we were accused of wrongfully creating anarchy in the procedure, simply by doing what is normally done with regard to the grouping of amendments.
  There has been no apology for or comment on those remarks as recorded in Hansard at col. GC 286. I mention it only because it is relevant: we have received no intimation of an apology whatever either for that or, indeed, for a number of other things.Several of the amendments to which we now turn try to deal with matters on which the Bill is largely silent. Amendment No. 31 is one such amendment. The silences in the Bill and its interaction with the common law make it a Bill of enormous complexity. I shall submit that to the Committee, especially also with regard to Amendment No. 34.
  Overall, the issues include the following: the nature of the duties under the Bill; who can enforce them against whom—Amendment No. 31 deals with one aspect of that; the duties of fire authorities and the duties of fire brigade members; the Secretary of State's powers in international law to effect those; and, in domestic law, the impact of non-compliance or contravention of the orders or directions upon the legality of the acts of those responsible for contravening them or inducing their contravention.
  The Bill's silence on some of those aspects throws doubt on the legal validity of industrial action, affecting the implementation of orders under the Bill. The Minister has already made many references to the use of powers in the Bill in the event of a strike and also to the legal position of third parties which are relevant and of individual rights for fire-fighters which may come before the courts in respect of the provisions to which the powers in the Bill may relate.
  Perhaps I may say clearly, because it is not my job to guess, that I do not know whether the silences which create the complexity and the problems are intentional or mistaken. That is not for us to say. Our amendments seek only to avoid the making of bad or mysteriously uncertain law, which the courts will have to interpret, and to repair the minimum of those deficiencies. In some cases, the amendments are alternatives. However, if at least a few of them were accepted, including this one, even in spirit, the Committee would be relieved from what would necessarily be lengthy explanations of later amendments. I make no apology for that because this debate involves very difficult areas of common and statutory law.
  GC 36
  Perhaps I may explain briefly what underlies Amendment No. 31. Persons placed under duties by statute and third parties—whether employers or trades unions—are entitled to a full examination by Parliament, under fair procedures, of their possible legal liabilities and an examination of who will enforce the duties and how.
  Certain rights are contained in the Bill and certain rights and duties may be implied in the Bill. No right is stronger than its remedy. If a citizen, a fire authority or the Secretary of State has certain rights, but it is not made clear how those rights are enforced and what the sanctions are, then the courts face a very difficult problem. Amendment No. 31 addresses the first of those issues.
  The first silence is: what is the position of parties and third parties faced with an order? Clause 1(9) at least sets out one point. It is virtually the only place where guidance is given on these matters. It states:
  "It shall be the duty of a fire authority to comply with a direction contained in an order under this section".
  What happens if it does not? The Bill does not tell us.
  I must add at once that I do not say that the Bill is wholly exceptional in that respect. Surprisingly perhaps, it is not uncommon or totally unknown for a statute to impose a duty and to be unclear or even silent about enforcement and the remedies and sanctions, if any, for its contravention. The learned editor of a leading textbook, Winfield and Jolowicz on Torts—to some extent, this is all about torts—states with some scholarly pith:
  "Certainly it should not be assumed that where a statute is silent this is because the promoters have not adverted to the point—much more likely that it would be politically inconvenient to attempt to answer the question one way or another".
  When that happens, it is then for the courts to sort it out as a matter of law. They must ask what is Parliament's intention, which is not quite the same as asking what is the Minister's intention. It is the responsibility of every participant in this Committee to formulate in his mind what he thinks is the parliamentary intention in the Bill. Is it Parliament's intention that a Minister can sue the non-compliant person or fire authority? Can a third party sue them for an injunction for damages in civil proceedings in tort? If so. under what circumstances and for what remedy?
  There will not, of course—as people have sometimes thought—be any criminal sanction. That is clear. Parliament has not specified a criminal liability, for example, on a fire authority that does not totally comply with a direction under Clause 1(9). But can a civil action lie? How do the courts judge that intention of Parliament? Lord Denning, when Master of the Rolls, once said that in such a case Parliament,
  "has left the courts with a guess work puzzle. The line between the pro-cases and the contra cases is so blurred and ill-defined that you might as well toss a coin".
  That was in 1978. Legislation has not totally improved in that respect since then. The Bill is a large example, which will keep people who write on these matters and the courts occupied for a long time.

  GC 37
  If there is to be enforcement by civil action, there must be proof of a breach; there must be proof of a duty owed to the claimant or plaintive, whoever that may be; and there must be proof of damage caused by the type which the statue envisages. I see that that causes some amusement for some noble Lords. I am pleased about that. Perhaps I may just finish that particular sentence. This has very curious results. In a famous case in which Parliament said that machines must be securely fenced, the courts held that a piece that flew off and hit the worker was not something for which he could sue because the object of the Act was,
  "to keep the worker out, not to keep the machine or its product in".
