Sitting of 10 July 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Bank of England (Gold Sales)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on his policy of instructing the Bank of England to sell gold and invest the proceeds in particular currencies.[124642]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The decision to sell gold reserves was taken to reduce the risk of over-exposure to one asset in our foreign exchange reserves. That was successfully achieved, as measured by value at risk, and the gold sales delivered a 30 per cent. reduction in risk.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not the Chancellor accept that it was a major error of judgment to force the Bank of England to sell its gold when the price was an almost all-time low? Why has he not been willing to admit to the precise consequences when reputable organisations advised me yesterday that, taking everything into account, the actual loss—they say that it is very easy to calculate—was about £400 million, which is about £32for every family in Britain? Although I accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very wise person, when he makes a mistake, should he not admit it and tell us the consequences?
    Mr. Brown: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. First, every country has been diversifying from gold. Switzerland sold 1,300 tonnes; Belgium sold 1,000 tonnes. We have sold 395 tonnes. Almost all our European partners, and Australia and Canada, have far less in gold than we do. It was the right decision for the country, and it was the right decision for the management of risk. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, of the new assets that we bought, the ones that have gone up most in value over the past few years have been those that we bought in the
    1352
    euro. It is quite interesting that, when the Conservative party wants to present itself as pro-European, we start the day with the hon. Gentleman leading the fight for the Conservatives.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not doubt the Chancellor, but what is the basis of the judgment that there has been a 30 per cent. reduction in risk? How is that arrived at?
    Mr. Brown: I have with me the National Audit Office report, and the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) was also wrong to imply that that may not have been the Bank of England's advice to us. The Bank of England supported our decision. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the NAO made a study of this. The study is not from a PhD thesis on the internet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Again, if I can repeat to the House that, reading the study in its quite detailed complexity, there is no question of it ever being sexed up. The document itself makes it clear that this was a value-for-money exercise. That was the sole reason why it was done. It diversifies the risk to us, and already, as I have indicated to the hon. Gentleman, the rise in the value of the euro shows that it was a worthwhile exercise.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is the Chancellor aware that he is wrong when he says that all the countries are selling gold? The biggest holders of gold, none of which have sold, are the United States, France, Germany and Italy. China is a big buyer of gold, and it has been for some months. Will Britain press for a renewal of the Washington agreement on gold of September 1999, which is due for renewal next year and which he played a part in bringing about?
    Mr. Brown: It is exactly because we have the Washington agreement that other countries did not sell. We had to have the Washington agreement.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: The Chancellor just said that they had all sold.
    Mr. Brown: Yes, but they did not sell in the past two years. It is precisely because there was concern about the amount of gold being sold around the world, depressing the gold price at the time, that we got an agreement from all the countries. Our gold sales went ahead, other gold sales went ahead, and the countries the hon. Gentleman mentions agreed that they would not sell gold at that time because of the Washington agreement. Of course, we will continue to look at this, but he cannot deny the fact that, in many cases, the countries that have sold gold have sold far more gold that we have and, at the same time, most of the countries that I have mentioned, including Australia and Canada, outside the European Union have far less of their assets in gold. As for value for money, the mistake was made by the previous Conservative Government not selling gold when the gold price was even higher.
    David Cairns: To what extent did my right hon. Friend need to coerce the Bank

    1353
    of England into taking that decision; or did it, in fact, agree with him that that was the correct policy to pursue given the current prevailing economic circumstances?
    Mr. Brown: The decision had the support of the Governor of the Bank of England. The decision was made in a transparent way, with the auctions of gold, for which we have been praised because that is a far more open process. The decision has been gone into in a huge amount of detail in the NAO report, and the results of that show that we have achieved value for money, that we are getting a satisfactory return on our reserves and that we are protecting the position of our reserves, while reducing risk. I should have thought that the Opposition parties would support what we did.

    Health Spending
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: If he will make a statement on progress towards bringing UK health spending into line with the EU average.[124643]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Health spending this year is now estimated at 8.1 per cent. of GDP—around the European Union average. It will rise to 9.4 per cent. of GDP by 2007–08.
    Dr. Murrison: I am grateful to the Chancellor for that response. I need not remind him of his manifesto commitment to bring spending up to the EU average, and his right hon. Friend's subsequent comments to that effect. The King's Fund detects a sleight of hand, however, and I would be grateful for clarification. Is the Chancellor relying on weighted or unweighted data in addressing that comparison? Will he look at a static or projected spend to the year 2005? In addition, will he rely on the Office for National Statistics recomputation of health spend, which takes in, for example, spending by charitable and voluntary sectors, churches, the prison health service and the defence medical services? Clearly that will have a big impact.
    Mr. Brown: First, it is weighted data. Secondly, we cannot know in advance what all the other European countries will spend. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can deny, however, that we have the fastest rising health service budget of any of the countries in Europe. We are making a public commitment to the health services. In relation to the King's Fund, I am happy to look at any evidence that he brings to bear, but he cannot deny that we are raising health expenditure by £8 billion, £9 billion and £10 billion a year in future and successive years, which is more than the previous Government ever committed themselves to spending. I would have thought that he would congratulate us today, because his two local health authorities have seen rises in their health expenditure of 9.5, 9.9, 9.7 and 9.5 per cent., and 8.9, 9.1, 8.9 and 8.7 per cent. respectively. How could any of that be possible if there were 20 per cent. cuts in the health service budget?
    Mr. Tom Harris: Has my right hon. Friend considered the financial implications of some of the alternative ways of funding the health service? To pluck an example out of thin air, has he considered some kind of voucher scheme that would
    1354
    allow NHS patients to have their private care subsidised? Has he considered how much that would cost the country?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are spending 7.5 per cent. in real terms increases in the health service over the course of the next few years. Taxpayers, through the national insurance rise, are rightly contributing to the national health service increase. Every party at the last election stood on a manifesto supporting extra health service spending, but the Conservative party has walked away from the commitment. As far as the amounts of money that would be involved in a voucher system in private medical health insurance are concerned, something in the order of £2 billion extra a year would have to be taken from the national health service. That would still mean that a pensioner would pay £5,000 for a hip joint operation, £6,000 for a knee joint operation and £7,000 for a heart bypass. Those are the policies of the Conservative party.
    Mr. David Laws: The Chancellor says that the Government are delivering on improved health services, yet he will be aware of recent opinion polls that show that the public believe that health services, along with education, the police and transport, are all getting worse in this country. Who has got it wrong? Are the Government wrong on delivery, or are the public wrong?
    Mr. Brown: There were 11.3 million out-patient admissions a year when we came into office. There are now 12.7 million. There were 12.5 million accident and emergency admissions. There are now 12.9 million. There were 3.5 million elective admissions. There are now 4.5 million. There were 39,000 heart operations. There are now 54,000. That is an increase in the amount of money and an increase in the amount of activity in the national health service. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might care to comment on his party's spokesman, who now seems to be absent from all our debates on economic matters, who said very clearly that there would be no extra money for the health service from the Liberal party.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that I am pleased that Labour Members decided to increase massively the amount of money that goes into the national health service, because in the last few months I have been one of the recipients of that treatment? I did a survey while I was in hospital, and every single person regarded their heart bypass as a success story. When we walked out of the hospital, I was waiting for the BBC "Panorama" camera team to ask me whether I thought that the money spent on the NHS was a success story. I did not find a single member of the media waiting for us. Why? Because all they are bothered about is digging in the gutter and failing to recognise that 1 million people are looked after in the national health service every 36 hours. That is a success story not a failure.
    Mr. Brown: The whole House will be able to see that my hon. Friend is back fighting fit after the great

    1355
    treatment that he has had in the national health service. We welcome him back, and the contribution that he has made.
    I do not know what to say about the BBC and its programmes, but the fact is that there were 1.2 million cancer operations in the NHS when we came to power and there were 1.34 million last year. There has been a very big rise in the number of cancer patients treated. Equally, we are now in a position in which 98 per cent. of people are able to see a cancer specialist within two weeks. Under the Conservatives, the figure was 63 per cent.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Is the Chancellor not at least a little concerned that in one part of the United Kingdom, Scotland, health spending is already at or even above the European average, and yet health outcomes are substantially below?
    Mr. Brown: Waiting times in Scotland are, on average, lower.

    Death Certificates
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will ask the Office for National Statistics to discuss with the Department of Health (a) the reliability of information contained in and (b) return of death certificates.[124644]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Office for National Statistics is working with the Department of Health and the Home Office on planned changes to the system of death certificates. These will be set out in the Government's response to the fundamental review of death certification and the coroner service that was published last month. I can also confirm that the ONS has today published a consultation document on the legislation necessary to make such future changes. I have ensured that a copy of that document is placed in the Library of the House.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I am grateful for that reply, but can my hon. Friend tell me whether the brief that his Department gave him for this question contained the question that was asked of his predecessor on 29 March 2001 when I was promised that, from April that year, there would be an alteration in the ground rules for filling in death certificates, particularly in relation to MRSA? I would like his comments on when we are going to get the consistent filling in of death certificates when they relate to MRSA. Practice across the nation is patchy, and coroners and dependants are being deceived. Doctors are putting down pneumonia and septicaemia, which is true, but the contributory factor is MRSA. We need veracity in the statistics so I hope that he will tell his client Department—I was about to say something rude—to ensure that the certificates are filled in properly.
    John Healey: My hon. Friend is well aware of the difficulties of capturing MRSA and other such infections on death certificates. He also knows that the NHS has introduced a national management system for checking such infections in hospitals. He is right to draw
    1356
    attention to this concern. The particular problem that he highlights with death certificates is one of a wider set of problems with the certification process. That relates precisely to the system that we need to reform, and today's consultation document will help us to do that. I know that the ONS would welcome any further representations that he might choose to make.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My constituent, Dr. Payne, is very concerned that when information on death certificates is found to be insufficient, that has resulted in the Inland Revenue approaching him directly for medical information about deceased persons. I do not believe that a majority of members of the public are aware that all their confidential medical records can be accessed by the Inland Revenue after death. Does the Minister agree that confidentiality does not cease with death and that the disclosure of information should be limited? What steps is he prepared to take to ensure that the Revenue is able to access only those records that are relevant to the financial matter being considered and not all medical records, as is currently the case?
    John Healey: The hon. Lady will know that the certification legislation that covers many of these aspects is now 50 years old. It is increasingly obsolete, inflexible and inconvenient for many families that want to register births, deaths or marriages. The legal amendments that I explained to the House a moment ago will help us to make those changes.
    On the hon. Lady's specific points about the Inland Revenue and her constituency case, I shall look into the matter further and respond to her if she writes to me with the details.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the review of the coroners service that has been conducted and look forward to the introduction of legislation to ensure that we have a coroners service that is consistent throughout the whole country and a death certification process that is much more sensitive to the needs of families at a tough moment in their lives. Will the Minister assure us that the process for the certification of drug-related deaths will be clarified, because the way in which coroners in different parts of the country record such deaths dramatically affects spending on drug-related issues?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a good point and neatly encapsulates many of the aims of the reforms that we are putting in place. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who mentioned MRSA, he draws attention to a condition that is often not included on death certificates. One of the problems with the system is that it does not capture all the information about a death and all the circumstances that might have contributed to it. That will be a problem when we consider future policy changes, and it is also important when dealing with the problems that underlie such sad deaths.

    National Insurance
    Mr. David Amess: What plans he has to make further changes to the rates of national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.[124645]
    Bob Spink: What plans he has to make further changes to national insurance contribution rates; and if he will make a statement.[124652]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Any changes to national insurance rates are announced at the time of the Budget and pre-Budget report.
    Mr. Amess: Following the loss of 200 jobs in the banking sector in Southend this week, will the Minister tell the House what plans she has to ensure that national insurance payers get value for money? Will she now admit that if the recent hikes are included, net taxes and social security contributions in the year 2003–04 will amount to £402.9 billion, but that that will not bring the improvements to public services that we would hope for? Will she admit that this rotten Government are taxing, spending and failing?
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, unemployment in his constituency has reduced dramatically since the Government were elected in 1997. He will also be fully aware that the national insurance rise is specifically to pay for the increased spending on the national heath service. He must answer the question of whether he is in favour of spending more on the heath service. If he is not, what will he say to his constituents about the services that he wants to cut?
    Bob Spink: The whole country knows that the increases to national insurance so far and those that are further threatened by the Labour Government are destroying jobs and driving down the competitiveness of our economy because that must be the long-term natural result of such increases in taxation. Will the Paymaster General admit that the Labour Government are heading for a high-tax, low-efficiency economy—the old socialist piral?
    Dawn Primarolo: Opposition Members will do anything to try to avoid the facts. There are 1.3 million more jobs in the economy. Britain's unemployment is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Opposition Members do not want to answer the question of whether they are in favour of increasing spending for the national health service. If they are not, why not, and how will they explain to their constituents the cuts, and the public services that they will not get?
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties is the measurement of progress in the health service? Those of us who have an interest in economic aspects are used to measuring such things as waiting list falls. However, some of the most important effects of our changes to national insurance and funding for the health service are non-measurable, such as the availability of statins for heart patients, which means that many thousands of
    1358
    people are walking around who would otherwise be dead. Does she agree that such non-measurable benefits are as important as those that we can weigh and count?
    Dawn Primarolo: If my hon. Friend studies all the statistics, he will find out that in-patient and accident and emergency services, elective admissions and stations services offered by the national health service have increased. He is quite right that we need to increase spending on the national health service so that it provides the world-class service that our constituents want. National insurance is the fairest and best way to achieve that, and the spending results in improvements for his constituents and all our constituents.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people in Yorkshire in particular, and throughout the country in general, think that a taxpayer-funded NHS is the best way forward for health provision, so that health care is provided on the basis of need, not on the ability to pay? Is the hospital building programme on target? Will the new hospital planned for my constituency go ahead on schedule?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is a well known campaigner for the NHS, especially on the principle of availability to all on the basis of need. He is right to focus on the development of new hospitals. The Government have committed themselves to 110 new developments. Only 11 were undertaken under the previous Government. Those developments, including the hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency, are proceeding on time. I am happy to deal with more detailed questions that he may want to raise with me outside the Chamber if he wants to follow that point through.
    Mr. Michael Howard:Is the Paymaster General really unaware of the difficulties that the Chancellor's tax on jobs and pay are causing for taxpayers, public services and businesses alike? Did she not see the announcement last week by HSBC of 1,400 job losses, with higher national insurance contributions and pension costs given as the cause? Does she think that HSBC does not know what it is talking about, or does she accept that the Chancellor's policies have directly led to the loss of those jobs? Will she rule out any further rise in employer national insurance contributions?
    Dawn Primarolo: It is breathtaking to hear that from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was in a Government who increased national insurance, increased VAT and introduced 22 tax rises. He will not answer the question: does he support more spending in the national health service—yes or no?
    Mr. Howard: The Paymaster General does not understand. She should answer questions—not ask them—on behalf of the Government.
    So the Paymaster General refuses to rule out yet another rise in national insurance contributions for business. Is she not also aware of the pain that the Chancellor's rises in employee national insurance

    1359
    contributions are causing? Is that not a tax on income by another name? Does she realise that this year alone a typical couple on average full-time earnings are £568 a year worse off as a result of rising council tax, frozen allowances and the rise in national insurance contributions? If the right hon. Lady refuses to rule out another increase in employer national insurance contributions, will she now rule out a further rise in employee national insurance contributions? Will she rule out yet another breach in the upper earnings limit? If she cannot provide the reassurances people want—we know that the Chairman of the Treasury Committee recently cast doubt on her ministerial knowledge—perhaps she can take a minute to ask the Chancellor, who is sitting next to her, whether he can provide the answers that we all want?
    Dawn Primarolo: That is very illuminating. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will do anything but answer the question normally, but he rose to the Dispatch Box on that specific point to say that he is not committed to spending that money in the NHS, which is what—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The shadow Chancellor has the luxury of not having to answer questions. He is entitled to ask them.
    Mr. Howard: After those exchanges, we can all understand why the Chancellor does not like answering questions on tax at the Dispatch Box. This is a Government who said that they had no plans to increase tax at all, but who then introduced 60 new tax rises. This is a Government who said that people should not suppose that there would be rises in national insurance, but who increased national insurance in their very next Budget. Are there not growing fears of a black hole in the Chancellor's finances? After his record to date, is it not all too clear how that hole will be filled?
    I ask for a third time: are the Government refusing to rule out yet further rises in employer national insurance contributions, employee national insurance contributions and the upper earnings limit? Is it not clear that the Leader of the House was right and that further tax rises are exactly what they have in store? After the promises they have made and the promises they have broken, is it any wonder that no one believes a word they say?
    Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape his own record. The British public are committed to and support increases in national insurance to pay for increases in spending in the national health service. It is fair and it is proper. He has confirmed today that he does not agree with that and that his party is not committed to that increased expenditure.

    Employment
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on current employment levels and their effect on the economy.[124646]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Employment in the United Kingdom is this year at its highest level ever. We are also today publishing our recommendations for employment creation in the European Union.
    Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Can he tell me what he is doing about the disparity in employment levels between the regions?
    Mr. Brown: In every region, employment has been rising and unemployment falling. In every region around this country, there are vacancies that there never were even with the high levels of growth achieved in the late 1980s. I say to my hon. Friend that, yes, there are pockets of unemployment in many parts of many regions. That is why we are introducing enterprise areas, which will provide additional resources for job creation in those areas, and why we are also announcing proposals this autumn to improve the new deal. The fact of the matter is that we have employment creation in every part of this country, and it is the policy of this Government to work towards full employment not only for one part of the country, but for all parts of it.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The Chancellor will no doubt be aware of the recent Office for National Statistics figures—the Government's own statistics—showing that, for the 12 months to the end of March, the 9.1 per cent. increase in spending on public services produced only a 2.5 per cent. increase in the real value of services delivered. Is the Chancellor concerned that those ONS figures also reveal that the extra £4.6 billion spending, which included more than 100,000 extra public sector employees, contributed only 0.5 per cent. to GDP growth, when the figures also show that a similar increase in household expenditure would have added 2.2 per cent? How does he propose to tackle the decline in public sector productivity? Does he accept that it is no good creating extra jobs when they do not create appropriate growth in the gross domestic product?
    Mr. Brown: This is a question about employment, and the hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on the employment increase not only over the past six years, but over the past year, in which unemployment has been rising in almost every major industrial country. Our unemployment is now lower than in America, France, Germany and Japan. On his point about the public sector, he said—this is the view that he expressed in his question, and which lies behind it—in The Sunday Times on 10 March:
    "The whole mentality in the public sector is to do as little as you can."
    If that is the motivation behind the Flight review to cut 20 per cent. out of public expenditure, we know exactly where the Conservatives are coming from.
    John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that unemployment in my constituency has halved since 1997, but we still have a problem with people who are caught on benefits. Glasgow is now reaching a skills shortage and we need skilled labour. Does he agree, along with many people in Glasgow, that projects such as Glasgow harbour will

    1361
    create thousands of new jobs, including skilled and unskilled jobs, and that we should be supporting such projects?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is one of those pressing for more job creation in Glasgow. Unemployment has halved in Glasgow since 1997, but there are many areas of Glasgow where unemployment is still too high. That is why the new deal is operational. There is a particular project in Glasgow, which involves working with the private sector, the voluntary sector and the Employment Service to create more jobs, and it has been very successful. There is also a major apprenticeship scheme run by Glasgow city. It has also been very successful and it is one of the most important apprenticeship schemes in the country, bringing people into the building trades and other trades. On Glasgow harbour, I shall pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Pete Wishart: Contrary to the rosy picture given by the Chancellor, we have learned this week that Scottish manufacturing has fallen by some 24 per cent. over the past year. That comes on top of the Government's own figures, which show that we have lost 39,000 jobs in manufacturing in Scotland since 1999. What specifically is he doing to assist Scottish manufacturing? Is he prepared to comment on the 18 different reports in his Department that suggest that early euro entry would help Scottish manufacturing?
    Mr. Brown: We will debate the euro later today, when I hope that we will hear about the position of the Scottish National party.
    As far as manufacturing industry is concerned, the hon. Gentleman will welcome our decisions to introduce a research and development tax credit, to make capital allowances permanent, to introduce an information technology allowance at 100 per cent., and to give funding to all the development agencies, including, via the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise. All those measures help manufacturing most of all.
    The hon. Gentleman will also welcome the skills paper that was published yesterday and all the work that is being done throughout the United Kingdom in creating a modern apprenticeship taskforce. Perhaps he will reflect on the policies of the Scottish National party, which would cut thousands of jobs from the Scottish economy and even cut public spending in Scotland.

    Money Laundering
    Mr. Nigel Beard: If he will make a statement on progress in identifying money laundering through financial services companies reporting suspicious accounts.[124647]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): A range of relevant measures has been implemented by the Government, working with the Financial Services Authority, the police, Customs and Excise and, of course, the financial services industry
    1362
    itself, to strengthen the UK's protection against the money laundering that underpins so much crime and terrorism.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Could he say what impact the threefold increase in suspicious activity reports from the financial services industry since 11 September 2001 has had on the number of prosecutions? Could he further say whether he believes that the strength of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is adequate for the purpose of investigating the current volume of suspicious activity reports?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of the suspicious activity reporting regime to the Government's anti-money-laundering strategy. It is undoubtedly making a contribution to the increase in prosecutions, but also, vitally, to the intelligence gathering that is so important in combating crime and terrorism. The role of NCIS is vital. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last week the establishment of a multi-agency taskforce to ensure that other criminal justice agencies and law enforcement bodies work effectively with NCIS in this area.
    Michael Fabricant: Rather than the Government having secret talks with the Spanish about Gibraltar, is the Minister having talks with Gibraltar and other British territories overseas regarding money laundering in banks there?
    Mr. Boateng: I am glad to give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that to my certain knowledge, as a former Police Minister, Criminal Justice and Treasury Ministers have regular contact not only with the Spanish Government and authorities, but across the EU and beyond. It is that international co-operation that is securing the gains that are being made in combating crime and terrorism, not least in the aftermath of the events of 11 September.
    Mr. John McFall: The Minister may be aware that I have written to more than 30 banks and building societies about this matter. They all responded and outlined several concerns, not least in relation to NCIS and the need to report every single incident; there is a general feeling that that is clogging up the system. Consequently, I hope in the autumn to hold a conference with the industry and the Financial Services Authority. Will the Minister ensure that Treasury and Home Office representatives are there so that we can examine the issue comprehensively and end up with a more efficient system?
    Mr. Boateng: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he does in this field as Chair of the Treasury Committee. He is absolutely right to stress the importance of the role of the banks and other financial services institutions. I would be delighted to ensure that Treasury officials attend the conference, and I shall certainly urge the same course on my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the progress that is being made in identifying money laundering. Does the Minister agree that ordinary citizens who observe in their own communities individuals who are acquiring property and enjoying lavish lifestyles, yet are known not to have won lottery money, should pass on that information to their local police? We must put an end to this from the ground up.
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is right. The public's role is crucial and we have therefore recently joined the industry in an information campaign explaining to the wider public why they are asked to provide proof of identity on a more routine basis. It is vital in the battle against crime and terrorism.
    I pay tribute to the police and Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland. They work with the public in combating crime and terrorism. Gathering intelligence as the hon. Gentleman suggests is vital to that.

    Non-domiciled Tax Status
    Norman Baker: If he will review the treatment of those claiming non-domiciled tax status.[124648]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): In the 2002 Budget, the Chancellor announced a review of the residence and domicile rules as they affected the tax liabilities of individuals. That work is continuing. A background paper was published on Budget day 2003. It provides a framework for further analysis and discussion so that any specific options for reform are based on the widest possible understanding of their effect.
    Norman Baker: I am grateful for that, but we were promised opinions and proposals in the November 2002 pre-Budget report. It is taking a long time to provide them. Does the Paymaster General accept that ordinary, decent, hard-working people in my constituency who pay their taxes in full find it a little rum that a few multimillionaire freeloaders pay next to nothing?
    Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman follows the debate closely and he therefore knows that the rules are broadly unchanged since the early 19th century. In the absence of guidance, they have largely built up through case law. Consequently, the current rules are complex and, as he says, poorly understood. They do not reflect the realities of today's integrated world. In taking forward the review and examining all the questions, including the hon. Gentleman's, it is vital that the outcome is fair, clear, easy to operate and supports the competitiveness of the UK economy, for his constituents as well as mine and those of other hon. Members.

    Value Added Tax
    Bob Russell: What plans he has to reduce value added tax on residential conversion works to existing buildings.[124649]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The Government have already reduced the VAT on most types of residential conversion work to the lowest rate permissible under the European Community VAT rules, but we will continue to keep the VAT treatment of that and other types of construction work under review.
    Bob Russell: I welcome the progress that has been made, but I am sure that the Minister knows of English Heritage's campaign for 5 per cent. VAT throughout the building industry, for new build and established buildings. Why do the Government refuse to follow the advice and recommendation of English Heritage?
    John Healey: I am aware of English Heritage's campaign, about which several hon. Members have contacted me recently. Creating a flat rate of VAT for all building work, for which English Heritage argues, would mean that we would have no option but to give up our zero rates, including on new charity buildings and new housing. I understand the argument that a VAT level playing field for all sorts of construction would encourage the repair of existing properties as opposed to the building of new ones. We will continue to keep those matters under review. We have undertaken to consider English Heritage's representations and several others in the context of a current European Commission review of the reduced rates rules at European level.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Despite our welcome actions, does my hon. Friend believe that we have done enough for areas such as Burnley, which has 4,500 empty houses? We need to do more in the housing pathfinder renewal areas because although we might need to demolish 2,000 houses, the cost of converting two into one and other schemes to save some others is expensive. We need more Government assistance to make the options viable.
    John Healey: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Most conversions of residential properties have been done at a reduced rate of VAT since 2001. That is also true of non-residential buildings, about which my hon. Friend is concerned, and conversion work to increase the number of residential units in existing buildings. The additional support for which he rightly argues in some of our most disadvantaged areas can come from beyond the VAT regime. We are providing for precisely that, especially in the 2,000 most disadvantaged wards in the UK. We are designating them as enterprise areas.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the English Heritage campaign has strong support from the all-party arts and heritage group, which has some 300 members from all

    1365
    parties in both Houses? May I draw his attention in particular to the problems faced by historic churches and by those charged with their repair?
    John Healey: I am aware of the support from the all-party group, and of the hon. Gentleman's support in particular. He has spoken personally to me about this matter, and I know of his work on the all-party group. All that I can say to him is that we are willing to consider proposals for new reduced rates in the context of the current European Commission review. We have received representations on proposals for reduced rates for a wide range of items, from bicycles and compact discs to restaurants and houseboats. We shall consider them all carefully, but they will be considered in the round, and in the context that I have just mentioned.