  I cite that as an example of the tremendous difficulty that the courts have when the Act is silent. I give way.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord. All this legal expertise—Lord Denning and so on—is getting a little tight. Does the noble Lord realise that if these proceedings were on the Floor of the House, one could move that the question be put? But here we are absolutely clobbered. We have no right to divide. Therefore, the noble Lord can go on and on and not give way until it suits him, which is fair enough. But, surely, as a matter of reason, this argument could be condensed with respect and repeated on the Floor of the House where something could he done about it.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If the noble Lord wants to shut me up, he will no doubt take some measure to try to do so. I am trying to put an argument. It is an argument which normally occupies about a quarter of a term's study for those who are interested in the subject. I am trying to put it in 15 to 20 minutes. If the noble Lord does not want me to complete the argument, no doubt he will depart. But I intend to complete the argument on subsequent amendments, which involve matters that I believe the Government have possibly overlooked.
  The Government may have overlooked matters of law. I am sorry to argue the matter on the basis of law, but the Committee is making laws. It is not simply engaging in some sixth-form debating; society; it is making laws. If Members do not want to know what the laws mean, then they will not argue about them. My points illustrate the simple fact that Parliament does better when it clarifies its intentions, rather than leaving matters silent and making the courts engage in guesswork as to those intentions. That is why I quoted Lord Denning. I did not want to say that on my own authority; I say it on the authority of Lord Denning.
  Amendment No. 31 would help in one rather preliminary respect. It specifies that the Secretary of State is to be the claimant for enforcement of Clause 1(8). I may have previously said Clause, 1(9). If so, I apologise; it is Clause 1(8). It does not try to specify the exact legal remedies. That would make the Bill much too procedurally technical. The courts can be trusted to find right procedures and remedies once they know what Parliament's intention is on the enforcement of the duty which Parliament has expressly said lies upon particular bodies. Currently, it does not.
  GC 38
  Under the amendment, no action would lie for an injunction or order at the instance of a third party. I must be quite clear what the amendment says. Where a fire authority has not obeyed a direction to move appliances—for example, from Shooters Hill to Hampstead—and a station is in consequence inadequately resourced to fight a fire, the home owner who said that his house might be threatened would fail at the first fence in any action he brought if the amendment were adopted, whether for an injunction or for damages in a civil action in tort. He would not be a permissible plaintiff. If the Government want that to be different, they will amend the Bill to say so and state that a third party can enforce the duty set out in Clause 1(8).
  There are innumerable other difficult aspects of the problem, which I shall not spell out. Parliament has debated the issue on a number of occasions in regard to other Bills. It is not a new point in legislation: it is almost "first-year" stuff. Where there is a duty, it would be a good thing to set it out. That is especially so with regard to injunctions.
  If Parliament means that either the Secretary or State, a third party or both should have a power to apply for an injunction—and I shall explain later why that is so important—then it is particularly important to make clear in the Bill who can sue for what if there is a failure to fulfil the duty. The unlawful conduct in breach of the duty of Clause 1(8) may no doubt he less likely than a failure to comply with some other kind of order. I have only taken it here first because it is a duty of the fire authority. I have no doubt that the Minister will rightly say that the Secretary of State will be able to impose all kinds of pressures on fire authorities to do exactly what the direction says. But there may be—indeed, it is very likely to be—a case in which someone says, "You have not complied with it fully and properly". In that case, who has the right to enforce it, what remedies do they have to enforce it, and would it not be better to say so? I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: Clause 1(9) is one of the shortest subsections in the clause. The fewer the words, the less likely they are to be confusing. It is fairly clear that there is a duty on a,
  "fire authority to comply with a direction".
  The amendment would mean that only the Secretary of State could bring such an action before the courts. I say without qualification that the Secretary of State is very likely to have a big interest in enforcing such an order. It would be the Secretary of State who decided to use the power to determine the terms of the direction. If there is good reason to make the direction or order, there is a hell of a good reason to ensure that it is enforced. It goes without saying that the Secretary of State certainly would have that keen interest.
  On the other hand, if one takes not much of a leap of imagination, one would realise that others might have an interest in enforcing such orders. The order could be, for example, that one fire authority is required to make facilities available to another fire

  GC 39
  authority or some other body. That other fire authority—the other body—might want to enforce that. It would be entirely up to it if that were the case. That is the why nothing is said that would stop that happening.
  I cannot make my reply simpler or shorter than that; we are dealing, as I said, with a fairly short provision. It is conceivable that others might want to enforce the order; that could be another fire authority altogether. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
  My noble friend began by referring to the groupings and the fact that he thought that he was due an apology. I do not think that he is due any apology at all; as I understand it, the Clerk in the Chief Whip's Office is still waiting for an apology from him for his conduct and behaviour last Thursday. That is most unfortunate and regrettable.
  I cannot accept the amendment because it would be too restrictive.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend the Minister makes a case to which I shall reply in argument. As for what happened last Thursday, he was not there and I do not know what he knows—or what he thinks he knows—about it.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Will—
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am not giving way. There was an accusation of conduct that was inappropriate. There was no inappropriate conduct. I have written to the Chief Whip about it, who was not there but who appeared after it had happened. I wrote to him but have not yet had a reply. I shall say no more about it now but if my noble friend the Minister wants to use his privilege to make accusations, perhaps I should read what he said last Thursday, since he will not apologise for it. He said:
  "What I said was not taken in good faith".