    Private Medical Insurance
    Siobhain McDonagh: What representations he has received about giving tax relief to private medical insurance payments.[124650]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): We estimate the Exchequer cost of full tax relief for private medical insurance to be about £1 billion— money that would be lost to the national health service.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the way to tackle waiting lists for hip and knee replacements in Mitcham and Morden is not through expensive subsidy of the private sector but by developing cutting-edge projects such as the south-west London treatment and diagnostic centre, which will open in December and, we hope, reduce waiting lists to six months?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I know that she does a great deal in fighting for more resources for the health service in her area. It is true that, if we were to expand capacity in the private sector using policies that have been put to us, operations would cost twice as much as in the public sector. If we were to give expensive tax relief to private medical insurance, and to subsidise vouchers for private medical care, the overall cost could be in the order of £2 billion, but pensioners would still have to pay £5,000 for a hip joint operation. We consider that unfair.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The Public Accounts Committee recently undertook detailed discussions with the Cour des Comptes in Paris on the back of a study published by the National Audit Office on international health comparisons, which showed that health care in France and Germany is far more comprehensive and effective than ours. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore adopt a third way by rejecting the ideological solutions that suggest that either a central, state-run system or an entirely privatised system is best, and follow the French and Germans in promoting new ways to encourage ordinary people to devote a greater proportion of their income to their health care?
    Mr. Brown: What the hon. Gentleman, who is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, forgets is
    1366
    that the French spend substantially more on health care as a whole. Even in the public sector, they spend more than is spent in the United Kingdom. It therefore seems strange that he is also putting forward the proposal that he will not support additional national health service spending here. So far as private medical insurance is concerned—[Interruption.]There seems to be a division within the Conservative party: some people will not support additional health spending, but some are now suggesting that some of their Back Benchers do support it. The shadow Chancellor said clearly today that he did not support additional health service expenditure—
    Mr. Michael Howard: indicated dissent.
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor said that very clearly today, and it will be in the Hansard record tomorrow. So far as private medical insurance and the French model of social insurance are concerned, the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) also forgets that all the private medical insurance policies on offer in Britain at a rate that people might even consider exclude treatment for conditions or symptoms arising from physiological or natural causes, critical care, routine health checks, out-patient consultations and physiotherapy. In other words, people are paying substantial amounts of money for policies but not getting complete cover.

    Trade Liberalisation
    Syd Rapson: What discussions he has had on progress with world trade liberalisation.[124651]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): At the International Monetary Fund, I chaired a discussion of the trade negotiations by the governors of the IMF and central banks and the head of the World Trade Organisation. That was in the run-up to what we hope will be the successful outcome of the trade negotiations in Cancun in Mexico.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Chancellor for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating the Trade Justice Movement and Christian Aid on organising last weekend's campaigns—involving many Members of Parliament—to raise liberalisation issues across the country? The question being asked in Portsmouth, in support of the Government's move, was whether the Government would maintain the momentum to enable the poorer countries to be free to choose the way in which they obtain sustainable development and poverty reduction in their own countries.
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. A successful outcome for the world trade negotiations could lift 300 million people out of poverty. That is why I applaud the work done last weekend in presenting the case of the Trade Justice Movement to Members of Parliament in all political parties, and why I hope that the trade discussions that will take place in Cancun will gain extra momentum.

    1367
    There are a number of areas in which progress must be made. The first is agriculture, but that has been helped by what happened in the European Union last week, and I hope that the talks can now move to a successful conclusion. The second is pharmaceuticals. As my hon. Friend knows, there is considerable worry about a failure to reach an agreement allowing drugs, particularly generic drugs, to go to the poorest countries. I hope that those who have not been able to sign up to that agreement will now do so.
    As for access to the developing countries generally, I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Government's record in ensuring that the developing countries' voice is heard in the trade negotiations is something of which we should be proud, but also something that we should continue and extend.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that agriculture subsidies of up to $1 billion a day are gravely damaging to some of the poorest people in the world, and that the poor countries have vastly fewer resources to enable them to make their case in international trade negotiations than their richer counterparts, will the Chancellor endorse the Conservative proposal to establish an advocacy fund, paid for by the richest countries in the world, to allow the poorest countries in the world to choose the best possible legal representation to protect their interests and ensure that they will enjoy the level playing field that they have not enjoyed in the past?
    Mr. Brown: I will of course look at any proposal that is presented, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that the United Kingdom Government have been helping the developing countries through the IMF and the World Bank and in the WTO talks, and will continue to do so.
    The decoupling that took place in last week's European Union agriculture talks is of some help, but we shall have to move the talks forward with other initiatives in other areas over the next few months. If legal assistance is needed we shall be willing to consider it, as we have done in regard to debt relief and at the International Monetary Fund. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, in involving the developing countries, we all share the same aims.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although further trade liberalisation is essential, there may be a case for offering protection to emerging markets in the least developed countries? That is one of the points made to me by members of the Trade Justice Movement when they visited my advice surgery. How will the issue be dealt with in the Cancun talks?
    Mr. Brown: I agree that that is a point of contention between the WTO and others who are presenting proposals, including many non-governmental organisations that subscribe to the Trade Justice Movement. I believe that there is a way forward, however. The sequencing of capital liberalisation and trade liberalisation will enable us to bridge the gap between the position taken by some NGOs and that taken by some of the Governments who have not yet reached agreement in the WTO. I think that the answer
    1368
    for some of the poorest countries is to work within the WTO to bring about a sequencing of their liberalisation. If they do so they will not lose out, and at the same time will gain the benefit of trade in the world market.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Chancellor has the details of the Conservatives' pledge to establish an advocacy fund to help secure a fair deal on trade for the people of the developing countries, consisting of contributions from the world's rich nations. Those details were in a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor that the Chancellor received 10 days ago. The fund would allow developing countries access—according to their own choice—to the highest-quality economic advice and advocacy on trade issues and WTO round negotiations, and support in the settling of trade disputes.
    As the Chancellor knows from that letter—and the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was not unhelpful—this is designed to be a long-term, sustainable fund, despite being misrepresented as short-term by the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who declined to correct his error. Our advocacy fund will go far beyond what is currently available from the Geneva advice centre.
    On the bipartisan basis on which the Chancellor always seeks—and indeed receives—our support for initiatives to help developing countries, will he now respond to the proposals set out in my right hon. and learned Friend's letter, and support our advocacy fund initiative?
    Mr. Brown: Of course, as I said earlier, we will look at every proposal that is put forward. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting economic advocacy but the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was suggesting legal advocacy. We will examine this issue in detail, but I will not be prepared to have international development funds being paid out in big fat fees to lawyers over the next few years. What I will do is to look at how we can help the poorest countries in all the areas in which they are negotiating—that includes the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO—and on which we have already made progress in terms of debt relief. We are prepared to look at such proposals, but there will be no huge payments in fat fees for lawyers.

    Biofuels
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make further changes to duty rates to facilitate the development of biodiesel fuel.[124653]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): Biodiesel already benefits from a duty incentive of 20p per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel. As my hon. Friend is aware, duty rates are kept under review as part of the Budget process.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that nearly all the biodiesel produced in this country is made from used cooking oil and tallow, but that it could be produced in large quantities from rapeseed if it were economic to do so? The industry estimates that a further duty reduction of some 8p to 10p

    1369
    a litre is necessary for the economics to be right. Will he look again at the figures with the industry? Would not the reward be not only a new, environmentally sustainable fuel from a new type of oil field in places such as East Anglia, but new jobs in a new biodiesel production industry and a new market for farmers, who definitely need new markets?
    John Healey: I welcome the points that my hon. Friend makes; he is the very effective Chairman of the all-party group on the offshore oil and gas industry, so he has not only a constituency interest but industry expertise. I have looked at those arguments very carefully, met industry representatives and gone through their figures and arguments. Our principal consideration in assessing appropriate rates of fuel duty to support cleaner fuels is the environmental benefits that they can bring. We have looked at the figures from the sources that he cites and from others, at the environmental benefits and at the cost of production. However, as yet, we are not convinced that a bigger duty incentive for biodiesel is justified.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a further reduction in biodiesel rates may come too late for the ARBRE project that took willow coppice from the Vale of York to be treated at its plant near Selby, and which regrettably has gone into receivership? What discussions has he had with his counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the benefits not just of lowering duty on biodiesel production, but of the helpful grants that DEFRA gives?
    John Healey: I am aware of the ARBRE project, as the hon. Lady would expect—it was undertaken in the region in which we both represent constituencies—and I was sad to see its collapse and closure. What she is really directing my attention to is the greater environmental gains that may be achieved from biofuels when they are made from woody, ligno-cellulosic feedstocks. We are in close discussion with DEFRA because we want to consider effective ways in which we can support the development of these new technologies. They are currently in the pre-production stages, but they offer much more potential for the future.

    Equity Release Schemes
    Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement on the regulation of equity release schemes.[124654]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): All mortgage-based equity release schemes will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority with effect from 31 October 2004. I announced on 5 June
    1370
    that an open consultation would take place in the autumn on whether home reversion plans should also be regulated by the FSA.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given that these schemes are so important for pensioners—many of them are asset-rich but cash-poor—is the Treasury prepared to look at some options to provide further support or relief for equity release schemes where essential building repairs are required?
    Mr. Boateng: I shall treat that—as, no doubt, will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—as an early Budget submission and it will be given careful consideration, as all such submissions are. On the wider point of consumer protection of the elderly, lessons have been learned from the failures of the '80s in relation to home income plans. In the light of the consultation on home reversion plans, I commend the work done by Age Concern with responsible members of the industry in setting up a code of practice under the safe home income plan scheme. That gives my hon. Friend's constituents and many others the sense of security and certainty to which they are entitled in their old age.

    Working Tax Credit
    Miss Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on the introduction of the working tax credit.[124655]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The working and child tax credits were introduced in April and will provide an extra £2.7 billion support for families with children and low-income working households. The working tax credit continues to provide in-work support for families with children and disabled workers, and extends support to low-income working households without dependent children or a disability.
    Miss Begg: When the working families tax credit was introduced, one of my constituents was concerned that it did nothing for single people, particularly those on low wages. It remained a possibility, as in his case, that some one could be worse off in work than on benefit. That changed with the introduction of the working tax credit. My fear is that all the emphasis has been on support for children, while there has not been enough publicity for the benefits for single people. The working tax credit could make a huge difference to their lives. Will my right hon. Friend do more to publicise the difference that the working tax credit can make to single people in work?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is correct that single people aged 25 or over are entitled to receive the working tax credit, as are couples without children. The publicity focused both on the child tax credit and on the working tax credit, but I agree that in the next phase of publicity it will be important to highlight the benefits of the working tax credit to single working people, and I would be happy to involve her in the consultation as we develop the strategies.

Business of the House
12.32 pm
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JULY—Commons consideration of Lords amendments to the Communications Bill.
TUESDAY 15 JuLY-Second Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 16 JULY—Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 17 JULY—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment followed, if necessary, by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
The House will not adjourn until Royal Assent has been received to any Act.
The provisional business for Monday 8 September will be:
MONDAY 8 SEPTEMBER—Second Reading of the Water Bill [Lords].
I should like to remind the House that we will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 17 July and return for the September sitting on Monday 8 September.
The House will rise again for the conference recess on Thursday 18 September and return for the spillover on Tuesday 14 October.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the remainder of the summer will be:
THURSDAY 17 JULY—A cross-cutting question session on domestic violence. Followed by a debate on financing development.
THURSDAY 11 SEPTEMBER—A debate On the United Nations.
THURSDAY 18 SEPTEMBER—A debate On the report from the Education and Skills Committee on the future of higher education.
Mr. Cameron: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, but does he agree that, with just a week before the start of the recess, there are some important issues that remain to be discussed? First, when can we expect the Green Paper on children at risk to be published? It is referred to in early-day motion 1548,
[That this House is concerned that the inability of the honourable Member for Barking to carry out the duties of Minister for Children is impeding the Government's progress in presenting to the House the Green Paper on Children at Risk, as a result of which local councils are unable to implement changes which would improve the coordination of organisations and agencies involved in delivering children's services and improve accountability arrangements in response to Lord Laming's Report on the Enquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié and calls upon the Government to publish the Green Paper forthwith.]
1372
The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that it would be published before the recess, so where is it? The rumour is that the delay is due either to the Minister for Children feeling besieged or to the Prime Minister's desire to be present for the launch. Does the Leader of the House agree that neither reason is an acceptable excuse to delay such an important document?
Will there be a further statement before the end of next week on the security and humanitarian position in Iraq? This morning, the BBC reported Whitehall sources—that is sources plural, on this occasion—saying that Downing street now accepts that weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq. That underlines the need for a statement to the whole House.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to clear up once and for all the controversy about the dodgy dossiers, which surfaced yet again at Prime Minister's questions. The Prime Minister claimed that the material in the February dossier—the dodgy one—
"was shared with the Leader of the Opposition at briefings"—[Official Report, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 1151.]
by the security services. However, my right hon. Friend met the security services once in September, long before the second dossier was even considered. His only other meeting was on 12 February, which was nine whole days after the dodgy dossier was published. When will the Prime Minister come to the House and explain himself? The Ministerial code is clear about this. Page 1—or, in new Labour terms, page 1, clause 1, line 1—of the code states that any error, inadvertent or not, must be corrected "at the earliest opportunity."
May we have an urgent debate on the role of the parliamentary ombudsman? There is an article in The Guardian this morning—I have to declare an interest, as I write a column for the Guardian website—[Interruption.] I cannot repeat that comment from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I like to think of my column as a beacon of right thinking in a sea of muddle-headedness. The parliamentary ombudsman, Ann Abraham, writes in her annual report:
"I cannot be expected to carry out my responsibilities properly with one hand tied behind my back."
One problem concerns getting information out of Ministers about gifts. It has apparently taken 16 months to get a response from the Government. The former Lord Chancellor thought that there was no problem. As the report says:
"He did not believe that disclosing the information would do any harm."
In response to attempts to get information on potential conflicts of interest for Ministers, the new Lord Chancellor issued a notice saying that disclosure would
"be prejudicial to the safety of the state."
That is a huge difference in opinion. It just goes to show that one's old flatmate is more reliable than one's old boss. The parliamentary ombudsman plays a vital role. These are matters of great importance, and they should be debated in the House.
In the context of the Modernisation Committee, will the Leader of the House look again at the completely unacceptable way in which programme motions are used to limit effective scrutiny of Bills? In consideration of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, 60 clauses were not even considered in

1373
Committee. Will the Leader of the House publish, and place in the Library, a list of clauses and schedules for all Bills that are not debated either in Committee or on Report? That list might well turn out to be a roll of shame, but people should know if this place is not allowed to do its job properly.
The Leader of the House will be aware that at the end of a parliamentary term there has been a tendency to sneak out—to use the words of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House—awkward and embarrassing written statements, answers, confessions, corrections and suchlike. In internet terms, it is like last minute.con. Can we have a guarantee that that will not happen on this occasion?
Now that the Convention on the Future of Europe is over, the Leader of the House has given up one of his three jobs, so I hope that he will and time to launch his great debate—I think that the words he used were "open and honest debate"—on taxation. We are all looking forward to that. After 60 tax increases and a national insurance rise that broke an election promise, people have a right to know what they are in for next. When is he going to tell us?
Mr. Hain: I welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to the Dispatch Box. I said last week that he was widely liked, but I did not realise that my influence extended so far into the reaches of the Tory party that he would be instantly promoted. However, I would like to know why the shadow Leader of the House, who has only one job, cannot be bothered to turn up today. I understand that he is being wined and dined by journalists in the Press Gallery. The menu is Parma ham and figs, steamed halibut and vegetables, followed by assorted deserts—I mean desserts—although the vacancy he leaves is like a desert. He is being wined and dined instead of attending to the only duty that he has in the House all week.
The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, the first of which was about the children at risk Green Paper. We are the only Government ever to bring children's policy as it affects all Departments under one Minister. He should welcome that innovative, new and ground-breaking approach to government in respect of children's rights and protection. [Interruption.]As for the Green Paper, we will publish our strategy not when the hon. Gentleman demands it from a sedentary position but when we are ready. We will not publish according to a timetable set by the Opposition. The Tory party has never had a strategy for children.
Since the commitment was made, we have created a new opportunity to develop policy across Departments, under the control of one Minister for Children. The report will be published in due course, as soon as we are ready to do so. When it is published we will be able to show that it is being followed through in the context of a wider strategy of protecting children and advancing their rights. I have no doubt that the inquiry report, which has been published already, will be followed by local authorities. They will already be considering how to implement the recommendations, and that is the key point.
1374
As I have explained, the report must be set in the context of a sensible, coherent children's policy that protects their rights and advances their opportunities. That is the important point. As I said, the Tory party never had a policy on children at all.
The hon. Gentleman asked when there might be a statement on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. As he knows, there was such a statement last week. If the situation changes, the Government will stand ready to make a new statement. We heard the familiar gramophone record from the Tory party about weapons of mass destruction, dodgy dossiers and so on. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained very clearly, we are confident that the evidence for the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Iraq is larger than France, and the evidence could be hidden in any nook or cranny, or any shed, anywhere in Iraq. It will be found.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the BBC. It is very important that the BBC stops being a player in the story and starts to become a spectator. Its job is to report fairly and accurately, and not to create the news or set the agenda. The BBC should stop spinning. It should listen to its own political editor, who rightly said last night:
"A very senior source I have spoken to on this was absolutely sure, when British troops went into action in Iraq, they would face chemical and possible biological weapons."
I think that Andrew Marr was right, and that the BBC should reflect that.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the ombudsman's report. We are the first Government to publish the gifts list for Ministers, which we did on 14 March. The list goes back to June 2001. The Cabinet Office apologised for the delay in publication, but we are the only Government ever to have published the list. We are open and accountable in such matters, and will continue to be so.
On the issue of disclosure in respect of conflicts of interest, what is being demanded is that we disclose contacts, correspondence and any communications between Ministers and their permanent secretaries. Permanent secretaries are responsible for upholding the ministerial code, and every Minister has to ensure that that is done. The Government have nothing to apologise for on the matter, and indeed we have every reason to say that we are out in the open and fully accountable in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman repeated another familiar refrain on programme motions and scrutiny. I shall certainly consider his request to publish a list of clauses and schedules that have not been debated, although as he will know, that is a matter of public record anyway. I do not think that it would be a problem to put it all together in the Library, but I shall get back to him on that.
On sneaking out last-minute statements, there is always a balance between keeping the House in formed—as Leader of the House I am anxious that the Government should do that—and overloading the House with business. [Laughter.]Hon. Members may laugh, but those on the Conservative Benches complain that too many statements are made and do not want them to be made on their Opposition days. They cannot have it both ways—they cannot have Ministers making

1375
statements at the Dispatch Box and keeping the House fully informed, if they are not prepared to accept that on Opposition days. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
Finally, on taxation, the Conservative party put unfair taxes on the British people year after year, hitting the lowest-paid and affecting everyone in all income brackets. As a Government, we have introduced fair taxes that assist those at the bottom of the pile, are fair to those in the middle, and are seen overall as fair and just.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I remind the Leader of the House that yesterday was the final day for the Government to produce their response to the report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. When will he or his colleagues produce that response, or is it yet again a case of a timetable that has been set by someone else and is to be disregarded?
When will the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill return to the House? Having been through the Standing Committee, it seems to have become becalmed. We see no sign of its returning to the House for Report and Third Reading.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that there is to be a debate in Westminster Hall on the United Nations on the symbolic date of Thursday 11 September. I remind him that since the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, the House has had a large number of statements from Ministers but we have not had the opportunity to debate the outcome or the future prospects of that country. Will he arrange for a debate on our return to the House? By then it will be urgently needed, given that so far practically none of the objectives of the military action have been achieved. Saddam Hussein has not been found and nor have the weapons of mass destruction, there is no peace or security, there is a shortage of humanitarian and medical aid, there is no oil and there are no plans for reconstruction. The House needs an opportunity to debate those matters.
Finally, I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to listen to the siren voices in the House who are complaining about the siren voices outside in Parliament square. I remind him that in times past he thought that direct action outside Parliament was useful and appropriate, and it still is.
Mr. Hain: On House of Lords reform, it is my understanding that the Government will respond to the second report of the Joint Committee before the House rises for the summer recess.
The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill has completed all its stages in the Lords and is awaiting introduction in this House. I hope that we can proceed with that when the business slot arrives.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the debate on the United Nations is timely and important, and I hope that the whole House will have the opportunity to commend the UN for its international role and will seek to strengthen it, as indeed we as a Government have a proud record of doing. He pointed out the obvious fact that Saddam Hussein has not been found—obviously, he had prepared his exit strategy carefully, no doubt taking much Iraqi money with him. We intend to find
1376
him. When we do, that will encourage greater stability. However, the picture that the hon. Gentleman painted was almost as though the Iraqis would have been better off if we had not liberated Iraq. That is unacceptable. If one talks to any Iraqi who was not a Saddam supporter or one of his henchmen, or henchpersons, one finds that they are pleased that he has gone, and we ought to take credit for having achieved that.
As for protest outside the House, there is a long and honourable record of protest in Britain. I have taken part in it, as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to remind me, and we should always uphold it.
Mr. Alan Meale: The Leader of the House is aware that all local authorities in England and Wales have to be compliant with the terms and conditions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by October 2004, but is he aware that, over the past three or four years, 5,000 of the 10,000 public toilets in England and Wales have been closed? Will he get in touch with his colleagues in the appropriate Department to urge them to hold an emergency debate on this serious matter, before all public toilets are closed?
Mr. Hain: I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend raises that issue, which is of concern to all constituency Members, and I shall certainly draw his point to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister. I commend my hon. Friend for continuing to raise such issues; access to toilets for people with disabilities is extremely important.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House would expect me to support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for a review of programming, at an early date, by the Modernisation Committee, of which I believe the Leader of the House will assume the chairmanship next week, and I wish him well with that. Will he give an assurance that that review will be a priority?
My real question relates to Zimbabwe. It is and has been a disaster, and it is developing into a catastrophe: a country will virtually disappear because of starvation and all the horrors of a totalitarian regime. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement—I know that a debate will be impossible before the House rises—on the current situation in Zimbabwe and on what the Government would hope to do, with other countries in southern Africa, to bring about the removal of Mr. Robert Mugabe?
Mr. Hain: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about Zimbabwe. As he knows, we have stood shoulder to shoulder in exposing and attacking the brutal tyranny that exists under Robert Mugabe. There will be an opportunity to discuss that in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, and I hope that, if he is not in the Chair, he and colleagues will at least go along to make their voices heard. It is vital that we stand by the people of Zimbabwe and assist them in ensuring that a change is made to get rid of the tyranny to which they have been subjected.
The hon. Gentleman has raised with me the review of programming both on the Floor of the House and as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I shall be happy

1377
to listen to his and others' views on the matter. It is an agenda item for the Modernisation Committee, and I am content that that is the case.
Mrs. Janet Dean: Has my right hon. Friend seen the sensational headlines in today's Daily Express? Obviously, the control of sex offenders is important, so can he ensure that we have time to debate the issue before the summer recess?
Mr. Hain: A balance needs to be struck between gross sensationalism and ensuring that the problem is dealt with firmly. We are all aware of the need to target the problem of sex offenders and clamp down on it. The Government and the police are working together to ensure that that is done. Through the legislation and other measures that we have introduced, the problem is being targeted more systematically than ever before, but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary.
David Davis: The Leader of the House knows that thousands of my constituents depend for their livelihood on the BAE Systems factory at Brough that makes Hawk aircraft. The factory depends on a Government contract for those aircraft, on which it was promised a decision last month. That decision was not forthcoming and the factory sought an extension. The extension passed last week. There is fear in my constituency that this unpopular decision, which, at the stroke of a pen, will alter the future for all my constituents, is being put off into the recess. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking either that we shall have that decision before the recess or that a Minister will come to the Dispatch Box to explain why the Government are not competent enough to deliver on a promise that they made last year?
Mr. Hain: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is, quite properly, making on behalf of his constituents. As he knows, we have a good record of support for the aerospace industry, especially on defence contracts. I realise that the contract is extremely important for the BAE factory in his constituency, and I shall certainly get in touch with the Secretary of State for Defence as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Colin Challen: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1488.
[That this House congratulates Liverpool, and all the contenders for the title of European City of Culture 2008, on their efforts to make the UK a rich and diverse place to live; notes that many British cities could with justice have claimed the title, but that there are other strengths in cities which should be recognised and encouraged amongst which, most importantly, would be the ability to create strong local economies; calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to lobby the European Union for the creation of the title European City of Enterprise to be awarded annually, starting with a British city in 2004; and further notes that if this award were to be made, one of the strongest contenders and probably winner of the first award would be the city of Leeds, which on every measure
1378
has demonstrated a determined and successful strategy to reduce unemployment, create new businesses and develop thriving private and public sectors which has resulted in long-term economic stability for its inhabitants, whilst recognising that there is always more to doi.]?
We hold many debates about the rural economy and the role of London and capital cities. Should not more attention be paid to the role that regional cities play in the country's economy?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has identified an important point. I was a strong backer of Cardiff's bid to be the European city of culture, because it is a fine and enterprising city, as are Leeds and other cities in the rest of Britain. We should like to pursue the idea of an annual award to a European city, and if he makes further representations, I am sure that they will be listened to.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Leader of the House arrange, at the earliest opportunity, for a debate on the report that the Home Secretary intends to introduce compulsory identity cards and on the implications of that in terms of both cost and the freedom and liberty that we have enjoyed for so long in this country?
Mr. Hain: There is, of course, a debate on entitlement cards in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, and Home Office questions will be held next week, so the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise those matters.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Has the Leader of the House seen the statement made by Mr. Joseph Wilson, a former United States ambassador, who investigated for President Bush the claim that Saddam Hussein was buying uranium in Africa? In February, Mr. Wilson informed the CIA that the documents pertaining to that were forged. In view of the fact that President Bush has acknowledged that he should not have used that information in his State of the Union address, may we have a statement from the Prime Minister to explain why he continues to insist that the evidence justifies the claim?
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about that matter; she has followed such questions closely. However, the Prime Minister has made more statements on the matter than most people have had hot breakfasts—[Interruption.]—or hot dinners, or hot lunches upstairs with the press. Those matters were dealt with in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee and they will continue to be dealt with, as the Prime Minister has done.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about the Government Green Paper that will eventually respond to the findings of the Victoria Climbié inquiry, the Leader of the House said that the Government would not follow a timetable set by the Opposition. Of course, that is his prerogative, but may I draw his attention to a letter to me from his predecessor, saying that the Government would publish their response before the summer recess? That, in the