  No one said that; he invented it. He continued:
  "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".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 286.]
  I am in correspondence with the Clerks and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on that matter. We shall see what is finally said.
  However, that passage is a plain suggestion of impropriety in the way in which we handled the amendments. I repeat that we did what we have done for 25 years and followed the Companion precisely; I shall read it out if the Minister has not read it. We spoke to the officials in the Chief Whip's Office before 12 o'clock, which was the time agreed for the matter; it has nothing to do with quarter past 12. If he cannot read what has been done by 12 o'clock, that is not my fault. We said that we exercise our choice, if we may,
  GC 40
  to take out our amendments from the list issued by the department, which someone had duplicated—it was a draft—and placed in the Prince's Chamber.
  The draft from a department is for discussion, as the Companion makes absolutely clear, with those who, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy put it previously, are sovereign in their ownership of the groupings of amendments. I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister is used to a Speaker and Speaker's Clerks and so on, but that is a very different procedure. We do not have that procedure. We have what is in the Companion and that is the procedure that we use.
  I am very surprised that the Minister will not apologise or retract. Perhaps he is acting on Lord Montgomery's principle of never withdraw. But that is not a good principle in debate when you can read what you said. It is unfair.
  I turn now to the more important issue of my noble friend's reply. He referred, quite properly, to Clause 1(9), which states:
  "It shall be the duty of a fire authority to comply with a direction contained in an order under this section".
  He said that it is a short subsection, which it is. That is its virtue. But its defect is that it does not tell you what happens if the duty is broken. Nor does anything else in the Bill.
  My noble friend said that the Secretary of State is likely to want to enforce that provision if it is broken and that he has a hell of a good reason to do so. That is what the amendment seeks. He said that those with a keen imagination might consider that others will want to enforce it. One can imagine that kind of situation. We believe that it would be a good thing to restrain litigation on the matter. Where there was a public interest—which is the basis of the Minister's case for the enforcement of the order—it might be a good thing to state that the Secretary of State has to enforce it. If another fire authority wants to enforce it, I imagine it would go to the Secretary of State and state, "Look at what is happening in fire authority X. We want you to tell it to comply with the order".
  I do not mind if the Government want third parties to bring actions for injunctions in this matter—but they should say so. That is all we are asking. We drafted the amendment as the best offer we could make to cure one of the silences in the Bill. The Minister said that the reason why nothing is stated—I do not quite understand this point so correct me if I am wrong—is that it leaves the matter open to all kinds of people to bring actions. That is exactly what the courts complain about. They do not know where they stand. They do not know who is allowed to bring an action or what are the precise terms for a third party to bring an action.
  I apprehend that the Minister may not be aware of this but when a third party brings an action for an injunction—the Minister may have been referring to this—he will go to court and ask for an interim injunction to stop the fire authority contravening the direction. It is important that the Committee should know what that entails. If any Member of the Committee wishes to interrupt and to tell me exactly what that entails, I shall give way.

  GC 41
  Since 1975, an interim or interlocutory injunction in the High Court is not tested by the same test as most cases in civil actions. Until that date, the applicant for an injunction against a union—or, indeed, a fire authority—preparing to take industrial action had to show that there was a prima facie case that the defendants were guilty of some unlawful conduct or combination. In 1975, in your Lordships' Appellate Committee, the Law Lords changed that principle in the case of American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396.
  Lord Diplock referred to the matter in this way:
  "The court—no doubt—must be satisfied that the claim is not vexatious or frivolous; in other words, there is a serious question to be tried'.
  Since 1975, if an arguable case can be put that there is a serious question as regards illegality on the part of the defendant, the court will issue an injunction where the balance of convenience favours the claimant and the public interest points that way. I assume that the Minister will accept that the enforcement of the order would normally involve such a public interest.
  If the Minister gets what he has just suggested and puts it into the Bill, a third party could bring forward a flurry of litigation—not only every time there is some form of illegality, but every time counsel can make an arguable case that there is illegality. At the moment that is in fact the basis of the quite justifiable objection of trade unions to the procedures of a labour injunction in the courts.
  Further, in a case that I shall quote in regard to Amendment No. 34, after a prolonged examination of complex case law, an interim injunction was held to require unlawful means—and unlawful means will normally include a breach of statute, to which I shall come later. The noble Lord must understand what he is saying. If he wants third parties to have the right to bring those actions in the courts on the basis of an arguable case, then he is opening the door to enormous possibilities for litigation.