1379
middle of May, was the Government's timetable for publication of the Green Paper, yet now it is not. What has changed, apart from the Government's excuse?
Mr. Hain: I would have thought that the right hon. Lady would have understood the point that I made earlier. What has changed considerably between May and a few weeks ago is that we now have a new Minister for Children and we are able to set that important report and the action that we are taking to deal with it in the context of a wider strategy on children's issues. I would have thought that she would welcome that. I would have thought that she would say that reports on children who have been subject to abuse and the action that needs to be taken ought to be set in the context of action on children's policy right across the board. No Government have had such a comprehensive policy on children's rights and the protection of children as we have the opportunity of developing. That is a commonsense approach, and the right hon. Lady should pause and wait a few weeks, and then I think that she, and every child in Britain, will be pleased with the outcome, even if Tory Back Benchers are playing games and making mischief about the timing of the matter.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I associate myself entirely with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis). To follow on from it, two weeks ago at business questions I asked my right hon. Friend to arrange for a statement on the intentions of the Ministry of Defence on buying British Hawk jets. He agreed that it was important that the interests involved were secure. I listened carefully to his reply to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, and urge him not only to speak to Ministers, as he agreed to do, but also to ensure that there is a pre-recess statement. Surely it would be improper and wrong for such an important announcement to be made when the House is in recess.
Mr. Hain: I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes on behalf of his constituents, and I am well seized of the issue's urgency. It is important the Government get the decision right, rather than rushing it out, although any undue delay would obviously cause anxiety. As I have said, I will certainly speak to the Secretary of State for Defence as quickly as I can, and I am sure that he will understand the urgency as well.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: I urge the Leader of the House to find time for an early debate in the House on early-day motion 1391, on establishing an older people's rights commissioner.
[That this House believes that the human rights of older people in the United Kingdom are too often overlooked or undervalued; condemns the neglect and financial abuse of vulnerable elderly people revealed by the BBC Television series 'Britain's Secret Shame'; recognises that the majority of such cases result from a lack of understanding rather than deliberate cruelty; welcomes the Help the Aged campaign to tackle such mistreatment of older people; notes the introduction on 17th June of a bill under the 10 minute rule by the honourable Member for North West Leicestershire to establish an Older Person's Rights Commissioner to promote and protect the human rights of older people; urges honourable and Right honourable
1380
Members to endorse this proposal; notes that domestic and European anti-discrimination legislation for goods and services does not make specific provision relating to age; and calls on the Government to correct that position as a matter of urgency as part of a comprehensive effort to end the injustices endured by older people on a regular basis.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is still a lot of injustice and discrimination against people on the grounds of age, and that it is therefore important that the House consider this matter, establish such an office and end discrimination against older people, not only in employment, but in the provision of goods and services?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's interesting idea to the attention of the relevant Secretary of State. I am sure that he will know, however, that the Government have a very good record, especially in recent times, of ensuring that age discrimination is elevated right to the top of the agenda, along with other forms of discrimination. Successive Governments have not done that in previous years. That is a good policy, and his proposal certainly deserves scrutiny.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on prescribing anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis sufferers? Clinicians in Sheffield tell me that about 140 people could benefit from using those drugs, but that fewer than half of those people will be receiving them by the end of this year. The Government have done a great deal to stop postcode prescribing in the national health service. We do not want it to come in by the back door. All those people who do not get those drugs will suffer further irreversible damage to their health. I hope that we can have a debate on that very important issue.
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very important issue, and I commend him for his interest and work on the issue, as will lots of our citizens, far too many of whom suffer from that problem. The Adjournment debate on Thursday—the last business of the House before we go into the summer recess—provides an opportunity for those issues to be raised; but in the meantime, I shall draw his concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Michael Jack: In supporting the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will also consider—perhaps when the House returns in September—holding an urgent debate on defence procurement and its effect on the aerospace industry in the north-west? There is considerable uncertainty about tranche 2 of the Eurofighter, Typhoon, about the future of the Nimrod MR4A aircraft and, indeed, about the implications of the Hawk order, to which right hon. and hon. Members have already referred. Some 40,000 jobs are dependent on the aerospace industry in the north-west, and a debate on that matter would now be timely.
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken to me about those matters in the past, and I understand his important constituency interest, which is shared by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden

1381
(David Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). We would all share their concerns if we were in the same position. Even if I have received no other message in the past half hour or so, they have made it clear that that is something of very great concern, and I shall ensure that their views are transmitted to the appropriate quarters.
Ann Clwyd: Survival rates for breast cancer are improving. Nevertheless, more than 11,000 women died from breast cancer in 2002. There is evidence of regional disparities and age discrimination. May we please have an early debate on breast cancer services?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's request because that is an absolutely crucial issue, and she has a very long record of promoting good policy on such issues. Indeed, as she implies, 98.3 per cent. of patients with suspected breast cancer, referred urgently by their GPs, are now seen by specialists within two weeks, and 96.3 per cent. of patients diagnosed with breast cancer now receive treatment within a month. That is a massive improvement and a tribute to the Government's policies, but we must never be complacent on this issue.
Andrew Selous: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement before the summer recess on this country's ability to control its own borders—something that was promised in the Labour party manifesto, although recent parliamentary answers have revealed that it will not be guaranteed in future?
Mr. Hain: No; I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets that idea. As far as we are concerned—whether in negotiations on the future of Europe, or in other respects—we are absolutely committed to secure borders and to retaining control over our own borders. Yes, there is a problem with illegal human trafficking; it is a worldwide problem, affecting Europe in particular, and we are suffering from it especially, but we are taking action. The issue is coming increasingly under control, and we will continue to bear down on it to ensure that our borders are indeed secure.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for the time that he has provided for debates on Europe, but I wonder whether he might find time to debate the resolution of a specific European conundrum: the statement by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that, if there were a vote against the proposed European constitution, the state would have to
"allow the others to go ahead, having negotiated an associate membership of some kind",
and the statement made by right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) in Prague today that a vote against the proposed new EU constitution would not be a vote in any way to withdraw from Europe.
Mr. Hain: There is a contradiction, and I will certainly consider the opportunities for arranging such a debate.
1382
Of course my hon. Friend, along with other colleagues, can press for an Adjournment debate or another debate on that matter, but it is very significant that the Leader of the Opposition is still a signed-up member of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe, which advocates withdrawal. Indeed, he is also been a supporter of the Bruges group, which said only a few months ago:
"It would have been better if we had never joined"
Europe.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The Leader of the House will be aware that, a fortnight ago during business questions, I asked him whether he could provide an urgent debate on Iraq, having earlier called for an independent inquiry. Given that Whitehall sources are now saying that weapons of mass destruction may never be found, will he provide time for a statement, since some of us are increasingly concerned that we may have been misled into voting for war without good cause and that, whether or not that is so, the Government owe us an explanation on WM D?
Mr. Hain: I realise that that is a convenient parliamentary tactic by the Conservatives, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee only a few days ago to answer in detail and to make himself accountable on the specifics of those matters. That is old ground, which has been crawled over ad nauseam. The truth remains that we are confident, as the Prime Minister said, that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the intelligence services did not provide accurate evidence? Is he attacking the intelligence services? If so, he should come out and say so.
Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the High Hedges (No.2) Bill was recently talked out. The Government are aware of that Bill's importance to alleviating the misery caused to thousands of people throughout the country by high hedges. Indeed, some of my constituents, who are members of Hedgeline, were very pleased to receive a ministerial statement with a commitment that the Government will make every effort to get that Bill on to the statute book. Will my right hon. Friend discuss how that can be achieved with colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? After all, it is a very simple Bill; apart from the odd loquacious Member, it has all-party support; and it should not take up too much time with Government support.
Mr. Hain: I very much agree with all the points that my hon. Friend makes. It was scandalous that the Conservatives talked out that Bill—the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was specifically responsible for doing so—and I will certainly consider any opportunity to resurrect it, because all Labour Members recognise that that is an important issue to address.
Sir George Young: The recess, which the Leader of the House has confirmed for next week, will come as an enormous relief to Labour Members—while Conservative Members will, of

1383
course, be happy to sit into August if necessary. Will he spend the recess taking a knife to next year's legislative programme? Does he agree that what has happened in the past fortnight has been wholly unacceptable, with large chunks of Government Bills simply not debated? Will he give an undertaking that there will be no repetition of that fiasco next year?
Mr. Hain: I saw the glum faces around the right hon. Gentleman when he was proposing to chop his colleagues' holidays. There would be cancelled holidays galore on the Conservative Benches. I must disappoint him, however, as there is no prospect of that happening. He will understand that the original legislative programme, which I agree has become overcrowded, became so because of Iraq in particular—and, rightly, the enormous pressure on parliamentary business from debating those matters fully—and Northern Ireland legislation. I am confident that we will get a legislative programme that is better able to be taken through the House in the normal timetable. We cannot plan for the unexpected, however, which is what happened in the past year. We are attempting to provide for the unexpected in the next year's legislative programme.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Would my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on schools funding? Today, there are calls from schools across Essex for the resignation of the Tory cabinet member responsible on Essex county council, because the council is still sitting on £21 million that could be allocated to schools in my area. If we had a debate, we could find out how much more money is being held by authorities around the country that should now be directed to local schools.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend raises an important charge against Essex county council, and I am sure that the public of Essex will want to know what the situation is and what the Conservative council is doing about it. He will also understand, however, that spending per pupil is up by £800 a year in real terms since 1997, with huge numbers of extra teachers and classroom assistants being recruited. That is against a background, of course, in which one in five teachers would be sacked as a result of the Tory policy of 20 per cent. cuts across the board.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has already drawn the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1548, on the Green Paper on children at risk. It seems that the Government have changed not only the timetable for the publication of this important Green Paper, but the excuse for the delay in publication. Last week, the excuse given was that the Prime Minister understandably, wants to be present at the launch of the Green Paper, and that he does not have time to do so until September. This week, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the Leader of the House said that the reason for the delay is that there will be further policies in the Green Paper. This matter is too important to be played about with in this manner. We are not making mischief. I am genuinely concerned about the children who are at risk and who are not getting the attention that they deserve from local authorities, as local authorities are
1384
having to wait so long for this Green Paper. They cannot take action until they have it. Can we have a debate next week on children at risk? It is an urgent matter.
Mr. Hain: The report has been out for some time now. Every responsible director of social services and responsible local authority has already had a copy, is acting on it and is taking forward its recommendations.
Mrs. Laing indicated dissent.
Mr. Hain: Perhaps there is a Conservative county council somewhere in the country that is not doing that, in which case we should be told—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) has asked a question, and the Leader of the House should be able to answer.
Mr. Hain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point of the hon. Lady's and her right hon. and hon. Friends' fabricated frenzy is to attack the new Minister for Children instead of recognising that there are sensible reasons, including the Prime Minister putting his personal stamp on a radical new policy to advance children's rights and to protect children in a way that has not been done before. As someone who seeks to aspire to that job, she ought to welcome that.
Kevin Brennan: Can we have a debate on Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a deadly disease that affects families from every constituency in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week a group of parents came to Westminster and lobbied outside the Department of Health but sadly no one was available to see them? Will he undertake to raise this matter with his ministerial colleagues and if possible arrange for a debate to build on the welcome proposals contained in the Government's White Paper on genetics?
Mr. Hain: I am well aware that my hon. Friend has shown great energy and diligence in pursuing the problem of muscular dystrophy, and it was unfortunate that that particular protest was not recognised. I hope that the relevant Department will ensure that representations on behalf of those people are fully taken into account, and I am sure that he will follow that up. In terms of House business, he has the opportunity to apply for a debate, and, with any luck, it will be heard.
Richard Younger-Ross: In answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), I hope that time will be found for the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill and that it will not be kicked into the long grass.
Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to see early-day motion 1566, on the centenary of the young Liberal movement, of which he was at one time a leader?
[That this House notes that Liberal Democrat Youth and Students are celebrating '100 years of Young Liberals' this week; congratulates the Young Liberals on their centenary and their contribution to politics both in the UK and abroad; and wishes LDYS every success in continuing to make politics relevant to young people.]

1385
Can he speak to the Minister for Children, who I understand is also the Minister for youth, to see whether we can have a statement or a debate on making politics relevant to youth today? As he will recall, the level of youth involvement in politics when I first joined some 30 years ago was greater than it is today.
Mr. Hain: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's points. I notice that my brief on early-day motion 1566, headed "Young Liberals", says, "Be neutral", so that is what I will be.
Keith Vaz: Can we have a debate in Government time on the procedure for the closure of post offices? I have written to the Secretary of State about the closure of Humberstone post office in my constituency, which was done without proper consultation with local residents. The head of the regional office, Mr. Paul Maisey, refused to meet me or my constituents before the post office was closed. I support the Government's policy on modernisation, but modernisation should not be used as a euphemism for closure.
Mr. Hain: I certainly endorse my hon. Friend's point on behalf of his local post office. Modernisation is not a euphemism for closure. We all share the concern that a changing pattern of consumption and lifestyle means that many local post offices are increasingly coming under threat. As I have said before in business questions, my local post office has been under threat over the past year. When a local branch of Barclays bank closed, however, and I encouraged customers to switch their accounts to the post office, which they could have done to underpin its viability, there was very little take-up. We are therefore dealing with a problem of human behaviour that is wider than the issues that he raised.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Yesterday, the Prime Minister sought to implicate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in the dodgy dossier by insisting that he had been briefed on the intelligence contents of that dossier, when we now know that that was not the case. The day before, however, in his evidence to the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister, in answer to question 186 from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), denied categorically the claim that 90 per cent. of that dossier had come from plagiarised material. On 19 June, however, the author of the main article that was plagiarised gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee that 90 per cent. of the second dossier came from his article and two other articles; and a paper by a Cambridge academic submitted to the Foreign Affairs Committee provided a page-by-page analysis backing that up. May we therefore have a statement from the Prime Minister analysing the contents of the dossier, because he has not only plagiarised the material of that young student but called him a liar by denying his analysis that 90 per cent. of the dossier was plagiarised and that therefore only a tiny fraction of it could have been intelligence material?
Mr. Hain: This contribution from the Conservative Benches is getting to sound like a rather scratchy old
1386
gramophone record. Let us look at the facts. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the briefing given to the Leader of the Opposition was based on intelligence. That is what he said: the very same intelligence that had gone into those two documents. The Leader of the Opposition should come clean. He should say whether he is disputing any of that intelligence, because he did not dispute it at the time. Indeed, he supported the Government's policy at the time. Now, however, he sees a chance to make mischief opportunistically, and he continually seeks to do so, with the support of the hon. Gentleman.
Glenda Jackson: In the light of the previous answers from the Leader of the House, is it still the Government's position that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be found? Is he categorically denying the reports running on the BBC today that the Government are now saying that such weapons will not be found, either because they were destroyed before the war began or because they have been hidden? Surely we should have a debate on the issue in the House. It would not be some arcane parliamentary debate; people died on the decisions that the House made based on reports that the Government had given not only on the size of the weapons of mass destruction arsenal but on Saddam Hussein's capacity to launch them within 45 minutes.
Mr. Hain: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is relying on BBC spin rather than on the evidence. The truth is that the Foreign Affairs Committee report upheld the Prime Minister's record on this matter. The truth is that those like myself—I was in the Foreign Office as the Minister with responsibility for Iraq, then Minister for Europe, and subsequently a Cabinet Minister—who saw the raw intelligence and were briefed by the Joint Intelligence Committee and other senior intelligence sources were absolutely clear that there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. That evidence was underpinned by United Nations inspections reports that my hon. Friend has never really accepted. That was the basis for our action. I would have thought that we ought now to put that behind us and seek to work together internationally to make sure that Iraq goes into a new democratic future, having been liberated from such a brutal dictator.
Pete Wishart: Surely it is now imperative that we have a statement from the Prime Minister on the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction, especially after senior Whitehall sources—I note that the Leader of the House did not contradict them—suggested that we would never find these weapons of mass destruction. I know that the Prime Minister has appeared before the Liaison Committee, but only the three main parties are represented on it. Does not the whole House deserve an explanation and does not the whole nation, through the House, deserve to know what is going on with WMD?
Mr. Hain: I do not know whether BBC sources these days are dodgy or not; I really do not, and I do not think the public know. If the hon. Gentleman is asking what I and the Prime Minister believe, the answer is that we believe that evidence of weapons of mass destruction

1387
will be found. I would be very surprised if it was not. As I have said before, Iraq is a huge country and we know, and we knew at the time from intelligence, that Saddam Hussein was dispersing these weapons of mass destruction for months before he anticipated the weapons inspectors would come in. It is not surprising that they are not in a shop window somewhere for us to go and find. That would be astonishing.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) about post office closures? We are witnessing an incredible shrinkage of the post office branch network. In my constituency, people have been absolutely bewildered this week at the news that five branch offices are due to close. It is an important issue and we should hear from Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry about the discussions that they are having with the Post Office to maintain this valued national institution of a post office branch network.
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. All of us as local Members of Parliament value local post offices and the local communities that they serve value them even more. The picture that he paints is a very serious one and I shall bring it to the attention of the relevant Minister and Secretary of State as soon as I can, so that any action can then follow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only a few Members are standing, but I must have brief questions if I am to call them all before half-past the hour.
Tony Baldry: The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that he would not have committed UK troops to war in Iraq if he had not won the vote in the House of Commons. It is reasonable to infer that many Members supported him in the Division Lobby because they believed that there were weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed within 45 minutes. If they knew then what they know now, many Members might well have not supported the Prime Minister in the Division Lobby.
Is it not despicable that the Prime Minister should come to the Liaison Committee and do Prime Minister's questions and, almost immediately after, Government spokesmen put out another spin on the story—that weapons of mass destruction may never be discovered? It is doubly despicable that the Leader of the House should then come to the Chamber and seek to blame the BBC for fabricating that story. Can we have a debate next week not necessarily on Iraq, but on the whole Government machinery of—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Leader of the House.
Mr. Hain: Just for the record, I did not blame the BBC's political editor. In fact, I commended the quote that he gave on either the 10 o'clock news or the "Today" programme this morning. I blamed BBC spin—and indeed, that spin was directly contradicted, as I understand it, by the Prime Minister's official
1388
spokesman in the Lobby briefing this morning, in which he said that the Prime Minister and the Government remain confident that evidence will be found.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, along with opponents of our action, wants to airbrush out of history the fact that United Nations reports consistently reported evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Our own intelligence services—as I have seen for myself—reported that evidence as well. He should be standing by those reports and standing by the intelligence services, and not seeking to undermine them.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have a high proportion of private rented sector dwellings in my constituency to cater for the needs of students. I welcome very much the excellent pilots that the Government carried out on the tenancy deposit protection scheme. However, I am disappointed that there is no forthcoming mention of that in the draft Housing Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an important issue that needs to be pushed forward? Will he make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns and the important points that she makes. I will certainly draw them to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I join other colleagues in calling on the Leader of the House to arrange for the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box next week to explain the allegations that he made against my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that my right hon. Friend met the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee on 12 February, which was nine days after the dossier was published? Yes or no?
Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister wrote yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition setting out very clearly—[Interruption]He did, indeed. He made it absolutely clear that the evidence upon which the Leader of the Opposition was briefed was the same evidence that went into the documents concerned. It has been the same evidence that formed the basis of the approach to conflict and that we relied upon. Again, I directly ask the right hon. Gentleman, if not the Leader of the Opposition, whether he is disputing the intelligence services' evidence. Is he—yes or no? As for the Prime Minister answering questions, he will be here on Wednesday to answer the questions that anybody wants to put to him.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Can the Leader of the House organise for a statement to be made to the House following the publication by her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons of the report on the two remaining detention, or what I think are called removal, centres for immigrants, including Dungavel in Scotland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the chief inspector published in April her review of the three centres that she had visited, she said that no child should be kept in such places—that applied to all five of them—for more than six days? Does he not think it ironic that while he is talking today about the children's Minister,

1389
something that I fully support, the children of the Ay family will have spent a year in detention in Dungavel come next week? Can he arrange for that to be debated on the Floor of the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure that I will be able to find time for a specific debate. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise the issue in other ways, but I assure him that I will draw his important points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that there have been discussions about a shadow monitoring commission for Northern Ireland. Can he guide as to whether the Government are planning to introduce legislation in the coming week or in September?
Mr. Hain: There are no plans for the coming week but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are obviously seized of the importance of Northern Ireland legislation on a number of matters. I will draw the Secretary of State's attention to his question.
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Robertson—I am sorry, Mr. Ian Carmichael.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Very close, Mr. Speaker. It is Alistair actually. I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask my question.
Can we have a statement before the recess from the Minister responsible for shipping to give the Government's response to reports that we are to import a so-called ghost fleet of 94 former naval ships from the United States for decommissioning on Teesside? Apparently, they will be towed through the Pentland Firth, to the south of my constituency. My constituents wish to know why on earth we are importing these ships from the other side of the world and what steps the Government will take to ensure that these highly
1390
contaminated and dangerous wrecks do not cause the damage that they have the potential to cause to our very precious coastline.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, safety factors are uppermost in the minds of the Government and the authorities when such undertakings are considered. I imagine that the enterprise means that jobs are at stake, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will consider that as well. I shall draw his specific points to the attention of the Secretary of State, and the Scottish Parliament might want to take an interest as well.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the Leader of the House's erroneous claim, in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), that this country has kept control of its national borders, may we have an urgent statement to clarify the situation, because the Minister for Europe's written answer at column 735W on 8 July to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that it was essential to scrap the veto and move to qualified majority voting on immigration and asylum policy? The Leader of the House seems to be woefully ignorant of that fact.
Mr. Hain: I always admire the hon. Gentleman's ability to recite facts one after another without consulting his notes.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Answer the question.
Mr. Hain: I am about to. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is confusing border control with having a common asylum policy throughout Europe. Such a policy would enable us to ensure that backmarkers on human trafficking—countries in which the problem arises but that pass the buck to us—take their responsibilities seriously and have procedures for admitting such people. That would mean that we could ensure that if such people cross on to our shores, we could put them back in the European countries where they first landed. Our border controls will remain exactly the same and the hon. Gentleman should not confuse the two issues in such a way.

Economic and Monetary Union
[Relevant document: The Sixth Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 187-I and -II, on the UK and the euro.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
1.32 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I want to share with the House the evidence and conclusions contained in the euro assessment. I shall give more detail on measures that are good for Britain and that advance convergence and flexibility: measures on housing, the sale of surplus public sector land; planning, driving up performance; and flexibility, progress on skills, labour market reforms and pay flexibility in the public sector. I want to show not only that sustained convergence and living with euro area interest rates while advancing stability, full employment and the funding of public services is in the national economic interest, but, more generally, that it is in the British national economic interest to be fully engaged and enthusiastic members of the European Union—not to be semi-detached—and to play a full part in equipping a new enlarged Europe to meet global challenges.
I acknowledge that no cause has been more controversial, no issue has been more difficult, and no subject has been more complex for the British people for so long than Britain's relationship with Europe. No issue has attracted more of the House's attention or engaged it in so much scrutiny and debate. However, if the first three phases in our post-war relationship with Europe were our pre-1972 decision not to join, which was wrong, our decision to join yet to be continually unhappy with the terms for the next two decades and, in the wake of the fall of the Berlin wall and the Maastricht treaty, the decision in the early 1990s to stand further apart from Europe, we have now entered a new fourth phase of our relationship. Europe is moving from its often inward-looking and exclusive era as a trade bloc towards a recognition that it must compete globally. That is the context of the decisions that we must take about not only the intergovernmental conference but the euro.
When we joined the then Common Market in 1972, 2 million jobs depended on our trade with Europe, but now 3 million jobs depend on it. We now import £154 billion of goods and services each year from Europe—53 per cent. of our total imports of goods and services—compared with £5 billion in 1972. Compared with £4 billion in 1972, we now export £140 billion of goods and services to Europe each year, which is 52 per cent. of our total exports of goods and services. It is estimated that 750,000 British companies have trading relationships with the rest of Europe. As Europe has advanced from a common market to a single market, 73 per cent. of our investment overseas now goes to European Union countries, compared with less than 14 per cent. before we joined the Common Market. Therefore, adopting a policy that would leave Britain semi-detached from Europe would be a disastrous stance for jobs, business and trade.
Until now, the context in which we have viewed decisions about Europe has been European rather than global. The European Union was the world's first
1392
trading bloc. It was the precursor of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mercosur, the Association of South East Asian Nations and the other trade blocs. Its role was to organise its rules, to formulate its preferential agreements and to fashion its social dimension and external relations. However, discussion of the euro takes place today in a new global context. We have an enlarged Europe that is moving from the Europe of the trade-bloc era in which it was more protected, sheltered and inward-looking, to a Europe of the global age that cannot avoid intense global competition.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brown: I shall give way after I have set up the argument.
In 1972, 21 per cent. of the UK's output was traded, and the figure is now 27 per cent. France traded 22 per cent. of its output in 1972 and now trades 26 per cent. Germany's figure was 29 per cent. and is now 33 per cent. Twenty-one per cent. of Europe's output was traded worldwide in 1972. The figure was 30 per cent. in 1990 and is 34 per cent. today.
In this new stage of Europe's history as a union—the global rather than trade-bloc phase—three changes affect our decision on the euro. First, the enlarged Europe has to look outwards. Indeed, during the past 10 years, there has been a tenfold increase in European investment in the USA, and European investment in the USA has been twice American investment in Europe. That means that Europe must recognise that it benefits from partnership rather than rivalry with the USA, and that it must seek job-enhancing trade agreements with the rest of the world, including the USA.
Secondly, the euro decision must be taken, as the intense competition that globalisation brings forces every country to become more competitive. Economic reform is, and must be, the driving force behind Europe's economic agenda. Thirdly, the euro decision is being made as the global competitive challenge demands a greater flexibility in labour markets, thus forcing Europe to redefine its social dimension.
Europe has to form new outward-looking relationships and is being forced to reform economically and socially. That leads me to conclude that those who rule out euro membership, either because they demand a choice between Europe and America or because they believe that Europe does not have the capacity to reform, are misreading the direction of change and the influence that Britain is having, and can have, on the debate about a global Europe, because, after all, Britain was the pioneer of free trade and the first proponent of economic liberalisation—I pay tribute to Conservative Members for their role in that—and the single market. That is the new global context in which we must make our decisions about the euro.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Chancellor explain why the richest country in Europe, as measured in per capita income, is Switzerland? It does not intend to join the euro but it does massive trade with the rest of the European area.
Mr. Brown: It is funny that the right hon. Gentleman says that because whenever I meet Switzerland's finance

1393
Ministers I am told that they wish to join the European Union and that it would be to their advantage. When I give him figures showing the increasing amount of British trade with the European area, surely he must accept, as many of his Front-Bench colleagues now do, that detaching ourselves from the European Union would be a big mistake. The question is not whether we detach ourselves but whether it is right to join the euro at this stage.
Mr. David Laws: We know the Chancellor's judgment at this time about the five economic tests. Will he tell us whether he would be disappointed if Britain was not in the single currency in five years' time?
Mr. Brown: We are in favour of joining the single currency in principle, but we need to meet the five economic tests. I am about to explain what needs to be done to meet the tests and the changes that we need to make. However, the changes that we are bringing about to the British economy are in the British national economic interest.
Mr. Michael Howard: The Chancellor might be about to pass on from his observations about our membership of the European Union. He is fully aware that our ability to continue to be a strong and active member of the European Union without joining the single currency is safeguarded by the opt-out clause in the treaty of Maastricht. Is he aware that no such opt-out clause exists in the European constitution?
Mr. Brown: We always supported the Maastricht opt-out clause. The opt-out clause stands. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that the opt-out clause falls, he is making a great mistake.
Mr. Howard: In that case, will the Chancellor give the House a cast-iron guarantee this afternoon that in the negotiations on the constitution at the intergovernmental conference the United Kingdom Government will make it absolutely clear that they will not sign up to the new constitution unless it replicates the opt-out from the single currency that is contained in the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Brown: Not only does the opt-out clause remain, but, equally, the other states that are joining the European Union from the east of Europe do not have that opt-out clause, nor does Sweden. Britain has that opt-out clause, and we supported it in 1992 when the Bill came before the House of Commons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not have the evidence to suggest that Britain is walking away from the opt-out clause.
Mr. Howard: If what the Chancellor says is correct, there should be no difficulty in giving me the assurance for which I asked. He should be able to give the House a guarantee this afternoon that the Government will not sign up to any constitution that does not replicate the opt-out from the single currency contained in the Maastricht treaty. It is a perfectly simple matter.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor is trying to raise an issue that does not arise. The opt-out clause remains.
1394
Once again, it is a Conservative red herring to disguise the fact that the Conservative party is against the euro in principle and against membership of the European Union. That is the position.
Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman is factually and legally wrong, and my right hon. and learned Friend is factually and legally right. Does the Chancellor not recognise that the European constitution will override and supersede all previous treaties and that it is therefore essential to guarantee the opt-out by incorporating a clause to that effect in the new constitution? In the absence of such a clause, will the Government veto the constitution—yea or nay?
Mr. Brown: Once again, Conservative Front Benchers and Back Benchers are trying to get us into a position of vetoing the conclusions of the IGC. They will choose any issue—any red herring—to do so. Their aim, frankly, is that we reject the IGC, put Europe into crisis and have a semi-detached or associate membership of the European Union, or some other relationship with it. I have told the shadow Chancellor the position: the opt-out stands. It was negotiated. We supported it at the time, just as they supported it. As for what is likely to happen, no other members of the European Union that are joining from the east have sought, or are getting, the opt-out clause. Britain has the opt-out clause. Even Sweden, which is to have a referendum later this year, has not asked for, and does not have, such a clause.
Europe is having to make difficult decisions about outward-looking relationships with the rest of the world, economic reform and a new social dimension. As a nation with a global trading economy and a history of stop-go in economic policy and management, the question for us, which the euro assessment addresses, is not whether further engagement is, in principle, against the British national interest, but whether the practical economic consequences of euro membership are in British national economic interests, because the decision is irreversible—hence the policy that we have adopted of testing membership against strict criteria, investment flexibility, financial services, employment and growth, and convergence.
Sustainable convergence is essentially the stability test. It means that the British economy can live on a permanent basis with euro area interest rates, can advance our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment and, of course, can provide secure, sustained and stable funding of our schools, hospitals and other public services. Flexibility is being able, in the absence of exchange rate or interest rate flexibility, to adjust our economy quickly to any shocks that arise so that we do not put those objectives at risk.
The purpose, therefore, of the five tests is to assess whether we have secured for Britain convergence with our European partners that is settled and durable, which is the first test; sufficient flexibility, which is the second test; and whether we can also confirm conclusively and confidently to the British people that the potential benefits for investment, financial services, employment, growth and trade—the benefits that I listed in detail when I made my statement to the House of Commons, which are contained in the many documents that were produced on the day—can indeed be realised.