  My final sentence is this: this is not a case where a Pepper v Hart assurance will affect the matter. This is a case of what Parliament means, not ministerial assurances, in the Bill that is passed. I say this to each and every Member of this Committee: it is your responsibility to ask what the Bill means, because that will be Parliament's intention. Before I withdraw the amendment, I beg the Minister to consider again to make these silences clear, so that we do not have the enormous number of law suits that inevitably will arise—all lawyers know this perfectly well—if the Government keep the Bill as silent as it is now. I can do nothing but beg leave to withdraw tit:, amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
  "(11) No order shall be made under this Act which could conflict with the terms of the European Social Charter 1961, or of Convention 151 of 1978 of the International Labour Organisation.
  GC 42
  (12) In his proposals to that body, the Secretary of State shall notify the negotiating body mentioned in subsection (3) of the grounds on which it appears to him that his order will not conflict with the terms of the instruments falling within subsection (11)."
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 32 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38, which addresses a different aspect of the same matter. Amendment No. 32 states that the Bill should provide that no order made should conflict with the terms of international instruments which have been ratified by the United Kingdom. The two that are most relevant are the European Social Charter 1061 and the ILO Convention No. 151. There are other international instruments, but it is generally agreed that these two are the most relevant to the Bill.
  They relate to the need to find resolutions to disputes on relevant matters by negotiation in collective bargaining, as well as all the other matters to which reference has previously been made in ILO Convention No. 151. However, it is important to note that the Secretary of State, when he consults a negotiating body under the terms of Clause 1(3)—which we understand at the moment is to be the National Joint Council—must explain why the order does not conflict with the terms of the instruments falling within that compass.
  Of course, in some cases he can say simply that it is of no relevance. If he says that, it will be enough. But, as your Lordships' Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, there will he cases where a question will arise as to the width of the order that could and might be made which would conflict with the provisions in those two international instruments. In those cases, which may well be common, under our provision the Secretary of State would be required to explain the position. That is broadly similar to the circumstance when a Minister certifies that the Bill he is putting forward does not breach the European Convention on Human rights. It requires a little more in the points of reference as to why that is so, but it is broadly in the same form. If we have the wording wrong, then naturally we would want it to be adjusted.
  The reason it is so difficult sometimes for lawmakers in this country to adopt any such reference to the international instruments is that there is a difference here, as against the national jurisdictions in western Europe. In those jurisdictions, such instruments as the European Social Charter and even, in many, the ILO conventions could be referred to and relied on in court as primary sources. Here, that is not so easy to do. They are quotable, but their binding impact directly in the courts in individual litigation is not so easy to enforce.
  The report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights raises the question and says that an order under the Bill could have the effect of falling outside those two international instruments. I interpose "could have the effect". No doubt the Secretary of State will do his best to avoid that. If he avoids that and someone suggests that he has failed, perhaps he should explain why that is wrong, as the amendment suggests.

  GC 43
  In other words, Amendment No. 32 takes international law seriously. It would put it in the Bill, acknowledge it in the Bill, and suggest that the Secretary of State has the obligation to come forward with explanations where someone challenges his understanding of what has happened.
  Amendment No. 38 merely states that the Secretary of State is to pay regard to similar conventions of the ILO. The amendment is defective, in that it does not mention the European Social Charter, which it should do. Under the amendment, he should pay regard to similar international instruments ratified by the United Kingdom when, under the relevant subsections, he decides the appropriate arrangements on a negotiating body which he is going to consult. It is, in a sense, only a procedural parallel for the kind of considerations that fall under Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord McCarthy: I support the amendment. I suggest to the Government that it is inconceivable that they would want to invoke the power in the Bill without explaining that. Presumably, it would be debated in the House and in the country. Presumably, especially the first time it was used, the Trades Union Congress would want to make its case, as well as the union. One of the central arguments would be that those opposed to the case would quote extensively from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and say, "It said that although the power was not intrinsically against either of those international conventions, it could be used in a way that was in breach of those conventions, and that the Secretary of State at the time had, in effect, promised not to do it and could guarantee that he would not do it".
  All those matters would have to have been gone into. The Government had better make a very good case establishing that they are not in breach of either of those conventions and they had better be ready to explain it. Adding the amendment to the Bill would be a sensible way of formalising the process. The Government have nothing to lose by agreeing to it, and I hope that they will.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I want to add to what my noble friends have said about the two amendments. The Minister referred earlier to negotiating machinery and said that that was not provided for or dealt with in the Bill. In fact, under Clause 2(2)(b), the Secretary of State is required to deal with a negotiating body, and it sets out what constitutes a negotiating body. It states that a negotiating body,
  "is constituted in accordance with what appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate arrangements for the negotiation of the conditions of service of fire brigade members".
  It would be useful to have the addition that is provided for in Amendment No. 38, which spells out exactly
  GC 44
  what would be "appropriate arrangements". They are, of course, the procedures that are set out in some detail in Convention No. 151, which states:
  "Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for negotiation of terms and conditions of employment between the public authorities concerned and public employees' organisations or of such other methods as will allow representatives of public employees to participate in the determination of these matters".
  That explains very clearly what "appropriate machinery" is and it therefore seems appropriate that the arrangement in Amendment No. 38 should be added to the Bill.