1395
The five tests are our guarantee of stability, high and stable levels of growth and employment, and the proper funding of public services. To meet them would ensure that we do not put at risk our economy or our public services. To fail to meet them would risk repeating the exchange rate mechanism mistakes. Overall, the assessment concluded that, inside or outside the single currency, the competitive strength of the City of London is such that the UK financial services industry should continue to thrive. Subject to the achievement of sustainable convergence and sufficient flexibility, we also concluded that the tests for investment and employment would be met. We were especially interested in the views of many inward investors about how they saw the future.
The issue is the convergence and flexibility tests, and then the exchange rate and transition issues. On convergence, since 1997 the short-term interest rate divergence between Britain and the euro area has fallen from 4 percentage points to 1.5 percentage points after the interest rate cut announced by the Bank of England today. Long-term interest rates have virtually converged today at around 4 per cent., but while our assessment finds that convergence has been, or can be, achieved in the provision of small business finance, large company finance and personal finance—where, in fact, the UK economy is found to be no more interest-rate sensitive than others—it is the inflationary pressures that arise from the housing market that have led consistently, over the past 30 years, either to higher inflation in Britain than in other countries or to higher interest rates to keep inflation under control, and sometimes both.
The challenge of convergence when applied to housing is not, as some suggest, that we seek the same structure of the housing market or the mortgage market as the Germans, French, Dutch or Italians. All countries have, and will continue to have, unique features of their housing markets. The challenge is that the combination of house price inflation and volatility, and the impact of both on consumption, has generally led to interest rates that are higher than rates in other countries in order to deliver stability. Measures that reduce housing market volatility would reduce the extent to which interest rates need to take account of the housing market, and they would be good for industry whether or not the UK were to join the economic and monetary union.
Mr. Michael Fallon: Given the structural issues involved in meeting the convergence test and the steps that the Chancellor has set out to tackle them, what is his forecast of when the convergence test might be met?
Mr. Brown: I am not going to give a running commentary. I gave the assessment that we have made to the House of Commons a few weeks ago. I said that we would review the position prior to the Budget next year and report on progress. If there were sufficient progress, we would trigger a further assessment. I do not believe that it is helpful for me either to prejudge what might be announced next year or to give a forecast, as though I were a gambler on such matters. The important thing to recognise is that we will not short-cut or fudge the test. We will have a rigorous assessment and, before the Budget next year, a rigorous review. That is the best guarantee I should and can give to the British people.
1396
The one thing that is absolutely clear—I think it needs to be said, given what we have heard from Conservative Front Benchers today—is that we will not repeat the mistakes that were made in the ERM era. Those mistakes were, incidentally, never to have an assessment, either public or private—[Interruption.]Let me explain to Conservative Members the extent of their problem. No assessment was ever made, internal to Government, of any detail—
Mr. Howard: You never asked for one.
Mr. Brown: Oh! So it would have been right, as an act of statesmanship, for us to ask for an assessment before it could be done?
Mr. Howard: The Chancellor cannot escape from his history on the matter. A year before we joined the ERM, he was asking for early entry. When we joined, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the shadow Cabinet never asked for an assessment, never said it was the wrong rate and never criticised that decision in any way, shape or form. Instead, they gave that decision their full and wholehearted support. That decision, which was a grievously mistaken decision, had the full support of the Chancellor, all his right hon. and hon. Friends, the TUC, the CBI, the Liberal Democrats—of absolutely everyone. The Chancellor cannot escape his history.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor was Secretary of State for Employment. He conducted no assessment of the employment consequences of entering the exchange rate mechanism, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did no proper assessment of the investment and trade consequences—and now the Opposition try to blame us. They told us at the time that they had five conditions that had to be met. Those conditions were not met, and they still joined the ERM. They were never able to prove to us that the conditions were met.
The shadow Chancellor thinks that he has got out of the problem because he has made an apology, but I seem to remember that, as Home Secretary, he used to say that apologies were not enough. He said that the punishment must fit the crime. He used to tell us that punishment worked and that we should condemn a little more and understand a little less. Why is he the only surviving member of that ERM Cabinet who is still sitting on the Conservative Front Bench? He is a very fortunate man, but the electorate will not forget that he was responsible for the loss of a million jobs in manufacturing and unemployment rising above 3 million, even while he was cutting employment training schemes that would have kept people in work. So we will accept no attempt to blame the Labour party in opposition for the mistakes of a Conservative Government who brought us the worst recession since the second world war and caused 15 per cent. interest rates and 10 per cent. inflation. Until the Conservatives do more than apologise for those mistakes, the electorate will never support them for economic competence again.
Roger Casale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. At the time of ERM entry,

1397
there was not only a complete lack of rigour in making any assessment, but the Government of the day also had a completely enfeebled negotiating stance, because the party was completely split on Europe—a split between those who wanted to come out and those who saw its practical benefits. Does he agree that that is still the case today? The Conservatives would be on their knees in the face of having to negotiate at a new intergovernmental conference, whereas I know that my right hon. Friends will stand up and fight for British interests.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give him a job."] Job applications do not come to me; they come to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I intervene in the hope of understanding a little more and perhaps making a little bit of special pleading on the question of the stability of interest rates. My right hon. Friend and I know, as we both represent the paper industry, how incredibly important stability of interest rates is. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) and I, along with other colleagues, were recently in Finland finding out about nuclear waste, but we heard about the paper industry there. Surely these industries throughout Europe need an indication of the stability or otherwise of interest rates? Can he be helpful on that point?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We represent adjoining constituencies, but I cannot say that I represent the paper industry, even though I use a great deal of paper. It is absolutely true that a number of companies are involved in the production of paper and that they represent a number of companies throughout the country that are worried about issues relating to interest rates and stability. I assure him that we will do nothing in any decision that we make to put the basic stability of the British economy at risk. It is precisely because we will not put the British economy's stability at risk that we introduced independence for the Bank of England and our new fiscal and monetary regime. It is also precisely for that reason that we will take no risks in the euro assessment, which will be conducted with rigour and in a way that is both transparent and comprehensive. I hope that he will agree that the documentation produced by the Treasury, which has been made available to every Member of Parliament—all the detailed work done by the Treasury on these issues has been made public—shows that we take these issues seriously. The future of both manufacturing industry and industry in services generally is uppermost in our minds as we consider these issues.
I was raising the question of convergence generally and specifically referring to the state of the housing market and the inflationary consequences that have arisen over many years from its volatility. To help balance supply and demand in the housing market further and reduce the scarcity of housing, which is an issue for many British people and has lain behind the long-term growth in house prices, in the national interest as well as the interests of convergence, the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly make further announcements on new house building with the aim of
1398
achieving existing planning targets in the south of England and building an additional 200,000 homes by 2016. That will include expanding the Thames gateway, which is probably the largest area of derelict land available for development in western Europe; releasing surplus public sector landholdings to further increase the supply of land for housing; and ensuring that regional and local planning authorities—I think that all hon. Members would wish to see this—respond to housing market needs, not least by encouraging land that has been allocated for commercial and industrial purposes to be used for housing unless a convincing alternative case can be made.
We have also been looking at the planning system. To speed up that system, the Deputy Prime Minister is giving planning authorities an extra £170 million by 2006; insisting that 60 per cent. of all major applications are processed within 13 weeks; intervening when planning authorities fail; taking powers to call in large planning applications in areas with housing shortfalls; and piloting a new planning advisory service to drive up performance. We are also considering—he will make an announcement at the appropriate stage—whether the poorest-performing local authorities should be linked with high-performing authorities, so that we can share best practice and achieve best results. So further housing market reforms will be put in place over the coming year.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am very enthusiastic about the announcements from the Deputy Prime Minister. Has there been any discussion with the Scottish Executive about housing in Scotland and the similar planning issues that arise time and again in every local authority in Scotland? Will there be any liaison with the Scottish Executive on this policy?
Mr. Brown: Not only is there liaison on these issues, but a Scottish euro preparations committee will be formed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That will involve representation from the Scottish Executive and the business community in Scotland. I believe that similar organisations will be formed—announcements will be made very shortly—in Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, we are adding representation from the regions to the euro preparations committee that meets under my chairmanship and includes representatives of the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority, the clearing banks and many other financial sector organisations.
Those further housing market reforms will be put in place over the coming year. They are right, in any event, for the British economy, as hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree. They will help to ensure that, by having a reduced propensity towards house price inflation in this country, stability in our economy can be further entrenched. In addition to the study that Kate Barker of the Monetary Policy Committee is leading to examine what more can be done to remove barriers to supply in housing, a further study, also with an interim report in the pre-Budget report, by Professor Miles of Imperial college, is examining the case for a long-term fixed-rate mortgage market in the UK and how we can help its development.
On convergence, I also announced to this House on 9 June that, subject to confirmation at the time of the pre-Budget report, I intend to change the inflation target

1399
at that time to the consumer prices definition. As is customary, I will provide all the supporting documentation setting out the detailed advantages of the new target at that time. The advantage of the current indicator, RPIX, is that it is known and well understood and has served us well. However, the advantages of the consumer price index, HICP, the harmonised index of consumer prices, which is internationally recognised, are that it uses a geometric rather than an arithmetic mean and so allows for consumers substituting cheaper goods for more expensive ones when relative prices change and can therefore more accurately reflect people's behaviour in the marketplace. It is also in line with best international practice; it gives a more complete picture of spending patterns as it takes account of spending by all consumers, including foreign visitors and pensioners, who are not part of the RPIX process in the way that one might have expected; and it is the most comparable measure internationally and is used by our neighbours in Europe. It also gives businesses and households the information that they need to make sound decisions on pricing and investment in the context of being able to make comparisons with other countries in this increasingly global economy. Given that pensions, benefits and index-linked gilts will be calculated on exactly the same basis as now, however, pensioners and claimants do not need to fear that there is any change that will directly affect them, and they will not lose out.
The second issue raised on 9 June when I made the assessment and announced it to the House of Commons was flexibility. The flexibility test that would have to be made is whether, if problems emerge, there is sufficient flexibility in our economy to deal with them. Although Britain is indeed a more flexible economy, flexibility means being able, in the absence of exchange rate or interest rate flexibility, to adjust our economy quickly to any shocks that arise so that we do not put at risk our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment and sustained and sustainable funding of schools, hospitals and other services.
Mr. Laws: Will the Chancellor give way?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is the only representative of the Liberals here today. Every year they have called for us to join the single currency. His leader has said that it was a total mistake that we did not join in 1999: a decision that would have put the British economy into recession, as evidenced by the detailed assessment that we published. Given that he is the only Liberal who has bothered to turn up; he is not even the Treasury spokesman—[Interruption.]By popular request, I will allow him to intervene.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the Chancellor for that introduction. Perhaps my colleagues realise that as he has been politically successful in kicking the issue into the next Parliament, some of these economic issues are not substantive.
As regards flexibility, would any changes in the stability and growth pact that he seeks constitute preconditions before we could join the euro?
Mr. Brown: I am coming to that in a minute. There is no sixth test. The stability and growth pact is under
1400
discussion, as are the rules governing the monetary policy of the European Central Bank. We have been very clear since 1997 that we believe that the stability and growth pact will work better if it takes account of the whole economic cycle, if it recognises the importance of investment as well as consumption—of course, we have a major investment programme under way—and if it takes account of sustainable levels of debt. In the United Kingdom we have achieved debt levels of the order of 30 to 35 per cent., but other countries in the eurozone have debt levels of 110 per cent., 105 per cent. or 100 per cent. of GDP. Clearly, therefore, their capacity to borrow is far more limited than that of a country that has relatively low levels of debt and a sustainable fiscal position on that basis.
We have been discussing three changes in relation to the stability and growth pact, and the intellectual argument has moved firmly in our favour on this: first, taking more account of investment, not just consumption; secondly, looking over the cycle; and thirdly, investment. I hope that there will be general support in the House for that.
Angus Robertson: On the possibility of a sixth test, does the Chancellor concede that it might be advantageous to assess the risks and costs of staying out of the single currency area? Does he appreciate that for economies that depend in large part on exports—such as Scotland, or my constituency, with its whisky and food manufacturing sector—the time is right to assess the risks and costs of staying out of the eurozone?
Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has bothered to read the 18 studies, which examine all those issues. As part of the five tests, we consider the advantages and disadvantages in relation to investment, financial services, convergence and all the other points that I mentioned earlier. The importance that certain industries attach to being part of the euro and the disadvantages that they have raised with us in relation to staying out are dealt with in the assessment, and we have come to a rounded conclusion.
The problem for the Scottish National party is that for the first 50 years of its history it wanted to break up the single currency area of the United Kingdom and retreat into a Scottish pound, but the nationalists seem to have abandoned that policy in favour of going straight into the euro. However, they cannot tell us how, in the independent Scotland that they propose, their monetary or fiscal policy would work. They cannot tell us whether they would still want the Bank of England to set interest rates in the interim or no.
Angus Robertson indicated dissent.
Mr. Brown: They do not want the Bank of England to set interest rates in the interim. What would happen if the hon. Gentleman had an independent Scotland and we were still not part of the euro? Who would set the interest rates?
Angus Robertson: Perhaps the Chancellor will announce that we can have a referendum so that we can move as quickly as possible into the single currency.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question as to what would happen if there was an

1401
independent Scotland and we were still not part of the euro. Would the interest rate be set by the Bank of England, would there be a separate monetary policy committee in Scotland, would there be a separate Scottish pound or would he work within the British pound? The SNP really needs to go back to the drawing board and think again.
Mr. Chris Bryant: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has analysed the Welsh nationalists' position, which is even more complex. Their economic spokesman wants to make sure that we stay out of the euro for ever, but also wants to separate Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom: they advocate precisely what the Chancellor criticises.
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right: there is no convergence among the nationalist parties of the United Kingdom. The Welsh nationalist party wants to stay out of the single currency and the Scottish National party wants to join, while the Liberal party wants to join tomorrow, or as quickly as possible. [Interruption.]For the Liberal party, every time we have a debate is the right time to join, irrespective of the exchange rate or the interest rate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) has to speak for both the leader of the Liberal party and the Treasury spokesman, because the Liberals' position is that they would have joined in 1999 at the first stage, and everybody now knows that that would have caused real problems for the British economy.
Mr. Laws rose—
Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, in recognition of the fact that he is a lone voice in the Chamber.
Mr. Laws: The Chancellor must not continue to misrepresent the position of the Liberal Democrats. He might do well instead to pay far more heed to some of the documents that we produce, including one from 2000, which showed that the exchange rate was then overvalued and signalled a target range of precisely the figure that he came up with in the five tests analysis.
Mr. Brown: The leader of the Liberal party said that he very much regretted that we had not joined on the first day that the single currency was formed. [Interruption.]Well, I have the quote. Perhaps it would educate the hon. Member for Yeovil and he can take it to use in his missionary work among Liberal MPs who cannot find their way into the Chamber. The Liberal leader said that
"Britain would have been a great deal better off as a founder member of the euro."
That is the formal position of the Liberal party, and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny that it is the position that was taken by his leader. He must also recognise, if he believes that the five tests assessment is a serious piece of work, that it would have been wrong to join in 1999 and that there would have been inflationary consequences for the British economy. The interest rate divergence was too high.
1402
Although Britain is a more flexible economy than it was in 1999, when the single currency was formed, flexibility means being able, in the absence of exchange rate or interest rate flexibility, to adjust our economy quickly. What measures do we propose to take to deal with that? First, to improve functional flexibility—that is, the flexibility of our wage and labour markets—we need to equip people with the skills that they need to meet new and different challenges; the Secretary of State for Education and Skills set out measures on skills yesterday.
Secondly, to achieve full employment we must do more to improve the regional and local labour market flexibility of our economy to get more of the long-term unemployed and inactive back to work, more successfully to match vacancies to jobs, and to increase the new deal's ability to respond in the event of a local or regional shock. Over the next few months, we will announce new measures that will help the unemployed get to work, help to deal with the large numbers of unfilled vacancies in many regions and localities, and help to deal with some of the problems that have arisen in relation to incapacity benefit and housing benefit. In return for greater local discretion for Employment Service managers, a new performance regime will accord higher rewards to jobcentre managers, with provision to change the management of the worst performing jobcentres.
Thirdly, we propose to strike the right balance between fairness and flexibility in the pursuit of full employment. We have already introduced a minimum wage, which now has all-party support in the House of Commons and a new tax credit system that will soon, I hope, have all-party support in the House of Commons—[Interruption.]After all, the tax credit system that we introduced is based on an original idea by Ronald Reagan in the United States of America. If it was good enough for the American Republicans, it ought to be good enough for the British Conservatives.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: The Chancellor did not tell Labour Back Benchers that.
Mr. Brown: I am proud to acknowledge the role of American labour market policy in helping us to develop the tax credit—
Mr. Bercow: Say that name again.
Mr. Brown: Ronald Reagan, the American President. The problem is that Ronald Reagan is too right-wing for Conservative Members, and they will not adopt the policy of tax credits. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not too right-wing for you, then."]
Mr. Brown: Absolutely. The Opposition's response is interesting. The working families tax credit has worked in getting thousands of people back into jobs. The new employment tax credit will help single people and couples back to work, but for ideological reasons the Conservative party continues to refuse to support not only something that is a good idea on paper but a policy that works and gets people into jobs. Why do not

1403
Conservative Members support measures such as the working families tax credit and the employment tax credit?
Mr. Howard: A million people are waiting.
Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor refers to the child tax credit, for which, Conservative Members claimed, no one would apply. They said that it was too complicated and that there would be no applications, yet 5.5 million people are receiving it. Conservative Members know that if they reject measures that help to tackle family poverty and get money to lower and middle-income families, they will pay a heavy price at the general election. I reiterate that 5.5 million families are receiving a benefit that helps family prosperity in this country.
We want to improve the working families tax credit and the related employment credit. With a national framework of fairness in place, it makes sense to acknowledge that a more considered approach to local and regional pay conditions, including in London and the south-east, where the low-paid in particular have lost out, offers the best modern route to full employment. In future, we will not only publish data on regional prices and inflation, but by next year we will ensure that almost all pay remits for public sector bodies, including the civil service, can incorporate a regional or local pay dimension within their nationally determined frameworks.
Today, we are publishing amended remits for the health service and Prison Service. We shall shortly publish the remits for schoolteachers and senior salary review bodies, taking account of local and regional conditions. At the same time, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will introduce reforms to improve labour market mobility, including housing benefit reform to remove disincentives to work or to move from one place to another.
Those measures, which will be introduced in the coming year, will make Britain, which already has the lowest unemployment of the main industrialised countries and has created 1.5 million more jobs than existed in 1997, the most employment-friendly country. The changes that we have had to make in Britain to render our labour market more flexible would, if applied through economic reform of labour markets in Europe, yield extra jobs.
The other form of flexibility is fiscal. Just as we in Britain are examining the way in which we advance in monetary policy, and the European Central Bank is reviewing its monetary policy strategy, European Governments, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil, are rightly examining the way in which the stability and growth pact can become more effective. There is growing agreement that the fiscal rules of the stability and growth pact should be sufficiently flexible to make the right fiscal adjustments at every stage of the economic cycle. Several countries are setting up or considering new domestic procedures for faster and more effective adjustments to change.
In the principles that we have applied to British monetary policy, we insisted on clear, symmetrical rules, well understood procedures and enhanced transparency. We believe that the same principles
1404
should apply to any new arrangements for British fiscal policy if we were part of economic and monetary union. To ensure stability in the euro area, we are consulting, as a result of the publications on 9 June, on the case for an open letter system on fiscal policy and a new, additional fiscal rule. We propose a regular fiscal stability report, which is published to Parliament according to a preannounced timetable, thus ensuring that fiscal decisions are fully transparent and accountable. The report will contain an assessment of the gap between actual and trend output in the economy. When actual output materially diverges from its trend, we propose an open letter by the Treasury to Parliament, setting out the Government's response. In that way, in EMU, the principles that underpin our monetary policy regime and have successfully provided stability would be mirrored in a similar fiscal policy regime. However, we will not rejoin the exchange rate mechanism.
Our resolve to implement far-reaching reforms is the practical and best expression of our intent. In answer to an earlier question, I said that we would report on progress in next year's Budget. We can then consider the extent of progress and determine whether we make a further Treasury assessment of the five tests. If it were positive next year, that would allow us to put the issue before the British people in a referendum.
In line with our policy of prepare and decide, we are stepping up our preparatory work, expanding the membership of the UK preparation standing committee and establishing regional and national committees. A draft referendum Bill will be published in the autumn. We are considering paving legislation to finance the changeover and issuing a detailed report on euro preparations in Government. We shall publish that report later this year. We shall undertake a programme of consultation with all sectors of the economy throughout the UK. At every point, the national economic interest will be the deciding factor. There will be no fudge or short cuts, as happened with the Conservative Government's disastrous judgments between 1990 and 1992. There must be rigour at every point.
The Government believe in our membership of the European Union and reject the semi-detached policy for Europe that would be disastrous for jobs, business and trade. We also believe that engaging with an enlarged, reforming European Union is in the national economic interest and that we have a vital role in helping to shape the changing Europe as we move from the Europe of the trade bloc era to that of the global era. We believe that it is possible to build in our country a deeper, wider, pro-European consensus. It is time that sensible Conservatives united behind a pro-European consensus. Our approach is at odds with that of those who would rule out euro membership, even if there were a clear and unambiguous case for it and joining was shown to be in the national economic interest.
All our decisions will be made in the national economic interest. We have said that we support the principle of membership of the euro; we have told hon. Members the conditions that will have to be fulfilled; we have given hon. Members the measures that we will take and the reporting mechanism that we will use. I commend the Government's assessment to the House.
2.15 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
I welcome the debate, not least because we have had revealed to us this afternoon the hitherto secret identity of the Chancellor's economic guru: it was not Balls after all; it was Ronald Reagan. It is a great shame that the Chancellor did not make that clear to Labour Back Benchers when he introduced his policies on tax credits. I wonder whether he will attribute to Ronald Reagan the authorship of the new policies on regional pay that he announced this afternoon, which caused such joy among Labour Members.
The Chancellor began his speech in Monday's debate by claiming that the documents from which he quoted were neither "sexed up" nor based on a PhD thesis. He repeated that claim this morning at Treasury questions. He is obviously keen to distance himself from claims that any document to which he refers is "sexed up" or based on a PhD thesis. I am sure his next-door neighbour will scrutinise those remarks carefully—although I do not wish to enter into that debate.
The conclusions on the euro that we are discussing this afternoon are so sexed up and dodgy that even the Chancellor has not been able to repeat his claim again. His conclusions come from a single source and I am afraid they cannot be backed up. But the source is far from anonymous; indeed, he is sitting directly opposite me, although of course whether the words are those of the Chancellor or of the Prime Minister is a different matter.
This is the second time in a month that the Chancellor has come to the House to explain the Government's position on the euro. Given the extent of the open warfare in the Cabinet that preceded his first outing, I was a little surprised to see him volunteer a second. But now of course it is quite clear that, compared with the splits on foundation hospitals, Iraq and top-up fees, going back to euro factionalism is a nostalgic exercise—a welcome break, which, by contrast, almost presents a picture of unity. And on this issue at least the battle lines have been drawn for some time. They know who is on which side, who briefs against whom and who wants the other's job.
But policy on the euro is not an issue that should be determined according to factions in the Cabinet. The conclusions that the Chancellor reached on 9 June and put before the House again this afternoon were simply not supported by the evidence that he published. As the Treasury's analysis states,
"the EMU decision is irreversible".
So the burden of proof lies with those who would seek to take such a momentous and irreversible step. In the oft-repeated words of the Chancellor, the economic case has to be clear and unambiguous.
Yet far from there being a clear and unambiguous case in favour of euro entry, any objective reading of the Treasury's own evidence, published by the Chancellor on 9 June, leads to the opposite conclusion. As the Chancellor himself said when he set his tests six years ago, the
"first and most critical
test
"is convergence"—[Official Report,27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 584.]
1406
Unless that test is met, clearly and unambiguously, he conceded that jobs, prosperity and the national economic interest would be damaged if we joined. The evidence that the Chancellor himself published shows how far that test is from being met. The evidence shows that our economic cycle is
"strongly correlated with that in the US, somewhat more so than with those in Europe".
The evidence shows that, if we abandon the ability to set our interest rates to meet our own economic needs and instead adopt a one-size-fits-all interest rate for the whole of the eurozone,
"real interest rate movements in the UK might prove destabilising".
Those are the words of the Treasury documents themselves. And the evidence shows that, since 1997, the UK has had a weaker correlation of business cycle to the euro area than Germany has had. So all the problems that Germany has faced through having the wrong interest rates for its needs would be magnified here. Germany has 4.3 million people out of work. Its Economics Minister has said that recent interest rate cuts were "overdue", and that there was
"scope for further cuts yet"
while acknowledging that
"of course, the European Central Bank has to take account of the economies of all the member states, and so that sometimes leads to certain delays in its interest rates move in comparison with what would be required by the situation in Germany."
The evidence that the Chancellor himself published shows that the effect of the euro would be all too real in Britain, as it has been in Germany. It shows what the real effect would be on pensioners, for whom the Treasury concludes that
"overall the environment would be one of greater uncertainty."
It also shows what the real effect would be on homeowners, whom the Treasury evidence warns of
"particularly large swings in the housing market",
and on companies and employees, for whom the Treasury's evidence warns of cuts in output and jobs if wages grow without offsetting gains in productivity.
The Chancellor knows full well what the economic evidence—including that in the 18 volumes that he published—says. Yet on 9 June, he refused to put forward that case. He refused to put forward what he knew to be an honest assessment of the evidence. His statement on that day was not based on the national economic interest, or on economics at all. It was not even based on the perceived political needs of the country. Instead, it was based on the narrow partisan interests of a faction-ridden Cabinet and of a Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to keep in with both sides. The result was a ludicrous compromise that was cobbled together to try to satisfy the Labour party's factions, and which makes no sense whatever.
The Chancellor admitted that four of the five tests had been failed, yet he said that he and his colleagues would anyway go round the country saying how wonderful euro membership would be. The Labour party's eNews, which goes to all the party activists, put it perfectly:
"The Euro only met one of the government's five tests…and failed others on jobs and investment. However, the government made clear that ministers and others will mount a nationwide tour explaining how the single currency will benefit the people of this country".

1407
So there we have it. How wonderful it will be to join the euro, they say, if only we can just resolve the minor matters of lack of convergence, absence of flexibility, the negative assessment of the effect on investment, and the euro's adverse effects on growth, stability and jobs. The score in 1997 was 4–1 against; the score now is 4–1 against. And the Government's conclusion? What a great victory for the euro!
The Chancellor and his colleagues are reduced to following the example set by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz)—I am delighted to see him in his place this afternoon—and spending taxpayers' money travelling round the country extolling the virtue of a currency which few people want and which the Treasury's own evidence shows is not in the national economic interest. This will be the first 4–1 defeat in history to lead to a nationwide victory tour in an open-top bus.
On 9 June, the Chancellor was reduced to distorting the Treasury's own evidence in order to try to keep all the factions in the Cabinet happy. In his statement, he said that
"since 1997 there has been significant progress in achieving cyclical convergence."—[Official Report,9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 410.]
But the evidence is that not a single region in the United Kingdom is strongly associated with the European cycle. In that, we are unique in Europe. The Chancellor said that the City test had been passed, but the evidence is that
"to date the euro has not affected London's ability to compete in international wholesale markets."
The Chancellor said that homeowners in continental Europe had "consistently" had the benefit of lower interest rates. But the evidence is that mortgage rates in the United Kingdom average 5 per cent., compared with an average of 5.4 per cent. in the euro area. If inflation is taken into account, the gap is even wider.
The Chancellor said that we could gain up to 50 per cent. more trade by joining the euro and that national income could grow by 0.25 per cent. a year as a result. But the evidence supports
"the view that euro membership would not increase UK euro area trade by much."
On 9 June, I said that the Chancellor's figures on trade were based on studies of currency unions involving Angola and Mozambique, Burkina Faso and Chad, Vatican City and San Marino, and Tuvalu and Tonga. Some have claimed, as I think the Chief Secretary may be doing from a sedentary position now, that I presented a distorted impression of the Chancellor's analysis—that I gave too much prominence to those particular currency unions. Some might think that those were not the only countries that the Chancellor and his colleagues looked at. I have to confess that they would be right. There are indeed other countries included in that analysis. In the heat of the moment on 9 June, I am afraid that I did not mention the other currency unions that were studied—the currency unions involving Christmas Island and Kiribati, Anguilla and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, French Polynesia and Guadeloupe, and Gabon and Guinea-Bissau.
Why is the Chancellor reduced to presenting such a ludicrous case? Why is his analysis so distorted? It is, of course, because his statement was based not on the national economic interest but on trying to keep all the Cabinet's factions happy.
1408
But the result of the compromise that the Chancellor has been forced to cobble together is more serious than just the propaganda and the deception. He intends to make real and lasting changes to economic policy in this country merely to satisfy the Cabinet's factions. Six years ago, the Chancellor said that Britain could join the single currency only when we could demonstrate a "settled period of convergence" with the eurozone. He said that this would come about only after a "period of stability" for the economy.
On 9 June, however, the position changed. The Chancellor can no longer sit back and wait for convergence of the UK and eurozone economies to occur naturally. The Cabinet's factions will not let him. Instead, he has set out measures that aim to shoehorn our economy into the structure that he thinks will fit the euro. Now, he is hell-bent on achieving convergence artificially when it would not occur naturally. No longer will he sit back and wait; he is going to try to wrench our economy into the euro straitjacket, whether it fits or not.
First, the Chancellor said that there would be changes to the housing market. This is not because the housing market needs changing, but because one faction in the Cabinet needs pleasing. So he will be trying to encourage fixed-rate mortgages. But was the former Governor of the Bank of England not right when he said that
"there are long-term fixed-rate mortgages if you want to take them up…the question is, is there an appetite for them?"
But to please the Cabinet's factions, the Chancellor wants to force-feed them to us, whether we have the appetite for them or not. He will be pursuing this course in advance of a euro referendum. The Bank of England's chief economist told the Treasury Committee what that would mean:
"you would certainly have to move interest rates more than you would otherwise have to do, to have the same impact on demand".
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is not here to listen to that.
So, the result of the Chancellor's policy of cajoling people into taking out a mortgage product that they do not want will be more violent swings in interest rates. Despite all that, when the Chancellor's study is complete and the changes have been made, the evidence suggests that even then he will not achieve what he wants. His reforms will not change the fact that, as his own evidence shows, we have higher mortgage debt and more home ownership than France or Germany, more equity withdrawal, and house prices that have risen at double the rate in France and Germany. That will be true even after the Chancellor has messed around with the mortgage market.
That is not all that the Chancellor has in mind on housing to please the Cabinet's factions. He also has planning policy in his sights, as he reminded us this afternoon. His assessment talks of
"tough and credible measures, including intervention, where local authorities are not delivering housing numbers in high demand areas; and exploring whether, in the medium term, achieving the Government's objective will require a system of binding local plans".
The Campaign to Protect Rural England has warned that Government proposals could cause a further erosion of greenfield sites.

1409
The Chancellor also plans the most significant change in inflation targeting for a decade—not because he thinks that monetary policy needs changing, but to please one faction in the Cabinet. He plans to make changes before a single vote is cast in a referendum, and irrespective of whether people want the euro or not. Monetary policy will no longer be based on the current measure of inflation, the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments; instead, we will adopt the eurozone's favoured measure, the harmonised index of consumer prices or HICP.
The Chancellor tries to justify that in two contradictory ways. First, he says that the new measure will be better, although apparently we shall have to wait until the decision is implemented to see a comprehensive list of what he considers to be its advantages. Normally when people propose a new policy they set out its advantages at the time. Secondly, he implies that it will not make much difference anyway. In his 246-page assessment of the five economic tests, just one paragraph is devoted to the issue. It states that over the long term the current inflation target corresponds to around 2 per cent. for HICP. Yet had the Bank of England been set in January 2000 the HICP inflation target that the Government now suggest, it would have missed that target repeatedly. On 12 occasions since then, HICP inflation has been below 1 per cent. Each time, the governor would have needed to send the Chancellor a letter explaining the reasons for the failure.
Had the Government set the inflation target that they now suggest, monetary policy over the last three years would have been significantly looser than it has been. In fact, the latest figures show that RPIX exceeded HICP by the widest margin for 14 years.
Where is the Chancellor's analysis of the effects of this change? Where are the pros and cons of excluding housing costs from a price index in a country where those costs are so important? Where is the estimate of what such a change would mean for interest rates when the gap between the two measures of inflation was widening? What will be the effect if, in future, policy based on HICP is loosened at a time when RPIX is rising? The Chancellor's only analysis has been of the effect on the factions in the Cabinet, because that is the only test he cares about now.
Mr. Bercow: Given that the Chancellor strongly advocated entry to the exchange rate mechanism—which was unsuccessful but reversible—and given that he now favours, in principle, entry to the European central currency and the running of our monetary policy by people whom we do not elect and cannot remove, does he now recall the wisdom of Kipling, who wrote:
"The burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire"?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic eloquence, and I entirely agree with him. Perhaps, however, he makes the mistake of assuming that the Chancellor's approach to this matter is rational. As we know, his approach to the whole question is determined simply on the basis of the faction fighting in the Cabinet.
1410
The Chancellor is also consulting on a new fiscal policy in the event of our joining the euro. He is not content with merely abandoning his monetary policy; he must abandon his fiscal policy as well. Since becoming Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman has gone to great lengths to boast about his fiscal policy framework and his supposedly cast-iron fiscal rules. If we join the euro, however, that framework is set to change. The Chancellor will have to introduce a third rule allowing him to do what Governments stopped doing 30 years ago, and try to fine-tune the economy with tax changes. Governments gave that up 30 years ago because it did not work, but the Chancellor has to try to do it again, because he will have given away the ability to set interest rates. He is giving away the nutcracker, so out comes the sledgehammer to crack the nut instead. That is why his own evidence says that
"fiscal policy may need to be more activist"
if Britain joins the single currency.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend has identified an important point. The problem experienced by Finance Minister Eichel in the Federal Republic of Germany, to which he alluded earlier, is precisely the one that he describes. Forcing through a reform package of taxation against the predispositions of the Social Democratic party has proved to be exceedingly difficult, and in the meantime German unemployment remains inexorably high.
Mr. Howard: That is true, but the change that the Chancellor is embracing needs a little more analysis. We must consider what it will mean in the real world. According to John Butler of HSBC,
"very important and frequent swings in tax rates"
will be required. The Chancellor's documents list the taxes that he has in mind: VAT, excise duties and taxes on housing. "Investment in housing", his documents complain,
"is relatively lightly taxed compared to other investments".
The Chancellor has spent six years "converging" Britain with European levels of business tax and European levels of red tape. Now it is the turn of homeowners.
"Tax instruments affecting the housing market have some immediate appeal".
his documents say, and stamp duty is singled out. What level of tax rises has he in mind?
Mr. Nigel Beard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to listen to this for a little longer.
Replicating the average level of stamp duty in France. Germany, Italy and Spain would involve a fivefold increase in the tax paid by people buying properties valued at between £60,000 and £250,000. That would increase the amount of stamp duty paid on a £100,000 house by £4,000.
I now give way to the hon. Gentleman. I look forward to hearing him explain how he will justify that sort of increase to his constituents.
Mr. Beard: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the United States, with a common interest

1411
policy, does not experience the vast swings of tax policy that he describes, yet is perfectly well managed economically?
Mr. Howard: The United States is one country. It has much higher labour mobility. Its people speak one language. It has a system of substantial fiscal transfers between one state and another. The only reason for entering the euro is to build a country called Europe. Those who want to build a country called Europe are absolutely right to be in favour of joining the euro, but if there is no wish to build a country called Europe there is no justification for joining.
The increases in stamp duty are not the only tax increases identified in the Chancellor's own documents. Everything that I am saying is based on those documents. They say that existing powers to raise taxes such as VAT may not be enough, and that the limits may have to be widened if we join the euro. The fact that the existing powers allow the Chancellor to increase VAT to nearly 22 per cent. gives some indication of the sort of tax rises that he has in mind.
None of it would work anyway. The Treasury's own evidence lists all the reasons why discretionary fiscal policy has failed in the past. I think I just heard the Chancellor ask, from a sedentary position, "Who wrote this?" The answer is the economists in the Treasury. It all comes from the 18 volumes of supporting documents that the Chancellor produced on 9 June.
Listing the reasons for the failure of discretionary fiscal policy, the Treasury says that there are "complexities" and "practical difficulties". It cites studies showing that the policy was a destabilising influence. The Chancellor's permanent secretary and his chief economic adviser have written a book about what a mess it all was, and how wonderful it is that we have left all that behind. But now, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies puts it, it is "back to the future". It says:
"The idea that tax rates should be used actively to manage the amount of spending power in the economy has been out of fashion for three decades, but Mr. Brown is willing to turn the clock back".
That is not all. This is the Chancellor whose allies told The Independent in February:
"If the tests have not been met, we should rule it out for the Parliament. You can't keep looking at it every six months or a year until you get the right result. People would see that as a political fix rather than a decision taken on economic grounds".
But a political fix is exactly what the Chancellor announced.
The Chancellor once used to say that to join the euro successfully,
"we must demonstrate a settled period of convergence."
And to "demonstrate sustainable convergence", he said,
"will take a period of years".—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 584–85.]
After all, if our economy looks similar to the eurozone economy, how do we know that so-called convergence is real, and that it is not a case of ships simply passing in the night? But on 9 June all that changed, when the Chancellor told the House that far from judging sustainable and durable convergence over a period of years, he will give it until next March, when he may look at the tests again. So we have no convergence to speak of now, but the Chancellor is asking us to believe that we
1412
might have "sustainable and durable" convergence in eight months' time. Four in five tests have been failed, but the Chancellor is asking us to believe that all five might be passed "clearly and unambiguously" in eight months' time.
What of all the reforms that the Chancellor says are required to bring that about, such as changes to housing finance, labour market flexibility, regional and local pay structures, new inflation targets, reform of the stability and growth pact, and reform of the European Central Bank and of the economies of the eurozone? All of that is to be completed well before next March, to provide time for the result to be assessed afterwards. But in fact, this week the Prime Minister gave the game away when he suggested that the referendum could take place before the reforms are fully implemented.
So there we have it: the issue is not completing the reforms and assessing the results. So much for assessing sustainable and durable convergence over a period of years! Now, convergence is to be judged on the basis that these reforms just might, eventually, get under way. So not only will we not know whether the ships are just passing in the night; the ships will not actually be anywhere near each other. They will just be on the way, and hopefully they may meet, this year, next year, sometime—or never. What an absurd basis on which to make irrevocable changes to the economic future of our country.
As Steven Andrew of the asset management company ISIS said:
"It borders on the incredible to suggest a significantly different conclusion can be sensibly reached within such a brief time frame".
Even the Institute for Public Policy Research, the Government's favourite think-tank, says that it is "implausible" that progress will have been made by next year on the
"long-term barriers to euro entry"
that the Chancellor identified. So why is the Chancellor continuing the uncertainty in this way?
It is clear that the policy that the Chancellor has now adopted on the euro was based not on logic, and certainly not on the national economic interest, but on the narrow, partisan interest of a faction-ridden Cabinet, and on the narrow, partisan interest of a Chancellor looking to keep in with both sides. None of this would matter quite so much if he did not mean it and he was just taking his colleagues for a ride, but his policies will affect people before a single vote is cast in a referendum. It is the country that is being taken for a ride. Business will now pay the price of the Chancellor's rolling assessments and rolling uncertainty. Households will now pay the price of his attempts to force our economy to "converge". And the whole nation will now pay the price of the Cabinet's faction-fighting—a nation that says that its priorities are hospitals, schools, crime and tax, but which sees the Government continuing to waste time on the euro.
To curry favour with those factions, the self-styled "iron Chancellor" has announced that he was prepared to ditch everything that he claimed he stood for: his monetary policy, his fiscal framework and his so-called prudence. Some of it will go now, irrespective of whether we join, and he has no qualms about abandoning the rest if we go in. The Chancellor's approach is now clear

1413
for the whole nation to see. After all the fine talk of the last six years, when it came to the crunch, this Chancellor has chosen to sacrifice his credibility for partisan reasons; and now that it has gone, he will find that it has gone for good.
The Chancellor may have thought that the compromise that he agreed on 9 June was worth it for a quiet life. He may have thought that the price of the policies that he has now adopted would be paid by others than himself. He may even like to pretend that it was really nothing to do with him, but ultimately the content of that statement was his responsibility, and in lost credibility and respect he may find that he has paid the biggest price of all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all Members that
Mr. Speaker has imposed a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
2.44 pm
Mr. John McFall: It is a pleasure to speak in today's debate, and I begin by thanking the Chancellor for the Treasury's response to the Select Committee report on the euro. In particular, I want to thank him, on behalf of my colleagues, for saying that the report is an important contribution to the debate. I remind the House that this report was unanimous—a fact that demonstrates that individuals throughout the House can come together and examine a complex and sensitive issue in a serious way. I want to compliment my colleagues on their long-term contribution to this debate.
We did not undertake a running commentary on the Chancellor's tests, but we did identify key questions. For example, are they the correct tests and does the technical and preliminary work cover the relevant areas? Also, how did other countries prepare—or how are they preparing—for entry, and what were their changeover plans? I hope that the report can be a template for the ensuing debate, because we need a long and sustained discussion on this issue.
I commend the Chancellor and the Treasury for the rigorous economic analysis that they undertook. A look back at the 20th century reveals the debacle of sterling, which began in 1925 with the gold standard and continued in the 1940s. Devaluation occurred in 1967, and the debacle culminated in our exit from the exchange rate mechanism. The shadow Chancellor's imprecision is admirable, as he was very much involved in the ERM decision. We can imagine him and other members of the then Cabinet in Horseguards Parade, listening to the radio to discover the latest value of sterling, and to see where their policy would lead them. I do not call that decision making—I call it an utter and total shambles. If he wants to show the necessary degree of humility today, I shall be delighted to give way to him.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must know that I have said on countless occasions that the decision in question was a terrible mistake, and that I fully accept my share of responsibility for it, because I was a member of the Cabinet at the time, but unlike Labour
1414
Members—who were fully supportive of that decision before, when and after it was taken—I have learned the error of my ways. I am determined that the people of this country should not again have to go through the hardships that they went through after that decision was taken.
Mr. McFall: For the shadow Chancellor, that is an example of consistent humility, and I shall be quite happy if he signs up to it, but in practice, one week he says that he is humble, and the next he becomes arrogant on this issue. The point is that it is those in government who take the decisions; it is not the Opposition who take them. We have to make the economic tests rigorous, and I should like him and the rest of the official Opposition to sign up to that principle. Economic tests are extremely important, and the Committee was unanimous in recognising that fact.
Although the five tests are extremely important, there is a debate as to whether they are clear and unambiguous. At the end of the day, some form of judgment on them is essential.
Mr. Redwood: It is customary when candidates sit examinations that they can never pass that somebody says to them at some point, "I wouldn't carry on wasting your time." At what point should we say to the Chancellor that there is no point in trying to pass these tests, because we are not going to?
Mr. McFall: That position derives from a stubborn and intellectually ignorant base. The issue that we must engage with is Europe, but where are the Tory party coming from in this regard? On GMTV on 1 May 1999, the former shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—he is in his place—said, with determination and sureness:
"We've always said that we don't know whether the principle of a single currency is right."
Is that the correct stance for 2003, as we in Europe look forward? Is the principle of a single currency correct or not? What is the Tory party position? There is so much obfuscation that we cannot engage in a reasonable and rational debate. That is the core of the issue today.
What we heard from the shadow Chancellor a few moments ago was an elucidation of all the negative aspects: nothing positive and no engagement in the debate on Britain's place in Europe. That reflects the negative position of Conservative Members, and they will never make electoral headway until they realise that they have to be honest and open with the electorate and engage in a constructive debate.
From a personal point of view, I would like to comment on the fact that only one of the five economic tests has been passed. That is similar to the position in 1997. In the coming weeks and months, I would like the Chancellor to elaborate on the tests, because I believe that significant progress has been made in several aspects of them. For example, on convergence, the Chancellor himself said in a report this morning that "significant progress" had been made, and I well remember Professor Michael Moore of Queen's university Belfast telling the Select Committee that there would be no convergence
"until Britain joins the monetary union."

1415
Convergence requires a process of involvement in monetary union and I would like the Chancellor to take account of such comments.
We are currently one of the most flexible economies in Europe. Yes, more could be done, and I applaud the establishment of the review on housing and labour market flexibility, but the Chancellor should report on that matter in a reasonable time. Professor David Miles, whom he appointed to examine the issues, gave evidence to the Committee, and I questioned him on how long it would take to move over to fixed interest rates. He said that it could take several years. The question is whether we are satisfied that sufficient progress has been made, or whether we wait for full completion in respect of the housing market, which could be detrimental to our medium and long-term interests in Europe.
On investment, are we not already losing out in existing circumstances? Several witnesses spoke about that, including the president of Alstom in the UK and the chief executive of Siemens. Niall Fitzgerald of Unilever made a submission in which he made it clear that the company was already suffering from the current position. The president of Alstom was equally clear in saying that, if hard facts were wanted, staying out of the euro would mean that, within two or three years, he would have to recommend transferring 50 per cent. of the UK's manufacturing jobs into the eurozone economy.
Mr. James Plaskitt: Has my hon. Friend seen the latest figures on foreign direct investment, which show a further fall in the value of FDI coming into the UK over the past 12 months?
Mr. McFall: I have seen those figures, which make the problem even more urgent. Constituencies such as mine, which has a whisky interest and greatly depends on exports to Europe, will very shortly start suffering if a decision is not taken.
The Chancellor told us that the City test was passed. Members of my Committee had regular and extensive discussions with individuals from the City, and it is fair to describe the City's position as agnostic—it will make money irrespective of what currency it is in. That is basically what City people told us, but we also have to consider the issue of regulation and euro regulation. The City of London is twice the size of its nearest competitor, Frankfurt, but regulation in Europe will increase over the years, which will be to the detriment of the City. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) said, people in the City are aware that in the longer term it could be disadvantageous to the City, so they are turning their minds to a future in the euro.
The last test was jobs and growth. The figures will be important in the medium term, but there can be no doubt about the danger of longer-term detriment. The Chancellor made it clear in his opening speech that we depend on Europe for 3 million jobs, and we have £154 billion of imports and £140 billion of exports. That is hugely significant, so we have to be careful when so many jobs are at stake. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made an important point about that, which has not received the prominence that it should have. The status quo will no longer be an option.
1416
The ground is moving under our feet, and if we do not recognise that, it will be detrimental to both our medium and our long-term interests. The status quo is no longer an option.
Public understanding was the last issue that the Committee examined. We feel that the public have a right to know the parameters—
Mr. Andrew Love: I would like to bring my hon. Friend back to the five tests. He made historical analogies earlier when he spoke about the gold standard at $4.80 in 1925, making the point that we joined the exchange rate mechanism at far too high a rate. Is the exchange rate itself important enough to be one of the tests?
Mr. McFall: We heard evidence about that, and one of the witnesses described it as a sixth test. The report also makes considerable reference to the issue. Several witnesses were asked what the most suitable exchange rate would be, and the former Governor of the Bank of England came close to saying that the current level was almost correct. The exchange rate is an important matter. Professor Simon Wren-Lewis, the author of a study commissioned by the Treasury, mentioned 73p as an appropriate exchange rate, but in the Chancellor's response to our report, the Treasury did not—and I am not surprised—tie itself down on that. Several members of the Committee felt that we were roughly at the level at which we should contemplate going in, but that is a matter for the Government.
On public understanding, the polls suggest that people are about two to one against euro entry, but I do not view that as a case for packing up and moving away. Rather, it is a case for having a long and sustained debate. Intelligence from various studies suggests that the UK population is the least educated in respect of understanding of Europe. Being at the bottom of the league is disgraceful. It does not reflect on all of us in this place and it is crucial to aim for greater public understanding.
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am reminded of 1991 when the Maastricht treaty was under consideration and the Deutschmark was effectively signed away. It was said, "What?—you cannot be serious." There was no understanding. Is it not the case that this country's scepticism is not the result of any lack of understanding, but of people's genuine understanding of the intimate connection between losing one's currency and losing control of the political future?
Mr. McFall: I do not believe that 1991 is a very good example. People make up their minds before finding out the true position, and many people in the country do not understand it. The politicians—all of us—have not been good enough at communicating to people in the country. When we talk, people often do not understand our language. We use a Westminster-type language, whereas we should aim for greater clarity in the debate.
I believe that the Government missed an opportunity in the last reshuffle to appoint a Minister for Europe to the Cabinet.
Mr. Laws: Is that an application for the job?
Mr. McFall: Absolutely not. I am delighted to have the opportunity to elucidate and to criticise from my

1417
present vantage point, but a Minister for Europe would have an opportunity to put the case in the Cabinet. I welcome the new European strategy committee that has been set up by the Prime Minister, but I hope that its members will bear in mind the window of opportunity that we have for joining Europe. Professor Francesco Giavazzi, a former employee of the Bank of England and now at Milan university, has said that if we wish to influence the European financial architecture in the European Central Bank and the stability and growth pact, we have only a period of two or three years to do so. We should remember that the 10 accession countries will also join, so the ECB could have 30 members in just over a year's time. It is obvious that UK political influence will lessen the longer we stay out.
I want the euro roadshow to go on the road. Before the next Budget, the Government need to demonstrate that progress has been made. It was clear to the Committee that the debate on Europe is confusing, complicated and irrelevant to people's everyday lives. It needs to be more intelligible and less arcane. We have a duty to achieve that, and I hope that the Government will undertake the task as soon as possible.
3.1 pm
Mr. David Laws: I am delighted to follow my former colleague and boss on the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), in the debate, and I congratulate him on the report on the euro. I also congratulate him on managing to bind together a coalition of that Committee's members, from all political parties represented on it, to produce a high quality report that has helped to inform the debate in this area.
This is an important debate, but it is not very timely. It is important because, as the Chancellor said to the Treasury Committee, when he gave evidence on the issue, joining the euro is
"perhaps the biggest peace time economic decision we as a nation have to make".
It is not very timely because we know that the decision has already been made, largely for political reasons, and—however much the Chancellor pretends that we are undertaking a serious analysis of the five economic tests, that we will revisit the issue next year, and that we may then have another assessment—we know that the truth is that he has won his battle with the Prime Minister and has succeeded in kicking this issue into the next Parliament at least. Perhaps that is why the Chancellor has failed to attract more Liberal Democrats to the debate today.
Mr. Fallon: What is Liberal Democrat policy on this issue? Does the hon. Gentleman still think that it would have been right to join the euro on 1 January 1999?
Mr. Laws: If the hon. Gentleman—a former colleague on the Treasury Committee—had listened to my earlier comments, he would know that the Liberal Democrats said clearly in 1999, 2000 and 2001 that the pound was overvalued. In fact, we published documents to that effect.
1418
It is tempting to go through the 18 documents of economic analysis published recently by the Treasury, but that would be to miss some of the serious points that surround what is not only an economic decision but a political issue. The hon. Member for Dumbarton and other colleagues from the Committee will remember the evidence given in a memorandum, as part of their inquiry, by Peter Riddell, the respected economic and political correspondent on The Times. He said:
"The Government's assessment of euro entry is flawed, both in structure and in implementation. The exercise elevates the Chancellor's five economic tests to an exaggerated status and seeks to separate constitutional, political and economic issues, which are, in practice, inter-linked. Therefore, basic structural issues of whether Britain should join the euro are confused with cyclical ones of when the time is right."
I agree with that analysis and we must recognise—it is obvious to those outside the House—that people make their judgments not only on an economic analysis, but on the constitutional and political implications of the decision. I shall therefore concentrate on three issues.
First, I shall probe the rather divisive decision-making process of the Government, to try to explore the real motivations and positions of Ministers, not least on the key issue of whether we will trade in the macroeconomic framework that we have in this country for that of the eurozone. Secondly, I shall consider some of the analysis in summary of the five economic tests; and thirdly, I shall consider some of the political and constitutional issues that the Chancellor alluded to in his speech when he unveiled the decision on the five tests, but which he seems shy of addressing otherwise.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Chancellor that higher stamp duty and capital gains tax on the prime residence are a price worth paying to converge with euroland? If he does not agree, what other higher taxes would the Liberal Democrats suggest, because they would need to raise taxes to converge?
Mr. Laws: That intervention characterises the unbalanced contributions—
Mr. Bacon: Answer the question.
Mr. Laws: I am doing so. The intervention characterises the often unbalanced contributions from the Conservatives on this topic. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked which taxes we would increase. He is too intelligent for it to have escaped him that if one were trying to use fiscal policy to cushion an economy, taxes could go down, as well as up. The right hon. Gentleman is scaremongering, and that is one reason why this debate is so ill informed.
If we consider the way in which the Government approach the decision, we can see a division between the various players. The Prime Minister rises above the economic debate, seeing mostly the political issues that arise. Every now and again, he implies that at some stage in the future it will be possible for the Government to make a positive decision. He also urges the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not in his place today, unfortunately, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and various business men, to do his work for him, but he is unwilling to lead on the issue. In