  Lord Rooker: I shall deal with the amendments in reverse order: Amendment No. 38 first and then Amendment No. 32. I hope to make the case that neither is necessary without frightening my noble friends even more than they are already, or making them more fearful of what the Government plan.
  Amendment No. 38 proposes that, in determining what appear to him to be appropriate arrangements for the National Joint Council, the Secretary of State must pay regard to the ILO conventions ratified by the UK. Again, I must repeat—I know that this is annoying to my noble friends, but it is true—that the Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to determine the NJC's arrangements. The Bill defines "negotiating body", and one of the parts of the definition indicates that the body must be constituted in accordance with what appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate arrangements for the negotiation of conditions of service of fire brigade members.
  The purpose of this part of the definition is so that the Secretary of State can be sure that the body is properly constituted and thus properly representative of both sides, with agreed procedures in place. In effect, for practical purposes, that involves the status quo. The Government's view is that, while we have made clear in the White Paper that we think that the NJC needs to be reformed, the current NJC meets the definition in the Bill, which is what we are debating, and that is the body that would be consulted by the Secretary of State. Therefore we do not think that there is any further requirement about what the Secretary of State must consider.
  One could imagine a circumstance in which there was, let us say, a break away—I do not want to add grist to the mill—and part of the employers or a part of the unions set up something else. I am not saying that that is even remotely possible in these circumstances. The fact is that paragraphs (a) and (b) would avoid that. In other words, we are talking about the status quo. We are satisfied with the present arrangement.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 32. It would mean that no order or direction could be made which could conflict with the European Social Charter or with Convention No. 151 of the International Labour Organisation, and that when consulting the negotiating body about his proposals, the Secretary of State would have to make it clear how his proposals

  GC 45
  did not conflict with those instruments. We did of course debate that point at Second Reading. We gave assurances that the Government would exercise the powers in the Bill or the powers that the Bill would confer in respect of conditions of service if we considered it necessary to do so in order to maintain or enhance public safety, if negotiations had failed to produce an agreement. For example, if the detailed negotiations that I have previously mentioned were to fail to produce agreement, we think it would be appropriate to consider using the powers.
  We would certainly not expect the orders to conflict with the two instruments mentioned in the amendment. I am absolutely unequivocal about that, and I am sure that the Secretary of State would make that clear at the time if we were to go clown that road. However, we maintain that we could not stand by if there were further breakdowns that either threatened to lead to a resumption of industrial action or delayed the changes to the Fire Service which we believe will deliver improved community safety.
  As a comfort factor, I should draw attention to the fact that the powers in the Bill are time-limited to two years. So the issue will not be around for ever. In case anyone wants to make a fist of it—no one has done so in this Committee, but I do not want to be accused of creating problems by omission—the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, raised the point about Ministers giving their view on compatibility with the human rights convention. Noble Lords may notice that although the declaration I signed is not in the printed version of the Bill, the fact that I did indeed sign such a declaration on 4th June, the day the Bill was introduced, is referred to in the notes on clauses.
  I offer those reassurances on the two points and I hope that my noble friends will accept them.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: First, I never get annoyed —as the Minister suggested I was—by anything. I am simply making an argument which I want to make.
  I should like to read the relevant provision in full. Clause 2(2) states:
  "'negotiating body' means a body of persons which—

  (a) includes both persons representing the interests of some or all fire authorities and persons representing the interests of some or all fire brigade members; and

  (b) is constituted in accordance with what appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate arrangements for the negotiation of the conditions of service of fire brigade members".

  We have had this point so often that I hesitate to labour it: but it has obviously not got home. I am concerned with what is in the Bill, not with the Secretary of State's intention. For once we have a very clear situation. If we were so unfortunate that the Secretary of State departed from us and some other Secretary of State took over, whether of this Government or any other government, the new Secretary of State would be able to exercise the powers and definitions in the Bill. That is what I am interested in. My noble friend the Minister says, "In effect that paragraph I have read means the status quo". If he
  GC 46
  means that, why not put it in the Bill? What the Secretary of State intends is not the same as what the Bill says.
  The Minister said that the current NJC is the concerned body and that that is the ministerial intention. I am not taking the case of a breakaway union, but the Minister mentioned the possibility. If some future Secretary of State wanted to recognise a breakaway union because it appeared to him that it was part of the appropriate bargaining machinery. under the powers of the Bill he could do so. I do not want that. I do not believe that the Minister wants that. All I am saying is that, if he does not want that, why does he not make the Bill mean what he says he wants it to mean?
  I am not sure that the Minister was giving an assurance, and I do not want to suggest that he was doing anything other than what he said. However, ministerial reassurances are not relevant. If the Bill is enacted in this form, it will say what the law is. This issue is no more a case for Pepper v Hart assurances than the other issues we raised. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister said he was not expecting orders to deviate from the terms of these international instruments. Nor do we. We do not want them to. We want it to be said that they must not do so. That is what we want in the Bill.