1419
July 2000, the Prime Minister said on "Question Time" that if we carried on running the economy well, the Government would be able to make a recommendation—presumably to join—early in the next Parliament. However, when the next Parliament came along we discovered that we had had no leadership on the issue from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and that the issue had been kicked just over the horizon, yet again.
The late Lord Jenkins summarised the Government's approach to this issue, and to many other difficult issues, when he said:
"It is no good just waiting for the weather of public opinion to improve. It is no good just going down in the morning, looking at the rain, gloomily tapping the barometer and saying we cannot do anything today. The great Prime Ministers, those who leave a mark on history, are those who make the political weather and not those who skilfully avoid its storms and shelter from its downpours."
The Prime Minister's view on the euro is that it i s a decision that he wants to make, but not yet—in a couple of years or after the next election.
At the other end of the spectrum is the Treasury view. It is far more sceptical and perhaps owes something to Mr. Balls, the very influential chief economic adviser in the Treasury. He has had extraordinary influence over economic policy in this Parliament and the previous one. He was taken on by the Chancellor in 1994, just after he had written a pamphlet for the Fabian society in which he was especially critical of monetary union. He wrote:
"In short, monetary union in the manner and timetable envisaged in the treaty is an economically and politically misconceived project."
He went on to criticise trading in the macroeconomic model that we have in this country. Elsewhere in the Treasury is the distinctive figure of Mr. Gus O'Donnell. He is now the permanent secretary and was also an important figure in the Conservative years in government. He gave a remarkable speech to undergraduate students a year or so ago, in which he included a series of extraordinary cartoons that I understand he drew himself. I wish that we could put them in Hansard so that we could use them to show his scepticism about the co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policy in the eurozone, compared with the UK.
I accept that I am talking about distant documents and cartoons, but the undertone of scepticism about the willingness to trade in the macroeconomic structures that the Government have set up in this country runs through the chief economic adviser's recent Cairncross lecture, and some of the less noticed documents published when the Chancellor unveiled the decision on the five economic tests. One of those documents was called "Policy Frameworks in the UK and the EMU". The fingerprints of the chief economic adviser are all over it. He goes through the UK macroeconomic infrastructure, which he characterises as a "system of constrained discretion". He contrasts that, in many different areas, with the economic structures in the European Central Bank and in terms of the stability and growth pact.
The Government are raising some legitimate points about the way in which the stability and growth pact has been set up, and the Chancellor did so again today. Those matters include the constraints that the pact
1420
creates in terms of macroeconomic flexibility, and the ability to borrow money for investment purposes. We agree with the Chancellor that those matters deserve serious attention and that they need to be tackled to help Britain to operate flexibly and in a serious way in the eurozone. However, it is odd that the Chancellor should be keen to draw attention to these very important matters but then move away from saying that they will be fundamental to his decision to join the euro.
That is the first big issue that we must consider—the extent to which the Chancellor and the Treasury are serious about taking the decision to go into the euro. We do not know whether they have yet made the necessary mental leap, or are doing what the previous Prime Minister did. He adopted a wait-and-see policy that kept his options open, and that seems very similar to the position taken today by the Chancellor.
I asked the Chancellor earlier whether he would be disappointed if we were not members of the euro in five years time. As ever, he ducked the question and said that it was a matter of meeting the five economic tests. What does that tell us about the Government's economic strategy and commitment to the euro? There is no real commitment to decide and prepare. The strategy is to put off the decision. There is an unwillingness to acknowledge the potential gains that could arise from joining the euro.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman talks about potential gains, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed the economy extremely well. The contrast with the eurozone is obvious.
Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me—that the Treasury, the Labour party and the Government have not decided whether they want to trade in their UK macro-economic model for the euro model. The hon. Gentleman exposes the uncertainties in the Government's economic policy, and the pretence that the Government have made up their mind about the issue.
Mr. Bacon: Why would the Chancellor want to trade in the framework, when it is plainly doing better than the eurozone framework, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) noted?
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He and his party seem to have changed their minds about having an independent central bank in this country. It operates monetary policy much more effectively than was the case in the days of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe and his predecessors. They used to change interest rates every day, week or month, often to suit the needs of short-term party political management. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is making comments from a sedentary position. If he does not believe that that is what happened, he ought to take time to read the memoirs of Lord Lawson. If the right hon. Gentleman has not read them before, I can tell him that Lord Lawson describes in several places the pressure that he faced as

1421
Chancellor, when the then Prime Minister wanted interest rates to be cut to get her out of short-term political difficulties.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Laws: I see that I have stimulated a debate. I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Mr. Bercow: It is a cardinal principle of the British political system that no Parliament should be allowed to bind its successor. Why then does the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, think that it is not merely acceptable but desirable to hand over responsibility for the UK's monetary policy to people whom we do not elect and cannot remove and whom, under article 108 of the treaty of Amsterdam, it is illegal to seek to persuade of the British Parliament's point of view?
Mr. Laws: The latter part of that point was used by Conservative Members to keep UK monetary policy under the control of elected politicians—
Mr. Bacon: That is ancient history.
Mr. Laws: It is not ancient history as far as the hon. Member for Buckingham is concerned. I turn now to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's point. Is he arguing that, if we in this House believed that significant economic benefits could be realised for this country by joining the euro, we should take a decision that is completely different from the one taken by other countries in Europe just because we would not want to bind future Parliaments? Even if the benefits were extraordinary—to the extent of 10, 20 or even 50 per cent. of gross domestic product—
Mr. Bacon: Which benefits?
Mr. Laws: Let us say that GDP may be increased by 50 per cent. as a consequence of euro entry—
Mr. Bacon: Dream on.
Mr. Laws: Would the hon. Member for Buckingham say that even then, he would reject joining the euro simply because it would bind future Parliaments? That is a bizarre suggestion.
Mr. Bercow: I would certainly reject any idea that one could be assured that euro entry would be of such permanent economic advantage to the UK that it would outweigh the potential disadvantages of a sacrifice of national control. The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question, but the difference is simple. The Bank of
1422
England has operational independence, but Parliament can always change its remit. The same does not apply to the European Central Bank.
Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman's last comment is a fair point, but his position—and that of his party—has changed greatly on the matter.
Mr. Bercow: Mine has not.
Mr. Laws: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was previously an ardent advocate of operational independence for the UK central bank.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Laws: I shall give way once more, to the right hon. Member for Wokingham. Then I shall make progress, as many others want to contribute to the debate.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was the chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister in the period that he mentioned, and I gave her advice on economics and interest rates among other matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the only consideration in the advice that I gave was improving the prosperity and employment prospects of the British people. I hope that he will withdraw his slur from the record book. The only time that Government's monetary policy went wrong was when we were slaves to Europe in the exchange rate mechanism—something that I opposed.
Mr. Laws: It is not I who wrote that record book, but Lord Lawson. His autobiography is an excellent work, and I recommend that the right hon. Gentleman go back and reread it. If he does, he will see why Lord Lawson recommended that there should be an operationally independent central bank—it was because he was subjected to bullying from the then Prime Minister. The book also shows that Lord Lawson also recommended a constitutional settlement for the EU. I shall deal with that matter in a moment, and try to provoke the right hon. Gentleman further.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Laws: I must make some progress.
The second major area that we must consider is the overall economic analysis—the judgment made within the five economic tests document and the preliminary studies. There, the Government are on better ground. The assessment that they have made and, in particular, their quantification of the potential gains from joining the euro are credible and significant. Some people have suggested that the Government's estimate of an increase in the trend rate of growth of the economy of about a quarter of a per cent. per year, which they claim is possible if we join the euro, is in some ways a trivial amount. People who suggest that do not understand the powers of compound interest and the huge impact that that sort of increase in the trend rate of growth could have on the economy and economic growth over time, or the fact that it could provide the resources that we need to improve our public services and tackle poverty.

1423
I also find it more credible that the Government should come up with an estimate of that nature than with some of the inflated figures that are often produced by advocates of the euro, who like to pretend that it would be a universal panacea for every type of economic problem. We are more likely to convince people of the value of the euro and its economic benefits if our claims are modest, sensible and well informed rather than over-hyped. The Government have made a sensible judgment by coming up with that calculation. It shows how much wealthier the country could be over the years if we decide to go into the euro and achieve the gains so clearly spelled out in the Government's documents.
Until now, the greatest economic impediment to joining the euro has been not some of the issues that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned recently—one suspects as a smokescreen to give him time to delay the decision and kick it into the next Parliament—such as the changes in the housing market, but the overvaluation of the pound against the euro. Although the Chancellor insists on implying that the Liberal Democrats have been urging the Government to join the euro at all times in the past few years, he should be fair and admit that we have always acknowledged during that time that the pound has been seriously overvalued and that we could not contemplate going in at that level.
Indeed, the Chief Secretary will no doubt have read the excellent Liberal Democrat commission document to which a number of respected economists including Martin Weale contributed two or three years ago. In 2000, that committee assessed the long-term sustainable rate of the pound against the euro and came up with a range of 1.25 to 1.45, which turns out to be almost identical to the 1.37 mid-point that the Government have come up with in their economic assessment. As we are now much closer to that figure as a result of the appreciation of the euro in recent months, that removes one of the greatest impediments to joining the euro. It should be a reason for the Chancellor to stop finding bogus economic excuses among the five-tests document for delaying the decision as long as he wants for political reasons, and to begin to grapple with the serious economic issues.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman's comments have been largely confined to the domestic situation. If joining economic and monetary union and participating in the eurozone is going to open up a land of milk and honey and bring prosperity to the British people, why do the core economies of the eurozone have a much higher unemployment rate than ours? They have been in EMU since it started and their work forces do not seem to have done very well out of it.
Mr. Laws: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the performance of the eurozone economies since they adopted the euro, he will find that in seven out of the 12 countries growth has been faster than in the United Kingdom. Also, as many of the problems that those countries—
Mr. Bacon: Germany, France.
Mr. Laws: Such as Germany. Many of the problems may be due to other economic and social issues, not least reunification and the labour market.
1424
If the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) presented an economic hypothesis to any serious economist saying that simply because particular eurozone economies have been growing slowly in the past couple of years it was evidence that the euro would not be in our national self-interest, he would be laughed out of court. That is not a serious economic analysis.
At least the Government have undertaken that analysis, even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has written in the conclusions for the Treasury economists at the end of the process as a result of a political decision—[Interruption.]It is no use the Chief Secretary pretending that there are no politics in this; of course there are. He leads me nicely to the third and, regrettably, the final part of my contribution, which is about the constitutional and political issues involved with the euro.
It would be naive in the extreme, even though the Chancellor pretends that these are merely economic issues, to think that they do not have political and constitutional implications, as Peter Riddell said in his evidence to the Treasury Committee. It is obvious to anyone who is an elected politician and has to account for his or her views on the euro that most people in this country are immensely confused about the economic arguments for it—that is not surprising, given their complexity. They are tending to make up their minds on the political and constitutional issues associated with the euro.
I welcome the debate that we have had in recent months and the past year or so on the European Convention and constitution, as it gives us the opportunity to do what Lord Lawson recommended in his autobiography—again, I recommend that work to Conservative Members, who seem not to have read it for some time. It gives us the opportunity to define and limit more clearly the powers of European Union institutions and to ensure that in those areas where Europe can play a positive role—trade, the environment and so forth—it does so, but also to ring-fence Europe from those areas in which it does not need to get involved.
As the Chief Secretary knows, unless we tackle that issue and take on the political and constitutional concerns of our constituents, we will not be able to win a referendum on the issue. The real test—the seventh or eighth test, or whatever—that must have been uppermost in the Chancellor's mind when he made his decision was not only the economics and the fact that he still seems uncertain about trading in the UK's macroeconomic framework for that of the EU, but the politics. The lack of leadership on the issue since 1997 and the lack of any convincing European strategy on the part of the Government have meant that they have been entirely unsuccessful in shifting the opinion polls on the euro. Since 1997, we have been stuck at about 50 to 55 per cent. of the public saying that they would not want to join the euro. That must have been one of the overwhelming reasons why the Government did not decide to call a referendum. Presumably, it will remain that way until the Government, or at least the Chancellor, feel that a referendum can be won.
If we look slightly more deeply into the polls, we find that although people on both sides of the argument have entrenched views—as we have heard today—the overwhelming majority of the British people are waverers. They are willing to be persuaded by the

1425
economic arguments and, perhaps grudgingly, by the constitutional and political arguments on Britain's role in Europe.
The Conservative party has undoubtedly played a useful part, even including some of the more outspoken of its members, in highlighting some of the constitutional issues that need to be addressed and dealt with as part of the process of taking Britain into the euro. They have helped to identify some of the public concerns that need to be dealt with before we can win a referendum. My regret is that so many of them insist on doing so from such an extreme and implausible perspective—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] The claim made earlier by the right h on. Member for Wokingham that fiscal stability would only mean higher taxes was an excellent example of that perspective.
The current leader of the Conservative party offered a further example of that view when he wrote in 1996—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) laughs, but I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has not changed his mind since 1996, when he wrote that
"the EU has become the legal framework not for containing Germany but for increasing German hegemony".
That type of extreme attitude to the EU will leave the Conservative party out in the wilderness, until it can enter the mainstream debate and acknowledge the value of our membership of the EU.
I commend to Conservative Members not only Lord Lawson's autobiography—
Mr. Bacon: Oh no.
Mr. Laws: I am surprised that Conservative Members pooh-pooh the contribution—
Mr. Bacon: Have you got shares in the publishing company?
Mr. Laws: I—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must remind the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) of what was said from the Chair at column 1151 of the Official Report yesterday. It would assist the debate if there were fewer sedentary comments.
Mr. Laws: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that these are sensitive issues within the Conservative party and I am trying not to provoke Conservative Members too much. However, I commend the contribution of pro-European Tories: for example, the contribution to the paper on the Convention on the Future of Europe that many Conservative Members of this and the other place signed up to, including the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. That paper noted:
"Where it can be clearly shown that we can achieve together what we cannot so effectively achieve separately, we have no hesitation in stating that the EU and its institutions must have the competence and the effectiveness to act for and on behalf of the citizens of member states".
1426
That, politically and economically, is where most people in this country stand. That is what most of them believe in.
Over the next couple of years, I hope that the Government will be more robust on the issue and that they will show some leadership. In some of the documents that they have produced recently, they have set out some of the powerful arguments in favour of the economic advantages of the euro. I hope that they will help to communicate those to the electorate, but above all, I hope that they will lead on the political and constitutional issues on which they must persuade the public if we are to win a referendum on the vital issue of the euro.
3.31 pm
Mr. James Plaskitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), my erstwhile colleague on the Treasury Committee. I am pleased to note that he is still as concise as he was then. I am struck, however, by the extraordinary lengths to which the Liberal Democrats have gone to ensure unity on their Benches on the subject of the euro.
I applaud the Government's approach to the complex issue of the euro. The analysis that has been provided and the accompanying studies should be praised for their breadth and depth. It is striking that we have not yet heard—at least I do not think we have—what the official Opposition think should be analysed and tested before deciding whether it is right to join the euro. They seem to accept that the issue is complex, but they cannot engage with the analysis of whether entry is in the economic interests of the country. The tests should not be rubbished; they should be studied, and if the other parties do not like the way the Government are carrying out the analysis it behoves them to suggest exactly what should be analysed and assessed, rather than taking such a dogmatic position.
I, too, want to address my brief comments to the report of the Treasury Committee. At the end of our report, we reviewed the possible positions that the Government and the country could reach during consideration of euro entry. Indeed, we anticipated and thoroughly rehearsed the position in which we find ourselves at present: namely, declaring that the Government remain, in principle, in favour of entering the euro; and that the economic conditions, as assessed in the analysis, are not yet right, but that the issue will be revisited at appropriate times in the near future. The Government continue to give positive signals, such as undertaking studies and policy initiatives designed to move the convergence process that has already taken place further along. They are, for example, looking into the mortgage structure and into changing the inflation index to that used inside the eurozone.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall)—the Chairman of the Treasury Committee—mentioned in his contribution, we are talking about a window of opportunity that opens while we stand in this position and how long that window will remain open. It is a window of opportunity, but opportunity for what? It is the chance to play a leading role in shaping the core institutions of economic and monetary union.
Mr. Redwood: The official Opposition think that the 18 studies are very good and contain some very sound

1427
advice that points to the obvious conclusion that we have not converged, that we are not going to converge and that is a waste of time and money playing around the pretence that we might.
Mr. Plaskitt: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has read the studies carefully enough. If he revisits them, he will find that there is considerable analysis of the degree to which there is increasing convergence—that is very clearly spelt out—while other parts of the studies clearly indicate where convergence has not happened and what might need to be done to encourage it to happen. In fact, they are very balanced studies. That is why his intervention suggests that he may not have read them carefully enough.
Mr. Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crucial comments in the studies is that on EMU and trade? It says very clearly:
"The emerging research consensus therefore…signals substantial gains to trade through membership of a currency union".
Given the importance that the United Kingdom places on trade, surely that extremely important comment points us in the right direction.
Mr. Plaskitt: My hon. Friend is exactly right and reinforces my point about the importance of the studies and the depth of the analysis in them.
Mr. Wilkinson: Why should we wish to converge with the economies of the eurozone? Would it not be better for our people to become richer than them, with higher employment and a better quality of life in this country? Is that not what our electors want?
Mr. Plaskitt: The hon. Gentleman assumes that he knows what will happen decades into the future. As the Chancellor said, we now have to assess such things in the global context. We have to consider the United Kingdom economy in relation to the global economy and the deepening single market in the EU. If we take any risk or chance over engaging properly with that, the only price that we will pay is sacrificing this country's future prosperity, not enhancing it, as the hon. Gentleman seems to think.
I was talking about the opportunity significantly to shape the emerging institutions of economic and monetary union. Those institutions are in their infancy, and they will be subject to change, despite the language of rigidity that we sometimes hear from politicians and Governments currently in the eurozone. The reality is that the institutions will steadily solidify. Over time, they will become less subject to change and reform. Having adopted our current position as a country that is outside the eurozone, we need to ask how much influence we have in shaping its architecture, for how long we will have that influence and at what rate will it wane the longer we stay outside the zone. Clearly, there is an opportunity cost of not being in the eurozone, or being close to joining it.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of how those rules and institutions might solidify against Britain's interests?
Mr. Plaskitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question: I am coming to precisely that point
1428
in my speech. First, let me answer in respect of the European Central Bank. It currently has its own definition of price stability, which it sets at between 0 and 2 per cent. That is a non-symmetrical target, and the Committee took a fair amount of evidence on that during our deliberations that led to the publication of the report. We found a lot of evidence to suggest that a non-symmetrical target has a tendency to be too tight and runs a risk of encouraging deflation. I was pleased to note that the Government acknowledge in their response to our report, which they published today, the strength of the point that our Committee made in respect of the ECB's inflation target.
Mr. Hopkins: Is not my hon. Friend understating the point about the ECB's policy being too tight? In fact, the eurozone is on the brink of deflation and a serious depression and would learn a lot from following our Chancellor's view that the asymmetrical inflation target should be rather higher.
Mr. Plaskitt: I thank my hon. Friend, and I think that he reinforces my point. The United Kingdom has an important opportunity to influence the emerging architecture of economic and monetary union. We can be encouraged by a comparison of our architecture with that inside the ECB, and I suspect that many inside the eurozone look at the way that we do things in this country and are anxious to learn from it. My point is about whether we have the opportunity to influence that evolution the longer we remain outside the system.
The European Central Bank has a monetary growth pillar, which is becoming increasingly discredited and which it is likely to abandon. Other problems inside the ECB include the non-publication of votes, for which there is a credible argument: the bank is reluctant to have member states' voting positions revealed, as it is trying to act in the interests of the zone as a whole and not identify itself with country positions. At the same time, however, that creates a lack of transparency, and in contrast with the system that we use, it is a distinct negative for the current arrangements inside the ECB.
Reform of the ECB's governing council is a very important issue. At the moment, a scheme has been adopted that anticipates rotating voting rights, but it is a cumbersome, complex scheme that is yet to be agreed by member states. It creates the position, however, whereby the five largest members in the eurozone will vote on only 80 per cent. of interest rate decisions, which will present something of a hurdle in terms of convincing sceptics in this country about democratic accountability inside the zone. We made that point with some force in our report. I feel that the ECB's current scheme is not altogether credible and sustainable, and I believe that it will have to be subject to further reform. I would like to see the UK Government play a leading part in the continuing evolution of that mechanism.
Secondly, we clearly saw the need for the stability and growth pact. It deals with the potential problem of freeloading inside the zone and provides an essential fiscal framework, which must be aligned with monetary union. The evidence that we gathered in our inquiry, however, suggested that there was more emphasis on stability than on growth, on which there was not enough, which may account for some of the problems that we are now seeing inside the eurozone economies.

1429
We should be cautious before being too critical of the pact. Pre-entry steps, which were necessary, were not taken by some of the large countries now inside the zone. There was insufficient incentive for them to take measures in their economy before joining, but there is no lack of sanction impelling them to do so now that they are inside. In that sense, the first tests through which the pact is going are likely to be the toughest. Once it is through its initial difficulties, it might work more effectively.
We want to see reform, however, and I welcome the Chancellor's comments today and on previous occasions about the Government pushing for reforms to some of the rules of the pact. It is clear that the pact should allow for debt to be measured across the economic cycle, and it should be more flexible in allowing for borrowing for investment as opposed to supporting consumption. In addition, it needs to allow for short-term borrowing to be geared against the overall level of a country's debt. All those changes are consistent with the underlying rules of the pact but are not yet adopted within the model.
Our position is that staying out of the euro—which is a logical and sensible position at which to have arrived at the moment—but continuing to prepare for entry is not a cost-free option. We have much to offer the eurozone in terms of monetary and financial architecture. My concern, however, is that as an "out" we will probably punch below our weight until we are inside the eurozone.
The system will evolve accordingly and it will gradually solidify, but it will be much harder to negotiate changes or assert British influence in the formation of this architecture in, let us say, five years' time when we might be considering joining.
On the evidence, I believe that the position that the Government have adopted in relation to the five tests is the right one. However, given that we have adopted that position, I urge them to work hard to keep up our weight and influence inside the European Union in the best interests of securing a successful monetary union and ultimately, therefore, in the best interests of our country.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and measure:

Appropriation Act 2003

Finance Act 2003

Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003

Marine Safety Act 2003

Licensing Act 2003

Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003

Aviation (Offences) Act 2003

Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003

Nottingham City Council Act 2003

Clergy Discipline Measure 2003

Economic and Monetary Union
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
3.46 pm
Mr. Michael Portillo: During the course of my speech, I shall try not to allude to the Chancellor's five economic tests. The main reason that they were invented was to bamboozle people into believing that the main criteria, on which we should judge the euro were economic criteria, whereas there are, in fact, important political and constitutional matters at stake. As Chancellor Kohl once said, there cannot be political union without monetary union, and vice versa.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) for at least pointing out that political and constitutional factors are at work. It is disappointing that, once again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer failed to admit that such factors are involved. It appears that his principle is that he cannot lose votes by insulting the intelligence of the British people. He not only insults the intelligence of the British people but he insults our European colleagues. There is at work on the continent of Europe a great deal of idealism—people who wish to build a new Europe. They are driven by a wish to avoid the problems that scarred our continent in the 20th century. They believe in creating a country of Europe. We should understand and be respectful of such idealism and should not deny that the euro is a part of that process.
I want to consider some recent political developments. Why did the Prime Minister come back from his leadership of the country in the war against Iraq so full of enthusiasm for the euro? Why did he want to go to the Cabinet as quickly as he could to convince it that it should take the euro to a referendum of the British people at the earliest possible opportunity? The reason was that an important event occurred in January when eight countries signed a letter in which they expressed their support for the United States in the Iraq crisis. However, they did that not only because they were talking about Iraq, but because, more broadly, the eight countries concerned, which included Britain, Spain, Italy and eastern and central European countries, had reached the conclusion that they did not wish to see a Europe in which all the decisions were pre-cooked by France and Germany. They wanted a Europe in which we took more account of the need to be globally competitive, in which we would have more flexible labour markets and in which we would try to have lower rates of taxation. In other words, that is a Europe in which many of its characteristics would be more Anglo-Saxon.
Our Prime Minister saw an opportunity to lead that faction—that large minority or perhaps even small majority—of countries in Europe that wanted Europe to be run differently. He realised that unless he was able to get this country into the euro, he would have no opportunity to offer leadership to that faction. That was what gave him the urgency and why he returned so enthusiastically. Having turned around the opinion polls substantially on Iraq, he believed that the fact that the majority of the people in this country were against entry into the euro would be no impediment to him.