  The Minister said that the Bill will not be around for ever. However, the fact that it might happen next year but could not happen two years afterwards does not persuade me. As for notes on clauses, they are not in the Bill and will not even be referred to by the courts except in a very extreme case as to what the Bill means. Once again, it is an assurance.
  I am suggesting that we get rid of these arguments: that we do not leave them to some difficult court process; that we do not have litigation on them, as we may well have in this case; but that we put into the Bill what the Government say is their intended effect. If we do so there will be no trouble and no difficulty. I think that that is a valid argument. However, in view of the Minister's resistance, it is one that we shall have to think about very carefully and return to as necessary on Report. For the moment, all I can do is beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question whether Clause 1 stand part of the Bill for one specific reason. However, it might be helpful at this stage if I reiterated some of the points that I made earlier in our proceedings. It seems an awful long time ago.
  Our concerns about the Bill relate to a number of the issues discussed in the Committee's two sittings. We are concerned about the muddle between Bills. Following the White Paper, there is now the potential for further legislation. We have had a lot of detailed

  GC 47
  discussion about what that legislation might entail. That legislation could cut across the provisions of this Bill.
  We are concerned about the lack of teeth in the Bill. As I said earlier, there is nothing to prevent a strike happening as the Deputy Prime Minister pronounces on wages and conditions or other matters associated with the Fire Service. There is nothing to prevent anyone from going on strike and absolutely fouling up the Bill's overall intention. Our earlier amendments suggested that that was an error and that some consideration should be given to the anti-strike measures. I am interested to see that that matter is discussed in the White Paper and is not being thrown out completely. There is a recognition that the fire and rescue service, as I think it will now be called, while not a unique service, is among the services that prevents death and contains a high risk factor.
  One of the main reasons why I indicated my opposition to the Question whether the clause stand part is to do with the muddle. I hope that the Minister did not address this point while I was not attending. I wanted to test with the Government the conflict between this Bill and the Local Government Bill which the House is currently considering. Clause 120 of that Bill cascades down to local fire authorities—if I can put it like that—the responsibility for decisions on matters such as closing or amalgamating fire stations or on equipment. I think that such a move is probably broadly welcome. The trouble is that the Bill does entirely the opposite by bringing all responsibility back to the Secretary of State. We are going to have two pieces of legislation which say entirely different things unless one of them either prevents Clause 120 of the Local Government Bill coming into force until this Bill's sunset clause comes into effect and takes it out of force or this Bill says something about Clause 120 of the Local Government Bill.
  I have briefly outlined some of the concerns to which we shall return in greater detail on Report. However, I was advised that there was no other way of discussing this particular point than to oppose the Question whether the clause stand part. As the Minister was unaware that I would oppose the Question, he may need to seek advice. I look forward to his reply.
  Baroness Maddock: May I take the opportunity to seek clarification before we agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill? I know that we are not debating the White Paper, but there are certain things in the paper that the Government could do under the Bill. Indeed, earlier this afternoon my concerns became even more acute when the Minister said—I hope that I have his words right—that the Secretary of State may require one fire authority to make facilities available to another authority.
  Perhaps I may take only one part of the White Paper, page 33, which concerns regional boards and reorganising the service on a regional basis. I think that means that some of this could be done under the terms of this Bill. I know that the Minister has stated that it is not his intention to do so, but as another noble
  GC 48
  Lord pointed out earlier, we are here to examine what is to become law rather than to consider the intentions of the Secretary of State.
  We have received many reassurances and it is not that we do not believe the Minister—I am sure that he is absolutely sincere—but let us suppose, for example, that something were to happen within the two-year period and we had a general election. Again, after listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, if she were to become the Secretary of State, then she might want to impose a no-strike rule.
  I know that this is hypothetical, but we are looking at a piece of legislation which is meant to deal with emergencies and we need to get it right in the legal sense. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on these points. I know that other matters have been raised, but these points are serious. We are examining here a law. It does not concern the Minister's intentions, but what that law can do and what someone else might do with it.
  Lord Rooker: I think that Clause 1 is wonderful and I hope that it stays in the Bill. We have not quite debated it to death and no doubt it has quite a bit more mileage in it. If I was a Back Bencher rather than a member of the Government then I could think of another 50 amendments to table, although I do not want to goad anyone.
  Turning to the point of substance, it is fair to say that, when we have this Bill, the Local Government Bill and the White Paper, I can see why these questions have been raised. Here we have a Bill which is taking up precious parliamentary time, and of course it is always tempting to pile into a piece of legislation anything that might be lying around on which there might be some doubt in the future. However, I repeat: this Bill is for a specific purpose and is time limited.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, remarked that things could be done under this Bill that are indicated in the White Paper. However, they could only be done under this Bill if its powers were activated; that is, either if there was a dispute or the parties did conform to the arrangements that had been agreed. The point I want to make is that this Bill is not for the future. If anything like that was done under this Bill, it would be done in the context of agreements not having been kept to and if we were facing another flare-up of disruption.
  While it is true that certain things could be done under the Bill, I repeat that we do not want to use the powers contained in this legislation. So it would not make sense to use anything in this Bill as an enabling measure, or a pathway, for what has been proposed in the White Paper. I say that because we do not actually want to activate this Bill.
  Baroness Maddock: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has told us the Government's intention. But Members of the Committee are concerned that as the Bill stands certain things could be done. Recently I used an example from the White Paper. It talked about what they will do before 1st April 2004. If they do not have a new piece of legislation they must presumably intend to use this

  GC 49
  piece. So, my earlier point stands. We are concerned that, if what the Minister says is true, further amendments should make the matter quite clear.
  Lord Rooker: With all due respect, it cannot be necessary. The Bill would be activated only if there is almost an emergency in which the parties could not settle and the dispute had blown up again. That is the only reason this Bill would be used. It is not there to plan for the long-term future of the fire brigades and the fire and accident service. The White Paper will generate a Bill which will do that. I do not deny that if this Bill was activated in the circumstances that I have explained, orders could be given which could say to two fire brigades, "Oi, this is chaos. Fix a joint control room or work together". That could take place because of the nature of the dispute or whatever has come up. But the Bill would only be used in the context of that emergency and for that specific purpose, not for the long-term planning of the fire brigade's service. That is the point.
  One is almost in parallel worlds. We have this Bill that we do not want to use; it is there as a backstop just in case. There is enough evidence around to say that we need this comfort factor. At the same time, we have the White Paper and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we will be back on Thursday with the Local Government Bill. That Bill stands on its own. It is passing through the House. I do not know when that clause was inserted in the Bill or whether it was there from the beginning because that Bill was consulted on as a draft Bill last summer, just after I arrived at ODPM. I am no expert on its background. The issue of Section 19 stands or falls on its own. It is our intention to leave it in the Local Government Act, as I hope it will become. It would then not be subsumed in any new Bill as a result of the White Paper.
  From that point of view, one could argue that we are open to criticism. If there were a flaring up of a dispute, we would have this Bill activated. We would have the Local Government Act as it would be hopefully on the statute book, and coming along the next conveyor belt would be a Bill based on the White Paper. I fully accept that. But those are circumstances that the Government do not envisage. We do not want those circumstances because we do not want this Bill to be used. I accept that. I can understand that from a reasonable standpoint we are open to criticism. I do not think it is justified, but if I were sitting on the other side of the Chamber, I would make the same points with some justification. We do not want to use the Bill. It is there in the locker as a longstop. It would be absolutely barmy to put material in this Bill which affects future decisions of the Fire Service when we have just published the White Paper. That is why the Bill is only two clauses long and, hopefully, as I say, will stay on the statute book and not actually get its pages opened.
  I can make a case for that. This is a Bill we do not want to use, but we think for the reasons I have given that it is necessary to have it in the locker for the next couple of years.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I do not think that it will do, with the greatest
  GC 50
  possible respect because the Local Government Bill, if all goes well, will be on the statute book presumably within the next six to nine months at the very most, well within the compass of the time scale of this Bill.
  I ask the Minister to consider what would happen if the powers had already passed down to the local fire authorities—if they had made or were beginning to make one lot of decisions. Something blows up—I do not mind what—perhaps with the on-going negotiations. Is the situation such that the Secretary of State could potentially blast in and say to those local authorities: "Never mind what the Local Government Bill says. Sorry, guys, that is completely irrelevant at this moment because we now have a crisis and I am taking over and these are my instructions".
  I think the Minister will be in court. There is no clarity about which comes first and what overrides the other. Somewhere within the next few weeks, we perhaps need amendments to be inserted and for the Minister to take advice to sort out what that process is.
  Potentially, I see lots of roads for this all ending up in the courts; the fact that the unions can actually define what the Minister says will end them up in court. I know the Minister does not want to use the Bill, but I think we must assume that any legislation that comes forward will potentially be used. That is why I moved that Clause 1 should not stand part. Clearly, I cannot do anything about it now, but the Minister may like to come back.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: I genuinely want to respond to the noble Baroness. I am speaking from memory now. When the Local Government Bill was in Committee, I do not think that we debated the Section 19 change. To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that we did. In other words, it was accepted in Committee. We are going to have the Report stage. I shall take advice so that on Report, if it is appropriate, I can clarify the situation. I accept that, although the purpose is different. Section 19 is abandoned, as it were, because the Secretary of State is apparently involved in the minutiae of changes. Transferring one appliance from one station to another needs the Secretary of State's permission, which is absolutely barmy. That is nothing to do with the dispute, by the way. It all comes back to Whitehall, which is absolutely crazy when there are professional people out there running the Fire Service.
  I suspect that it would be possible even to have localised disagreements settled under the disputes procedure rather than causing the Bill to be activated. As I say, the Secretary of State would have to have good reasons to activate the powers in the Bill. Those reasons would be wholly rational. If people argued it, maybe there would be court action, but there would certainly be parliamentary comment, to say the least. The two things do not need to be confused.