1431
With his charm and charisma, he would simply be able to persuade the British people of the need to go into the euro. All that was a few months ago; it looks rather ridiculous a few months later.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood in the Prime Minister's way and prevented him from realising his European policy. That policy is now in a state of collapse. Indeed, I would go further and say that during the Iraq war the Prime Minister demonstrated enthusiasm not only for leading the country on Iraq and, subsequently, for the euro, but for a new political radicalism on foundation hospitals, student fees and ways to oppose some of the excesses of trade unionism.
The bursting of the Prime Minister's balloon of European policy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has led to a more generalised collapse of the Prime Minister's morale. He has abandoned his radicalism on hospitals, education and standing up to the trade unions. He has lost the Health Secretary who was going to implement his policy. The Chancellor's opposition to the Prime Minister on the euro is typical of his more generalised position, and it has left the Government in a thoroughly becalmed situation. However, at least the Prime Minister's actions during the past few months demonstrate that he knows perfectly well that the euro is a political issue.
Without alluding to the bogus five tests, I shall deal briefly with a couple of the economic issues. I do not understand why it was expected that applying a single interest rate to all the economies of Europe could ever be successful. Although convergence tests, which were fairly easy to pass, were applied to the countries that joined the euro at the first stage, it was perfectly obvious that Europe was composed of economies that were at thoroughly different stages of development and had different cycles and characteristics.
The application of a single interest rate to all those economies was a guarantee that the rate would be wrong for most places most of the time—and so it has turned out to be. The interest rate is too low for Ireland, which has inflationary pressures, and too high for Germany, which has severe economic problems, as several hon. Members said. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) quote Professor Moore's comment that those who had been in the euro since the beginning would have experienced greater convergence. Tell that to Ireland and Germany, because any convergence that might have occurred has not saved them from the grave economic damage that the interest rate is doing.
The hon. Member for Yeovil demonstrated extraordinary naivety by clutching at the 0.25 per cent. growth rate that has apparently been offered in the Treasury documents. Why should he believe anything that is published in a Government document? How can the Government precisely put their finger on a figure of 0.25 per cent. growth that is waiting to be grabbed if we join the euro? In any case, does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of the impact over time of applying the wrong interest rate to an economy? It is absolutely devastating, as the 4.3 million unemployed in Germany can attest
Mr. Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman is making the argument that one interest rate cannot possibly fit a variety of economies. Surely the United Kingdom consists of several economies. The interest rate that is established in
1432
the United Kingdom might be right for the housing market in the south-east and his constituency but wholly wrong for the manufacturing industry and my constituency.
Mr. Portillo: If the hon. Gentleman understands that—apparently he does—it is a tragedy that he does not understand that the problem will be worse if one interest rate is applied from Dublin to Athens. Whatever the differences between the north and south of England, more substantial differences exist between east and west Europe and north and south Europe. I am pleased that he intervened because I would otherwise have had to make that point in my own time rather than getting a bonus minute from him.
Hon. Members have discussed the growth and stability pact, which was recently subjected to a most intemperate and vituperative attack by a senior Italian politician. I refer, of course, to Signor Prodi's description of the growth and stability pact as stupid. That is all very well, but the pact was a product of deliberation among many of the wise minds of Europe. People thought that it was appropriate and the fact that he simply called it stupid provides us with no grounds on which this country could contemplate going into the euro. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is thus perfectly right that now is not the time to enter the euro, not least because the growth and stability pact is in such a mess. He offers the prospect that an alternative arrangement might be made over a long time to take more account of cycles, and so on, but we do not have such an arrangement now. For this country to dream of going into the euro when the growth and stability pact is attacked by even Europe's most senior political figures is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do.
Mr. Love: To take up the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, if in five years' time the eurozone has high growth rates and low inflation, will he change his mind about joining?
Mr. Portillo: It would certainly give the hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister a sporting chance of persuading the British people of their case. The position at the moment, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer wisely advised the Prime Minister, is that the Prime Minister would have to go to the country and say, "Look at Germany. We want a little bit of their 4.3 million unemployed. We want a little bit of their stagnation." I am a practical-minded person and take account of facts as I find them, and it is clear that even the hon. Gentleman would find it difficult to convince his constituents of such an extraordinary and foolish proposition.
Talking of foolish propositions, people still look for stable exchange rates. It makes me laugh because it puts me in mind of Monty Python and the quest for the Holy Grail. What has happened since the invention of the euro? Have we had stable exchange rates? No, of course not. The euro has varied enormously against sterling and the dollar. Many people who are advocates of the euro are not so much worried about whether they have the right exchange rate, but whether they have a strong exchange rate, so they can feel a certain euro machismo. I congratulate them because they have a nice strong exchange rate. That is very good for euro machismo, but desperate for European industry, which is trying to export with a high euro exchange rate.

1433
I am also amused by those people—the hon. Member for Yeovil is a good example—who lament that what went wrong in the past is that we joined the ERM at the wrong rate and say we must avoid that in future. That is a complete misunderstanding of what is involved. Exchange rates in different countries mean that if economies move at different paces and in different cycles, some of the shock of the differentials between one country and another can be absorbed by the exchange rate—it is a shock absorber. If we lock all our exchange rates together into one currency, we lose the shock absorber. The shocks that would otherwise be reflected in a rising or falling currency are reflected in higher inflation, higher unemployment or recession. We have good examples of that within the eurozone. It has nothing to do with the rate at which we go in. What it involves is giving up in the long term—permanently—the ability to have an exchange rate that reflects those varied movements.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that exchange rates, which vary for reasons other than those that he suggests, also provide the shocks and are not the unilateral shock absorber that he describes?
Mr. Portillo: Yes, I accept that. It is why I am pleased that we have an independent Bank of England. I am also pleased that I was the person in the Conservative party in the position of accepting an independent Bank of England as a good thing. It is one thing that has provided us with a little more stability. However, the hon. Gentleman has to understand the context. Even if we were part of the euro, it would continue to oscillate against the dollar and other currencies. Those people who believe that stability is available and can be grabbed as a great boon are economically ignorant.
Mr. Hopkins rose—
Mr. David rose—
Mr. Portillo: I want to make progress.
On the political factors, most elections in most countries are held on the subject of economics. I want to stress that to Labour Members. When people vote, they are voting on two different programmes—one that is rather more to the left and one that is rather more to the right—and they make a choice. When people in Ireland go to the polls and want to vote against high inflation, how do they do it? It does not matter whether they vote for Fine Gael, Fianna Fail or the Labour party, because the policy is not made by the Government of Ireland; it is made by the European Central Bank. If people in Germany object to unemployment or being in recession year after year and want to vote against it, it does not matter whether they vote Social Democrat or Christian Democrat, because those parties do not make the policy; it is made by the European Central Bank. Who votes for the European Central Bank? Nobody.
Mr. Laws: And the Bank of England.
Mr. Portillo: I am pleased that somebody has mentioned the Bank of England. I cannot believe that even people in opposition do not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who stands at the Dispatch Box is the man who is responsible for the inflation target in this country. He is responsible to this House for that target and he sub-contracts to the Bank of England the mechanistic task of setting the interest rates that will achieve it. He is responsible to us and we are responsible to the people who elect us, but no such conditions exist in Europe and nobody has any plans to put them in place.
Everybody admits that there is a democratic deficit in Europe, but nobody seems to have any solution to that problem. That is not surprising, because, in order to fill the democratic deficit, there would have to be a European political polity. There would have to be common European political institutions and common specific political values shared between Europeans. On going to the polls year after year, we would have to vote on common points and for common candidates, parties and programmes, and none of those things exists.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) asked whether I could imagine ever changing my mind about these issues. If all these things changed, we could look at them again, but he will understand that the creation of institutions in Europe that would truly reflect European democracy will not happen overnight. Indeed, such things will not happen in many decades. As a parliamentarian, he should be extremely concerned that economic decision making, which until now has been not only the preserve of democratic societies, but the most important political issue within them, has passed to an institution that is not accountable or democratic, and that nobody knows how it will be made democratic and accountable in the future.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to oppose the Prime Minister. I believe that he knows perfectly well that Labour Governments have often fallen in the past on trying to fix the exchange rate. He is a historian and he understands that perfectly well. He also understands perfectly well the political point that he is not prepared to admit to us and the people of this country—that if we join the euro, he will give up political power. In other words, he will no longer be the person who makes the key economic decisions. He knows that perfectly well and he is not prepared to give up power. At least, he will not do so until he has a new and different address to move to. Perhaps that will not be so very far in the future.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, by opposing the Prime Minister's economic policy, dished the Prime Minister and led to a collapse of the Government's economic policy. He has demoralised the Prime Minister to such an extent that we now see a complete absence of radicalism from him across a range of domestic issues, and, thanks to the Chancellor, who in this particular has been right—he has been right to oppose the Prime Minister—he has achieved the broader political result of leaving this Government absolutely becalmed, with nowhere to go and no sense of direction.
4.3 pm
Keith Vaz: What a depressing speech from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). I cannot imagine which country he could have been talking about. We have a country that is run by an excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer and the most economically successful country anywhere in Europe. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman picks up his mood before he appears on television this evening in his weekly programme. I shall have words with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) otherwise, and make sure that she comments on his speech.
I am delighted to participate in this debate. I welcome the fact that we have had so many debates on Europe and European issues over the past month. Opposition Members and those from the Liberal Democrat party—it is a shame that no more of them were persuaded to come to the Chamber—who criticise the Government and the business managers for not providing enough time to discuss European affairs will probably have overdosed on Europe in the past week. We had a big debate on the Convention yesterday and we are, of course, discussing the euro today.
I was one of those Members of the House who was disappointed with the Chancellor's decision when he announced on 9 June that the five economic tests were not met. I had very much hoped that he would say that we had met those tests and were ready to join the euro, but I trust his judgment on these issues. There is no point in having a set of tests, looking at an assessment, having the kind of monitoring and analysis that has been undertaken over the past six years and then disagreeing with the person whose responsibility it is to look at those decisions, examine the detail of the assessments and come to a conclusion. I very much value the work of the Treasury Committee and welcomed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Everyone has a role to play in the discussion.
Although I was disappointed with the result on 9 June, I welcome what the Chancellor has said about leaving the door open on reassessment. I hope that the Chief Secretary will be little clearer about the envisaged timetable. I understand that there is to be a review of the reforms the Chancellor has announced over the past few months and that it is possible that a further assessment will be announced at the time of the next Budget. If that happens, we are on track to have a referendum in this Parliament—that is an extremely important possibility. We should try to avoid the kind of pre-announcement hysteria that greeted the Chancellor's announcement on 9 June; that went on for several months and created a great deal of instability.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman says that he was disappointed with the Chancellor's announcement. Was that because he felt that the Chancellor was wrong in his assessment or because the Chancellor is clearly not moving the British economy to converge with euroland?
Keith Vaz: I do not think that he was wrong. As I said, I trust his judgment. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is far more able to make such decisions than I am, and he has an army of civil servants and an excellent Front-Bench team to assist him. I am happy that they have
1436
made the judgment, even though I disagree with it. Having done so, however, let us have a clear timetable to facilitate the reassessment, which has not been ruled out. The Chancellor was very firm in what he said to the House on 9 June—that is, that he is very much in favour of the euro if the tests are met and if the conditions are right. That remains the policy of the Government. Certainly, when I served as Minister for Europe for two years, it was precisely the policy that I espoused—when the conditions are right, we will join. Therefore, please let us have a timetable so that we can put the matter to the British people in plenty of time for an all-singing, all-dancing referendum campaign that allows everyone to participate in the discussion. It should not be a three-week campaign—it has to last for months, because it will require us to go round the country explaining the policy and listening to what ordinary people have to say.
The shadow Chancellor reminded us of the bus that I took around the United Kingdom. It was called Eunice. We went to different parts of the country to talk about the importance of the European Union. The shadow Chancellor was wrong to say that our intention was to talk about the euro: in fact, it was to talk about the benefits of being part of the European Union. The only place that we did not visit was Smith square. I would have liked to have the opportunity to convince members of the Conservative party about the benefits of membership of the European Union. My ministerial colleagues and I met thousands of people, the vast majority of whom said that they were very much in favour of the European Union. They wanted us to remain as members of the EU, but did not know enough about the euro. That is why it is extremely important that in the weeks and months until the Budget, and until we know whether there will be a fresh assessment, there should be such public engagement.
On the day after the 9 June announcement, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said in a press conference at Downing street that it was very important that leading members of the Cabinet should go out into the country and make speeches in support of the euro. I may have missed something, but a month has passed and I have not heard major speeches of that kind. We should not be afraid. The Government are committed to the euro at the right time and under the right conditions. Cabinet members should therefore not be afraid to go out and talk about the merits of Britain's joining the euro. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kensington on one point—
Mr. Bercow: And Chelsea.
Keith Vaz: We should never forget Chelsea. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea that convincing people of the necessity to join cannot be left to the individual charms of members of the Cabinet or, indeed, to the Prime Minister, charming though he is. It will require explanation and engagement on an individual basis with people throughout the country. If we do not explain and engage, the tabloid press and Conservative Members, some of whom want us to leave the European Union, will win the argument.
It should not be up to the Daily Mail to conduct a referendum at Welcome Break service stations on the M1. The Government should hold a referendum, not on the Convention, but on the euro. We can do that only if

1437
we have leadership from the highest echelons of Government. That means that every member of the Cabinet should go out and make a major speech on the euro between now and the Budget.
Mr. Colin Challen: Does my hon. Friend believe that there are lessons to be learned from public participation in discussions on the Convention? My studies of the Convention's internet site show that only hundreds or thousands out of hundreds of millions of people have bothered to participate. The issue has gone right over most people's heads.
Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. It has gone over their heads because of the distortion in the tabloid press—every discussion on Europe has to end in hysteria; we cannot have a sensible, reasoned discussion about the matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) tried to talk about the Convention when he led the British team. The tabloid press subjected him to appalling abuse and attacks. Consequently, the general public misunderstood the debate.
I should like the Government to take a lead on the matter and all members of the Cabinet to follow the example that the Prime Minister set on 10 June. I hope that the Chief Secretary, when he replies to the debate, will give us a list of Cabinet members who have made a major speech on the euro since 9 June, and make a commitment that the Government will continue to push the issue at least until the Budget, when I hope that we will be told whether a reassessment should be made of the tests. I am sure that that will happen.
I want to make two further points about policy on the euro. As usual, the Chancellor made a brilliant analysis of our position on economic reform in the context of the European Union. However, we should pay special attention to the Lisbon agenda, which was a great achievement for the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Spain, because their joint initiative allowed progress to be made on it. Lisbon was the first European summit that benchmarked progress on economic reform. It set out a list of dates, targets and tasks for the European nations to make us competitive with the United States. It reminded us that in the previous decade, more than 10 million jobs had been created in the United States of America, whereas the figure for the European Union was just 1 million. It is as a result of what the Prime Minister did at Lisbon that we have, for the first time, a specific set of tasks. I am afraid that we might have lost our focus in terms of what we were trying to achieve at Lisbon, and I hope that, in the run-up to the re-assessment on Budget day next year, we shall adopt a clear strategy on how to ensure that our European partners move as swiftly as we would like to move on economic reform.
Part of that economic reform must also include a discussion on the way in which the European Union itself should be reformed. I remind the House of the joint letter from the Prime Minister and Herr Schröder in February last year, in which they set out about 25 key policy aspects that they wanted the European Union to
1438
adopt in order to make it a much more efficient place in which to work. Economic reform is possible only with the consent of our partners, but in that regard, Britain has a leading role to play in the Council of Ministers.
The Chancellor also has a leading role to play on the issue. I believe that he is widely respected as the best Finance Minister in Europe. I accept that we are not part of that select little group that makes the decisions on economic and monetary union or on the policy of the euro, but we are part of a much wider initiative to push the European Union towards economic reform. If we do not do that, we shall be letting down the new member designate countries that will join on 1 May next year. They expect something much better from the new Europe that will be created at that time than they would have found in the old Europe that they originally applied to join.
Mr. David: Before my hon. Friend moves on to wider issues, may I ask him a question on economic reform? Does he accept that it is important that the Government should take the opportunity over the next few months to develop a proactive regional policy?
Keith Vaz: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he did in the European Parliament, when he was leader of the Socialist group there, on pushing forward the idea of a Europe of regions to ensure that our regional economies benefited from any changes.
It is a mantra—almost a cliché—that we shall soon have the largest single market anywhere in the world. We shall be able to compete with any economy. When the applicant countries join on 1 May, the business opportunities will be huge for the United Kingdom. Anyone who has visited the central and eastern European countries, as I know that the Chief Secretary has, will know of their enthusiasm to deal with British business. There is no doubt that the opportunities are there, but they will not be seized unless the Chancellor and the Prime Minister push forward the case for economic reform that was clearly set out in the Lisbon agenda.
Sweden is a country very similar to ours in terms of its Government and economic policy. On 14 September, it will go to the polls on the euro. I very much hope that it will vote yes, and that the decision taken by our Government on 9 June will not scupper the Swedish referendum. The circumstances are different there. Sweden has had a very long referendum campaign, but the outcome is on a knife edge. I hope that this Government will show support to Sweden and that the Chancellor has telephoned the Swedish Finance Minister to explain that our decision was quite separate and different from the decision that Sweden is going to make. I want to see Sweden in the euro because it would be good for the country. I believe, having visited Stockholm recently, that it would bring enormous benefits.
Mr. Wilkinson: That is a matter for them.
Keith Vaz: That is a matter for them, but I think that I am entitled to my opinion. I hope that Sweden's joining will create an even greater momentum for our

1439
Government to take the matter even more seriously, and to be even more committed to that final timetable. A timetable is essential, and I look forward to hearing details of it when the Chief Secretary replies to this debate.
4.18 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests.
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary came to the House to tell us that the Government were minded to accept most of the huge transfer to the European Union of powers and opportunities to govern ourselves that are set out in the draft constitution. Today, a rather reluctant and muted Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House to tell us of his rearguard action to save the pound—forced, I think, by the political reality that there is no hope of his winning a referendum to abolish it, and by the fortunate fact that some of us have forced the Government into offering a referendum on the currency. The Government will not yet offer a referendum on the even more important issue of the constitution.
That means—unless we can force a change on the constitution—that the Government wish to embark on a most unusual experiment. It is quite normal for a country that wants to be self-governing to keep the powers to govern itself and to have, as part of that variety of powers, the opportunity to run its own currency, settle its own interest rates and make its own monetary decisions. Indeed, I do not think it possible to say that a country is an independent self-governing democracy unless it both retains all its principal constitutional rights and has its own currency.
I can just about understand those who wish to conduct the experiment of having a self-governing country without its own currency, although I do not think that it would work very well. Ireland gave up and wisely decided to have its own currency some years after becoming independent from the United Kingdom, and I believe that that judgment was correct. Never in my life, however, have I heard of, or read of in history books, any group of politicians wishing to run a self-governing currency without a country to go with it. That seems to be where the Government have taken themselves through their asymmetrical approach to referendums, and the political logic that led to their decision that, while they cannot sell the euro to the British people, they can ram the European constitution through the House regardless of opinion in the country.
The arguments adduced in favour of our sacrificing the pound and adopting the euro are extremely flimsy. I give credit to those in the Treasury—they are well-informed economically, and they clearly have a sense of humour as well—who have managed to produce 18 volumes containing all the evidence that people like me need to make a strong economic case against joining the euro today, against joining it next year, and indeed against ever joining it.
We know that, when having conversations in the bar, members of the Government who have not read all 18 volumes try to keep it rather more simple. We are told that joining the euro would be good for all those with mortgages, because clearly mortgage rates would be lower. Yet evidence from these documents, and from the pages of the interesting financial press, shows that
1440
mortgages are dearer on the mainland of Europe—in euroland—than they are in Britain. It is difficult to see how it can be argued that mortgage rates would fall, as we would be joining an area with higher mortgage rates.
We are sometimes told by Ministers and other campaigners that if we joined the euro there would be what they call price transparency, and that miraculously the prices of all the things that are dearer in Britain than in Germany or France would tumble. Suddenly the scales would be stripped from our eyes, and at last we would understand that cars were cheaper in Germany than in Britain. Then people would no longer put up with the current situation.
That too is complete bunkum. The studies show that in the early stages of currency union there was quite a bit of rounding up in the countries that were abolishing their own currencies and going in for the euro experiment—just as there was a lot of rounding up when we last had a fundamental currency reform in Britain, over the period of decimalisation. It stands to reason that there is a great temptation to round up prices when people are shopping in a foreign currency for a while, as they would be during the painful and difficult transition from shopping in pounds to shopping in euros, were we ever foolish enough to say yes to that.
More important, we could have price inflation if euroland set the wrong interest rates for us. As a business man, before entering the House, I was responsible as chairman for a fairly large industrial conglomerate. I gave careful consideration to the idea of the exchange rate mechanism, and decided that it was definitely against the interests of the business I was leading, and definitely against the interests of my employees. My decision led to my resigning the company from the CBI, which happened at the time to have a policy of urging membership of the ERM. I was able to save my company £20,000 a year in CBI membership fees because we could not see eye to eye on that central policy.
The CBI came to see me in despair, saying, "What do you want, Mr. Redwood? We will come and visit you every week." I said, "No, that is not quite what I had in mind. That would not make my day, or my week. What I want you to do is change your policy, because the ERM will be very damaging." The CBI said that that was the one thing that it could not do.
I tell that story because the entire British establishment recommended the ERM. At the time there were many wrong heads on the Labour Benches, in the shadow Cabinet and elsewhere, as well as in industry and the trade unions. It was a monumental mistake. The first thing that happened on linking our currency to the Deutschmark—as it then was—was that we set interest rates that were too low and we experienced rampant inflation. Subsequently, things turned round, we had to set interest rates too high and we experienced a very cruel recession.
I wrote a pamphlet in the late 1980s—before we joined—in which I said that if we joined, we would end up with either high inflation or a deep recession, because there was no right rate for entry. I said that there would be no common interest rate that would make sense across the ERM area, and that we would end up with the wrong interest rates because we would undoubtedly go in at the wrong currency rate. Even I, in my wildest

1441
nightmares, did not dream that we would end up doing both, but we did, because people did not understand the economics.
I was therefore delighted to discover that the Treasury officials who wrote the 18 documents have grasped that point. They say that it is quite possible to end up with the wrong interest rate, and that adjustments would then have to be made to the level of employment, taxation or output that would probably be more severe than allowing the strain to be taken through the exchange rate. What they say about exchange rates is particularly interesting. Today, someone expressed a misconception about exchange rate movements by saying that they could be a worse shock than other factors—but the Treasury clearly states that
"exchange rate movements have not been a significant source of shocks to the UK economy as a whole. Instead exchange rate changes appear to have absorbed shocks that might otherwise have had a greater impact on UK output and prices."
Exactly. That was our experience of the ERM, and it would surely be our experience were we foolish enough to join the euro. It is the bitter experience of Germany, which is discovering that now she can no longer set her own interest rates—she needs them to be much lower than euroland rates—or influence her own exchange rate, all of the cruel adjustments to her economy are taking place in lost output, closed factories, bankrupt businesses and lost jobs.
We also hear from advocates of this foolish scheme that we would get exchange rate stability if we joined. Of course it is true that we would have absolute exchange rate stability against the former currencies of euroland, because that is the idea of the scheme. Despairing of being able to bring the currencies together in the normal marketplace through the ERM, which was busted apart by market pressures, such advocates decided on this ultimate ERM—the one that can never be got out of. One locks oneself in the burning building and throws away the key, as one of our right hon. Friends memorably reminded us. The advocates suggest that we would have guaranteed rate stability because there are no longer separate currencies, which in their view would bring business great success and the ability to plan well.
What advocates of the scheme ignore is that it could well produce greater instability for the new, adopted currency against the other very important trading currencies of the world. It so happens that we use the dollar much more than we use the euro for our trade and investment flows. We are an oil producer, and oil is priced in dollars. We are a big producer of high tech, and high-tech products are normally traded in dollars. We deal in all sorts of soft commodities and in investment markets, many of which are priced in dollars. On this issue, the Treasury study tells us the self-evident truth:
"In recent years the euro has been more volatile against the US dollar than the pound…If these trends were typical"—
they are, because they have existed for a very long time—
"then the UK exchange rate against the dollar would be more volatile within EMU than outside."
1442
Were we to join this silly scheme, we would therefore be opting for far more volatility in the crucial exchange rate that influences our economic policy: the exchange rate with the dollar.
Keith Vaz: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument as to why he is opposed to Britain's joining the euro, but is he in favour of Britain's withdrawing from the European Union?
Mr. Redwood: I believe that we need to negotiate a better deal to improve our relationship with the EU. The UK cannot accept the current draft constitution and I recommend that the Government not only hold a referendum, but do a lot of negotiating first, because they will not have a cat in hell's chance of winning a referendum on that unacceptable proposal. I want us to trade with, and be friends with, our European partners, and I believe that we are much more likely to be friends with them if we get the veto back on several important areas. If a veto is in place, we will agree much more with our partners because we will not feel threatened. Losing so many vetoes—with many more to come—creates far more arguments and rows.
Mr. Bryant: How precisely would the right hon. Gentleman set about the renegotiation? Would he threaten withdrawal from the EU, or some sort of associate membership with it?
Mr. Redwood: Powers with nuclear weapons do not usually go around threatening people with their nuclear weapons. I would tell our partners that the relationship has not worked. We have had many Prime Ministers, and our present one, who is very Europhile, will not join the full common defence system and certainly not the euro—one of the main aspects of the whole integration process. So even a Europhile Prime Minister makes the correct—or forced—political judgment that he and the UK cannot participate in big chunks of the Union. We should tell our partners that the relationship is not working because integration is being pursued far faster than any reasonable British Prime Minister could accept. For our partners' sake and ours, we need a new deal, whereby France and Germany and their satellite countries can accelerate their political union, and we can have a relationship with them that is conducted within the single market and according to which we can work with them on a variety of matters— we might want common environmental policies, for example—but under which we retain a veto so that the House can decide what is right for Britain. It would be possible to negotiate that.
Government Front Benchers are always telling us that we can have enormous influence in Europe. I suggest that they go and use that influence to get something that the UK wants. I can tell them that a massive majority in this country want to be friends with and trade with our partners in Europe, but do not want to be bossed around by bureaucrats from Brussels or see more powers taken away from what used to be a sovereign Parliament.
Keith Vaz: I cannot remember whether the right hon. Gentleman voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty or

1443
against it, but it was his Government who signed the Maastricht treaty and gave away the vote in so many areas.
Mr. Redwood: The important point about the Maastricht treaty is that it retained the veto over the currency. That was the guts of the treaty, and I have always been at the forefront of the argument that Conservative and Labour Governments should use that veto. We are conducting a debate today and have the opportunity to keep the British people out of the euro only because we negotiated that important opt-out. Incidentally, we have learned from the Chancellor today that he has not managed to transfer that opt-out to the constitution, and it could then fall because it is part of a treaty that will be replaced. If the Government have any influence at all in Europe, will they please ensure that our vital opt-out from the euro is preserved in the constitution? When they demonstrate their influence, can they at last renegotiate the common agricultural policy so that it is not so offensive to the developing world and does not do so much damage to those living in poverty in Africa?
Mr. Love: Coming back to the renegotiation, what happens if the European states say no? What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have to suggest that they would contemplate the sort of renegotiation that he proposes? If they do not, will we not be isolated in Europe and then have to make a fundamental choice between whether to be in or out?
Mr. Redwood: We have many opportunities to persuade our partners, and I would prefer to do it through reason, through strength of character and through the political will of the British people expressed in the ballot box at the next general election, when Europe may be a crucial issue. A referendum would strengthen the Government's hand because it would show our European partners that the will of the people is to have the sort of relationship that I am describing—based on agreement, common sense and not feeling threatened. Our partners could be allowed to proceed more quickly. Under the current system, we can always prevent our partners from proceeding as they want. That is one of the available threats, falling well short of the nuclear option. We send them an awful lot of money, and we could consider how much we should send them if they do not wish to co-operate. However, I would not want to start by threatening them. It would be better to proceed by saying that no matter who is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, we could never be a full participant in a scheme of political and monetary union, because we wish to be a largely independent, self-governing democracy, and that is not compatible with giving away our currency or the wide array of powers highlighted in the European constitution.
Mr. Laws: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a country such as France, as a member of the euro, is not a self-governing democracy?
Mr. Redwood: Yes, in many important respects, France is no longer self-governing in economic matters. If it signs the draft constitution in its present form, it will cease to be—in any meaningful sense—a self-governing,
1444
independent democracy. It will become part of a much bigger, proto-United States of Europe, with a huge democratic deficit, which would have to make rapid strides towards developing a proper democracy before many of us who are democrats would be happy with that side of its arrangements.
The EU has put the cart before the horse. It has not built a strong democratic centre first, and then given it some powers—as happened with this House of Commons. Instead it has been done the other way round, which is why it does not work.
4.36 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) discussed the economic implications of this issue, but I preferred the approach—although I do not agree with the conclusions—of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who said that it was a political issue; he is right.
It was sad that we did not hear much European idealism from the Chancellor today. We heard much about trade in groceries, governed by the theories of 18th-century liberal economists. At one point, my right hon. Friend even appeared to pay tribute to the free trade work of the classical economists, but the issue is not about that at all. I do not want to get into a debate on the theory of exchange rates, but they were far more useful for nation states when theories of comparative advantage held sway and current account flows tended to produce equilibriums. Exchange rates have been far less useful to nation states when, as in recent decades, they have been governed by capital flows. That is the big mistake that people make when they imagine that it is a great prize to have control over exchange rates. Capital flows do not give the control that used to be achieved.
On 15 June 1990, I made what was probably one of the first speeches in the House on the merits of joining a single currency, which of course did not then exist. I had the luxury of speaking for 40 minutes to set out a position that I still hold. I shall not rehearse my arguments, because I am sure that all those present, including the Ministers, will have spent last night reading that speech. Let us take those arguments as read.
I have always seen Europe as an arena in which a new kind of politics can emerge. Often, in politics, a natural dynamic arises that is crucial to the development of ideas and actions. In the 21st century, the main motivator in Britain for that development could have been the European Union, with the euro at its core. We need a European Union that links global economies and social and environmental problems to the condition of working people. Proceeding through economic and political collaboration, it should be possible to create a Europe in which wealth can be shared. It is not so much that socialists and environmentalists could join together to hijack the European Union, more that it has a naturally interventionist social and political dynamic. I suspect that that is one of the aspects about which Conservative Members, who come from a different tradition, are worried. That, it seems to me, is where the dialectic in the 21st century will be fought. I do not see that dialectic ending in crisis—rather, it will be a way of dealing with practical problems that go beyond the boundaries of the nation state, and of finding solutions that will therefore have to be either regional or global.