  Bearing in mind that I was not able to say anything about Section 19 on the Local Government Bill, and that we shall have a couple of days or more on Report, I am quite happy to see whether it is possible to say something without necessarily having an amendment.

  GC 51
  There may be a way; noble Lords can do anything in this House, I have discovered, as there are no rules. It is highly likely that I shall be able to put a paragraph on the Order Paper that I hope would answer the question, because it is a fair one that needs answering. It would partly be to explain what looks like a contradiction, although I do not think that it is.
  The question deserves an explanation, however, bearing in mind that when the other place debated the Local Government Bill, it was a long time ago and this Bill was not around. Secondly, when it debated this Bill, the White Paper was not around. The Bill happens to come to this House when all three are around at the same time, and the questions are quite legitimate.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the Minister look at Hansard for this House for 24th June, cols. 80–85, where he will find a quite important debate on Clause 120 of the Local Government Bill? That was the debate to which my noble friends and I referred when we moved an amendment concerning consultation. It is quite true that the Minister did not himself deal with the debate; it was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. So far as concerns there being no rules in this House, those who have read the Companion and the Standing Orders will want the Minister to look again at that remark.
  Lord Rooker: I was talking about the Local Government Bill. That is where the legislation is, and we did not debate the subject during our four days in Committee.
  Noble Lords: No.
  Lord Rooker: No, the noble Lord is talking about the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Noble Lords: No!
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: If the Minister wants it, I have a copy here of the debate on 24th June, at cols. 80–85. I am sorry, but if the Minister makes these propositions to the Grand Committee, we want to be able to rely on them. With the greatest respect, I suggest that he should admit that he is wrong.
  Perhaps I may put the proposition clearly and simply. The Local Government Bill was debated in Grand Committee in this House on 24th June. Clause
  GC 52
  120 was debated significantly and it is relevant to this Bill. I do not agree that Clause 1 should be dropped from the Bill. It would be a nonsense to do so. That is the intention of a wrecking amendment. But the noble Baroness has a point when she says that two Bills have been introduced. We said in a previous amendment, "For goodness sake, can't you just relate the two?". Whenever the Bills are brought forward, they are both put before us. One was debated on 24th June and the other was debated in proceedings on this Bill. I simply want the record to be straight.
  Lord Rooker: The record can be straight. There is no need for my noble friend to shout at me. I was quite wrong in what I said about the matter not having been raised. I looked at my noble friend's Second Reading speech on the Fire Services Bill and believed that that was the reference. The matter was raised during debate on the Local Government Bill by my noble friend Lord Bassam. I shall have another look at the report of the proceedings, but I imagine that the answers were satisfactory and that the matter was accepted at the time.
  Baroness Hanham: I believe that the answer is for me to move an amendment on Report which encompasses the problems that I have raised.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.52 to 7.2 p.m.]
  Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 33:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause —
  "INTERPRETATION OF JUNE 2003 AGREEMENT
  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.
  The noble Lord said: The Minister indicated earlier that he would accept the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: For the reasons I gave earlier, the Government are happy to agree to the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Rooker: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday next at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at three minutes past seven o'clock.

  Civil and Criminal Justice: Ministerial Responsibility
  Civil and Criminal Justice: Ministerial Responsibility
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Funding
  North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat (North)
  North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat (North)
  North/South Ministerial Council: Validity of Decisions
  North/South Ministerial Council: Validity of Decisions
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Special European Union Programmes Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Ulster Scots Music
  Ulster Scots Music
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Northern Ireland Civil Service
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland: Smoking in Hospitals
  Northern Ireland: Smoking in Hospitals
  Northern Ireland Office: Security
  Northern Ireland Office: Security
  Artigarvan: Housing
  Artigarvan: Housing
  Northern Ireland: Special Educational Needs Assessment
  Northern Ireland: Special Educational Needs Assessment
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Northern Ireland: Morning After Pill
  Northern Ireland: Morning After Pill
  Pakistan: Travel Advice
  Pakistan: Travel Advice
  Timber
  Timber
  Channel Crossings: Juxtaposed Controls
  Channel Crossings: Juxtaposed Controls
  Iraq: Initial Report on Combat Operations
  Iraq: Initial Report on Combat Operations
  Nuclear Industry
  Nuclear Industry
  Education Act 2002
  Education Act 2002
  Schools: Consultation
  Schools: Consultation
  Medical Schools: Teaching Grant
  Medical Schools: Teaching Grant
  Hyde Park
  Hyde Park
  Food Supplements
  Food Supplements
  Integrated Community Equipment Services
  Integrated Community Equipment Services
  Foundation Trusts
  Foundation Trusts
  Organ and Tissue Donation
  Organ and Tissue Donation
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Greyhounds
  Greyhounds
  Great Western Railway Line: Closure
  Great Western Railway Line: Closure
  Southport and Ormskirk (A570)
  Southport and Ormskirk (A570)
  Connex South East Franchise
  Connex South East Franchise