1445
The task for politicians is to bring a sense of idealism and purpose to the opportunism and utilitarianism that might otherwise dominate. We must widen the horizons for minorities and the disadvantaged, and protect the interests of working people.
I am one of those who believe that the nation state is not the fittest body to do that. However, the EU has an important role to play, in both regional and global economics and politics. Inside the EU, the power is bound to lie with those countries that are in the euro. People who do not believe in joining the euro ought to try and negotiate their way out of the EU, or to negotiate which elements they do not want to have any part of while still enjoying a bit of free trade.
I can understand that that approach would be plausible for people who support that sort of basic economic and political theory. However, do we really want to be outside the EU, on the sidelines, isolated and impotent? European unity based on a single European currency could change our way of thinking about Europe, and maybe alter the horizons of the British people. It could even offer a cultural renaissance for this little, backward, fractious island off the coast of north-west Europe. Our culture is becoming increasingly Americanised—on that point, at least, I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham would agree—and devalued.
The future does not have to be like the past. It can be better.
Mr. Redwood: What is backward about our country under the glorious Labour Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports?
Mr. Sedgemore: I give lectures and present papers on politics and culture, although I fear that you would rule me out of order if I went down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will invite the right hon. Gentleman to come and listen when next I give a lecture, or send him a copy of any paper that I publish in future, as I am sure he will want to read it.
It is against that background that I want to say something about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's five economic tests for the euro. They were introduced for two reasons, and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea was roughly correct in his description of those reasons. The first reason was to kick the matter into the long grass, as the saying goes, so as to avoid a referendum. The second was to enable the Chancellor to establish five hurdles that would give him a veto on euro entry. I do not know what Opposition Members complain about. Why do they get worked up about a Chancellor who has created five hurdles to give himself a veto, and who intends to see that the veto operates for the foreseeable future?
Mr. Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Sedgemore: No, I will bat on for a moment, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
1446
That view was effectively confirmed when I spoke to Britain's top civil servant about the matter. The conversation took place in the great hall of St. Bartholomew's hospital. The mandarin in question was Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary and a former permanent secretary at the Treasury. I clearly remember—because I have been telling all my friends about it ever since, and have even written about it—Sir Andrew telling me, in an entirely relaxed fashion, that the five tests were sufficiently opaque to allow people to come to any conclusion that they wanted to, at any given time. I believe that Britain's top mandarin is right about that. The conversation reinforced my view that the so-called economic tests were of extremely limited value.
In his speech today, the Chancellor said rather a lot about housing. I found it difficult to pick up on his point, but I understood him to say that one of the tests for euro entry was balancing supply and demand in the housing market. I do not know why he did not use that simple phrase, but that is what he seemed to be saying, albeit in a fairly convoluted fashion. Then, he said something that was almost unbelievable—that the Deputy Prime Minister was working out how to balance supply and demand and his ideas would come to fruition in 2016. That is not the short or the medium term; it is the long term, in which, as John Maynard Keynes said, "we are all dead". If that is correct, I will be 82 years old, if I am alive, before we even think of going into the euro. I find that astonishing, and even that presupposes that the Deputy Prime Minister is capable of meeting that sort of target. If 2016 is the target, we are probably talking about 2025, in which case I certainly will be dead.
Not so long ago, we had a strange display of unity from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the five tests and entry into the euro. Clearly, I am on the Prime Minister's side on this one, so it was sad to see how the egomaniacs at the Treasury outwitted the straw men in Downing street. In consequence, we are now in the position where the Prime Minister's vacillation and delay have made it impossible for this Government to join the euro. Trust in his determination to join the euro has evaporated not only in Europe but among the British electorate. All the good will of 1997 has gone. It is now difficult to find people who are in favour of Britain joining the euro. I have seriously to ask, as someone who really wants to join the euro, how our politicians could betray the interests of our country and our destiny in that fashion.
Some people have rightly talked about having a long and sustained public debate. No one intends to do so. Every three or four months, we have a couple of speeches from the Prime Minister and then the subject is shoved back into the long grass and we can forget about it. I cannot see how we can join the euro in this Parliament, or indeed, how we are going to have the moral capital to be able to persuade the public to join it in the next Parliament.
Fellow euro-enthusiasts have suggested to me— hope this will not be misinterpreted—that if we want to enter the euro, the Prime Minister will have to stand down and hand over to someone else. How on earth can we persuade him to do that? Besides, what is the point? His most likely successor will be the Chancellor. He is a wonderful Chancellor, but he is hopeless on the euro. Now hon. Members are beginning to understand the

1447
almost impossible task that we face. The Chancellor promised, in that Tom-and-Jerry dance with the Prime Minister, that hereinafter he would argue regularly and publicly for entry into the euro. Of course, he did not mean it. Indeed, only a couple of weeks after he made the pledge, he went to talk to the money-makers in the City of London. Instead of a pro-euro speech we got the usual curmudgeonly stuff about there being no fudge on the five economic tests and no quick fix. He told us in effect that we would not be joining the euro on his watch.
So, we have to get rid of one Prime Minister and then we have to get to work to get rid of his successor. That is not practical politics—it is not a feasible scenario. In terms of practical politics, it means simply this: our Government are never going to take us into the euro and, sad to say, our generation of politicians have let our citizens down.
4.49 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: What a refreshing contribution that was from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He not only speaks his mind, but he has a mind. It is a joy to hear a Member speak in that way and, in particular, to be so unashamedly critical of the Chancellor.
I do not have the hon. Gentleman's background. My background is in aviation—you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand this metaphor—and to me the Chancellor seemed to disappear into the stratosphere spewing out chaff. I knew where he was going, we could plot his course—it was to an environment of higher taxation, more regulation and more interference, preferably by himself. Of course, he was in his element. As usual, he had set the stage himself. We can see the monument in the pile of Hansards and euro-style dossiers under his arm. After all that, we were none the wiser, except for noting that he was only too delighted to make policy for the Deputy Prime Minister and to expand his own empire. The charge of egotism levelled by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was valid.
At the beginning of his speech, the Chancellor claimed that he had perceived a global perspective in the European Union. He may have seen it in the EU but the analysis in his speech betrayed no such perspective. The Chancellor claims to be an historian, but if we look at the way that the world is constructed it is notable that none of the other free trade areas has followed the EU's model. The North American Free Trade Agreement does not require Mexico or Canada to give up their own currency merely because they have a powerful next-door neighbour. Those countries would not dream of giving up their currency.
In Latin America, the subcontinent that I know better, thank God Chile never dreamt of giving up its peso in favour of the Argentine one, just because Argentina was next door and had a bigger economy. In Asia, none of the Association of South East Asian Nations countries dreams of giving up their currency. Even outside the free trade blocs, Taiwan would not give up its currency in favour of that of the People's Republic of China.
The only instance of a movement to give up a currency, apart from the determination of many Labour supporters to give up the pound in favour of the euro, is
1448
in Belarus, where the Belarusians seem to be taking pride in the possibility that they may again adopt the Russian rouble in two years' time. That move is satisfying to Putin and the Russians, as it demonstrates the aggrandisement of the Russian Federation and the extension of its influence abroad.
Mr. Bryant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in many periods in the 20th century several Latin American countries gave up their currency, owing to terrible internal economic problems, and took on the dollar? In fact, on several occasions, Argentina gave up not only the peso but also the austral—its created currency—for the dollar.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is rather misguided. What happened in Argentina was the monetary dollarisation of its currency; the country locked itself into an uncompetitive situation whereby the peso was overvalued, which was catastrophic for Argentine exports. The case to which the hon. Gentleman should have alluded is, of course, that of Ecuador, where there was a complete implosion of the economy following the election of a clown as president. He raided the state's coffers and the only way to solve the country's economic problems was through full dollarisation.
Mr. Challen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, I shall not give way.
The Chancellor also referred to convergence. Why should we want to converge with an institution as over-regulated, statist, corporatist, over-taxed and bureaucratised as the EU?
We must judge the euro in the context of the proposed European constitution; we cannot assess one without the other. In 1972, I, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, voted in favour of our joining the European Community, as it then was, but the Maastricht process was the creation of a single state via economic and monetary union. The proposed Giscardian constitution takes that process further and formalises the EU as a legal entity with all the characteristics of a single state. There would be competences and requirements for member states that no democratic free country such as ours ought, in my judgment, willingly to accept. I do not wish convergence on our nation; I wish the opposite. I wish our country to excel, in the economic field as in the political: a free democratic polity, setting its own laws and its own economic objectives according to the desires of its own electorate, setting an example to our continental neighbours. Taiwan offers such an example to the People's Republic of China, as does Singapore, which only became prosperous when it broke away from the Malaysian Federation, established its own currency and pursued its own economic policy.
The Chancellor also talked about flexibility.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: I will not give way.
Flexibility is not obtainable under the EU's current model, which is sclerotic and over-taxed. Although Mr. Prodi may now say that the stability pact is nonsense or

1449
stupid, or words to that effect, the fact is that it is at the heart of EMU, as laid out in the Maastricht treaty. The fiscal obligations that are now placed on member states are far too onerous in a time of quasi-deflation. We warned about those factors in debates on Maastricht and, time and again, we were told that we were stupid and that price stability was more important than employment. I disagree, and I suspect that the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people on the continent disagree today.
The fact is that is it is thoroughly dishonest of the Chancellor to embark on a campaign to soften up the British electorate, with taxpayers' money, in advance of a referendum on whether the British people wish to join the euro. We ought to have the referendum first. Then, and only then, if there is a majority in favour of our participating in a single currently, should we go ahead with the softening-up and, of course, the decision-making process in government and the approval of Parliament.
People say that these issues are confusing and complicated. They are not—any more than the Maastricht treaty was complicated. I urge my hon. Friends to remember Matthew chapter 22, verse 21. When the Pharisees sought to trick Our Lord by challenging him on whether he ought to pay tribute to Caesar or to God, Our Lord asked for a denarius to be brought forth—a penny, which was the single currency of the Roman empire at that time. It was the unit in which tribute was paid, inasmuch as we will have to pay tribute to the EU if we are part of EMU. Our Lord asked whose superscription was on the penny. That says it all. The superscription was that of Caesar, and on the euro notes it is that of the euro. On our currency, it is that of our Queen, it is she whom we serve in Parliament and it is to her that our people owe allegiance. That is something that I am not prepared to give away.
4.58 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: On that rather religious note, and on the day Her Majesty has signified her assent to the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003—it sounds rather more interesting than today's debate, but that one passed me by—I would say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that the biblical allusion that perhaps more readily springs to my mind is that of the moneychangers in the temple. Perhaps Our Lord had more direct intentions of getting rid of moneychangers, and a single European currency might have appealed.
The debate has been an interesting. I am struck, however, by the fact that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has been a man. Indeed, every person who has sought to speak in the debate has been a man. There have been only three women in the Chamber at any point during the debate: one was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, one was a Whip, and the other was Madam Deputy Speaker. I sometimes worry about the nature of the debate in the country, because many people are clearly put off. Every opinion poll says that people, particularly women, feel that they do not have enough information on the subject. They want to understand the subject, but until now we have perhaps used language that has not been very appropriate.
1450
It is good to be involved in a debate with three of the great beasts of the Conservative party. We have had quite a display of great bestiality from the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
I want particularly to nail one piece of Tory mendacity today, however, which is that the draft constitutional treaty makes no provision for member states to remain outside the euro. Article 1.14(2) makes specific provisions for those who have adopted the euro, and therefore, by definition, for those who have not adopted the euro. We can therefore see an end to that point.
Mr. Bacon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the provisions of protocol 11 of the Maastricht treaty are explicitly reflected in the draft constitution?
Mr. Bryant: Indeed, I think that they are admirably met in the draft constitution.
To move on to the debate in the country about the euro, a sharp divergence seems to exist between those who are ideological on the matter on both sides—those who want to join the euro at any price, and those who refuse to countenance the euro at any price, whatever the burden of proof may be—and those who want to adopt a more rational approach. I think that the Chancellor got it spot-on earlier, when he drew the distinction between this Government, who have sought to prove or to make sure that the economics are right before recommending membership of the euro for the UK, and the Conservative Government, whose Chancellor was torn between two different sets of ideologues—those who ideologically wanted us to join the exchange rate mechanism for wholly political and not economic reasons, and those who were wholly opposed. In the ebb and flow between those two ideologies, the then Chancellor ended up taking us into the ERM at wholly the wrong time, and gave us all the economic problems throughout the early 1990s that we know about.
I believe that we should adopt a wholly rational approach to this matter. We should look at the economics, and we should of course look at the politics. It is not solely an economic issue. Several right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), have made the point that it is not purely an economic argument, but if we were to go into the euro solely on the basis of politics, when we were not able to prove that the economics were right, we would have wholly undermined our case. I believe that a combination of the two is required.
The potential benefits of joining the euro for the United Kingdom, however, are clearly laid out in the Treasury's documentation, most notably in terms of increased trade. We need only look at page 59 of one of the documents, "EMU and trade", to see that there are many different estimations of what the potential increase in trade to the United Kingdom might be were we to join EMU, as it says half way down page 59:
"any increase in trade arising from the complete elimination of exchange rate volatility within a given area is not likely to exceed 10 per cent at most…a large body of empirical work shows that the impact on trade of membership of a currency union could be much more substantial."

1451
I believe that the Treasury has been sage in outlining that it is difficult to be absolutely categorical about what the likely increase in trade would be. It is worth pointing out, however, that not a single economist has suggested that British trade, were we to join the euro, would decline. In other words, there would be some benefit, and it is uncertain precisely how much that would be.
Even if we take the lowest estimate of all the economists who have done substantial work on this issue, the growth in the economy over the next 20 years would be something in the region of 4.5 per cent. That comes out at £50 billion growth in GDP—£16 per head growth in GDP for everybody in the country—and were we to estimate that, say, 40 per cent. of GDP would go to public services, that would mean an additional £20 billion spent on public services in this country. That is a significant benefit, and it is on the basis of the Treasury's lowest estimate of the likely benefit to UK trade.
Of course, there will be significant benefits in terms of transaction costs. Many businesses are already experiencing the problems of all their competitors in Holland, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Greece not having to face the problem of transaction costs, and of their business in the United Kingdom being less competitive than those on the continent as a result. This issue is likely to grow over time. Some still believe that Britain is a pre "in" country and they are therefore maintaining their links with British businesses and still buying from them. However, the moment Britain were to say, "We will not join for the next 10, 15, 20 years or ever," those people would start to think that they could not accept the additional transaction costs and that they should take their business elsewhere.
I also believe that there would also be significant benefits for prices. From work that has been done by the venture capital company 3i, we already know that two thirds of all companies that operate across several eurozone countries now use the same price in all those countries. Whenever one goes to shops on the high street in the UK and also on the high streets of Paris, Rome or Madrid, one often sees a single pricing ticket that has been put there by the manufacturer and that shows the euro price and the British price. The exchange rate between the two is the worst in the world.
The people of the eurozone are now getting considerably cheaper products, and prices are going down to the lowest price across the eurozone. We know that the two most expensive cities in Europe are London and Copenhagen. What do they have in common? They are both outside the euro. The transparency of pricing that would come from our joining the euro would have a significant effect not only on the cost of items such as cars, but on all prices and the cost of living.One sad fact that was established last year is that the cost of the gifts that are likely to be given to children is 19 per cent. higher in the UK than in the eurozone. By joining the euro, we would see a significant improvement in the standard of living, because prices would come down.
There is also a significant danger in delay. Although I accept the Government's rigorous assessment of the five economic tests and of the economics of whether we should join at this point, our economy will suffer if we delay for too long. It is not as though the economy will be like a lemming and fall off a cliff, but there will be a gradual and slow deterioration in our economic strength, viability and competitiveness.
1452
We have already seen that we face problems with the inward investment into this country. Ernst and Young, which is by no means an ardent pro-European company, conducted a survey earlier this year which shows that Britain's share of the inward investment into European countries from 1998 to 2001 fell quite dramatically. In 1998, we took 28 per cent. of inward investment into Europe; in 2000, we took 26 per cent.; and, in 2001, we took only 19 per cent. My worry is that that figure will get worse.
For those hon. Members who think that inward investment is not all that significant, it is worth bearing in mind that 2 million Britons are employed by foreign investors, that 40 per cent. of the UK's gross exports are produced by foreign companies that invest in this country and that, since the euro was founded, 115,000 jobs in the UK have been lost in a variety of industries. In each of those cases, our failure to be in the euro and the long-term prospect of our never joining has been cited as the major problem.
Delay would be a problem for economic reasons, but it would also be a problem for a political reason. The European Union faces dramatic change in every aspect of its workings, from the operation of the Council of Ministers to that of the European Central Bank. The argument of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the Lisbon agenda is vital, but it will be difficult for us to win arguments about how the growth and stability pact and the ECB should operate, and about transparency within the ECB, unless we declare our hand and say that we intend to join the euro. As the Treasury Committee pointed out, if we do not move towards euro membership in the near future, we will lose a vital opportunity to affect the European economy that is being built on our doorstep and on which we will be wholly dependent in the coming years.
It would be folly, as ever, for Britain to end up playing catch-up yet again. We have done that so often. We were not part of the common agricultural policy at the start, so we were not able to influence the debate on that and we have spent the past 20 years battling for minor reforms. Although we have won several battles in the past few weeks, there are battles yet to win. If we had been involved from the beginning, we would have ensured either that the CAP did not exist or, if it did exist, that it was in the interest not only of farmers, but of the whole of Europe.
It is likely that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will want to join the euro in the next couple of years. If that happens, we will be playing catch-up with them. The British Prime Minister will have to visit the Polish and Hungarian Prime Ministers to argue about our possible entry rate. That shows a complete failure of political leadership.
There are many nay-sayers—we have heard from them today—who say that there is no reason why we should join the euro and that we would lose out. Some argue that we should not go down the road of joining because there has been dramatic inflation in countries that have joined the euro and prices have been marked up. I spoke to a gentleman in the marketplace in Treorchy two weeks ago who said that it is much more expensive to buy a pint of beer in Spain this year than it was last year, and that that was all because of the euro. I pointed out that the beer was exactly the same price for a Spanish person—it was €3 last year and it is €3 this

1453
year—but that it cost him more this year because it costs £2.50 to buy €3 this year while it cost only £2.20 last year. The exchange volatility affected the price of his beer, and that is the same problem as British industry faces as it tries to do its business throughout Europe. He said, "That's a very good point; I think you've persuaded me."
I am keen to allow other hon. Members to speak, so I shall not address the one-interest-rate-fits-all problem raised by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea in great detail. I do not accept his argument that just because the United Kingdom has a problem determining an interest rate that suits the whole of the country, we would have a greater problem determining a euro interest rate that suited the whole of Europe. Most of the economic assessments that have been done show that there is greater convergence of interest rate needs between the United Kingdom and eurozone countries than among many of the eurozone countries, and, indeed, among different parts of the United Kingdom.
I want to put a final nay-sayer opinion to rest; it is prevalent in several of the trade unions that are opposed to membership of the euro. They believe that joining the euro would mean that we could not invest in public services. That is sheer nonsense. France invests 46 per cent. of its gross domestic product in its public services but the United Kingdom invests only 36.8 per cent. of its GDP in public services. We would be able to afford all the significant—and right—extra investment that we want for our public services if we joined the euro. My worry is that if we do not join, our economy will dwindle and die in the long term, which would mean that we would not be able to invest in our public services because we would not be able to afford it.
5.13 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: We have had a passionate and vigorous debate, but it will not be decisive because there is no motion before us. Given that the Government have considered the issue for six years, in which time they have conducted two major assessments, it is extraordinary that they are not prepared to commend a substantive motion to the House.
Perhaps that is a reminder that the final decision is political rather than economic. Our currency is not only a trading convenience—if it were, we would probably all use the dollar. The decision is not only economic, because if we were just considering our economic interests we would probably not even consider joining the North American Free Trade Agreement—we would want to join the United States of America. It is a sobering thought that if one measures the gross domestic product per head of G8 countries and the 50 individual states of the United States of America, one realises that not one of the G8 countries would rank in the top 40 of the 50 states. The decision is not simply economic. Currency is a definition of sovereignty. It is an expression of our political and economic culture.
I want to deal not with the political tests that the Chancellor set, but with some of the fallacies that have characterised the debate. I have singled out five euro
1454
fallacies, which I shall tackle one by one. The first is the fallacy of convergence. The extraordinary idea that great economies can be locked together like passing spaceships ignores the reality of the very different and international nature of the British economy. No student of the international structure and openness of our economy could ignore the wisdom of Henry Grattan's dictum that the channel forbids union, the ocean forbids separation. Anyone who believes that convergence can suddenly be attained should look hard at page 71 and what follows in the Treasury's document. It sketches out a horrifying prospect of the extent to which taxes might have to rise to dampen UK inflation or public spending might have to be cut to meet certain scenarios. True convergence—permanent convergence—of the kind sought by proponents of euro entry could take many years, as the Government have begun to realise as they flounder around in housing market reform and regional pay reform. That is the fallacy of convergence.
The second fallacy is what I call magical advantage—that there is some benefit to our economy that can be achieved only by entering into one or other of the euro arrangements. We had that argument with the ERM. There is nothing advantageous about any European discipline that we could not achieve in this country anyway. To their credit, the Government have demonstrated that successfully by imposing a new monetary policy framework over the past six years. Every business man would like more certainty or stability—I remind the House of my business interests—but there is nothing in joining the euro that we could not do here anyway.
Thirdly, there is the fallacy—we heard it sketched out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and many other euro enthusiasts—of the missed bus. We are always being told that we will be too late and that it will be impossible to mould the arrangements in the way that we want unless we join at a particular time. In fact, the history of European co-operation shows that it has always been possible for different states to join in at different times under different arrangements, as France does even today in its membership of NATO. I cannot believe that the fourth greatest economy in the world cannot make its own way in its own time.
The fourth fallacy is that of influence—only by joining the centrally prescribed arrangement can the UK change Europe to its way of thinking. The Government have tested that theory to distraction. It began when they put themselves at the heart of Europe and ended six years later when the Prime Minister left the last European summit a day early because he was fed up with what was being discussed. Britain is already locking itself out of the key axis of Brussels, Berlin and Paris. The Government are just as far away from influencing or restraining the federalist centralising impetus that derives from that axis as they were when they started six years ago.
Of course there are useful reforms in the European Central Bank and the growth and stability pact that a good dose of British realism can help move along, but we should not delude ourselves that Europe will suddenly be converted to following the UK agenda. The reality is otherwise, as chapter follows charter, convention follows treaty. The drag-along rights are all the other way and Britain, if anything, is becoming more continental day by day.

1455
Fifthly and finally, there is the fallacy of the single stand-alone currency. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have demonstrated far more eloquently than I have, no single currency can operate without a common budget or a uniform tax regime. That has not happened or worked anywhere else in the world, and it certainly cannot work here. We see that that is the case even in the Treasury's own assessment and its prediction that taxes might have to be used to regulate our economy at times when the euro interest rate is inappropriate. Having lived through the ERM debacle and the unnecessarily high interest rates that followed it and did such damage to our business, I never want to live in a country that has an inappropriate interest rate. Our interest rate should be in our interest, and if it is not, the single currency cannot be in our interest either.
Of course, I concede that there may well be some marginal trading advantages, particularly for manufacturing companies and possibly even for British agriculture, in eliminating the exchange rate risk. However, I believe that those advantages are far outweighed by the loss of political and economic sovereignty that would be involved in the decision and that they do not constitute the basis for a decision that would be irrevocable.
I wish that there were a motion in front of the House tonight. If there were, I would certainly oppose it.
5.21 pm
Mr. Colin Challen: I have only one test for supporting the European Union—that it should be greater than the sum of its parts, or, as somebody said in another context, that we can achieve more working together than we can alone. In addition, we should never be asked to pool or share our sovereignty if the outcome is no greater than what could be achieved by our acting alone or even bilaterally with other countries.
I am concerned by some of the comments that I have heard this afternoon, especially from the Opposition Benches, as the argument seems to be tending towards the Cubanisation of this island off the north-west coast of Europe. Just as the North American Free Trade Agreement is creating a very large trading area in which Cuba and other small islands could be completely isolated, we could go the same way if we followed the Opposition's line of argument.
There is no doubt that European economic union is an article of faith for the many who share a vision of Europe as a united and strong political body, underpinning what they see must be its renaissance and reinvention as a powerhouse of innovation, productivity and economic growth. I should like to add a few other items to that list, such as care for the environment, our civilised values and the social needs of European Union citizens, as well as respect for democracy. Those are some of the things for which economic and monetary union should provide the foundations, and in the main that principle is worth supporting.
We can clearly see the alternative, which is laissez-faire liberalisation, driving down standards and health and social care for the many, destroying the environment, seeking ever cheaper and nastier solutions
1456
to all the problems that it encounters and widening the poverty gap in all the societies in which it finds purchase and in the wider world. A short name for that is NAFTA, which does not have a social and environmental context, whereas the European Union does.
Sadly, economic union as it is currently on offer is failing. In the eurozone, it has failed to produce the right answers—the only kind of answers that we should be seeking in respect of the worldwide economic downturn. If anything, it has probably exacerbated those problems, with the European Central Bank stuck like a rabbit transfixed in the path of deflation. Its monetarist nostrums have been of little use in helping member states to escape from their recessionary tendencies. The growth and stability pact is widely derided and now seems more obeyed in its breach than its observance. For the third year running, Germany is likely to break the 3 per cent. deficit rule, France likewise, and Portugal, which had a good dose of the pact's remedy, is reportedly ready to slide back over the 3 per cent. level. A recent article in the Financial Times claimed:
"Many analysts have welcomed the acceptance of the Pact's uselessness as a necessary condition for more stimulative policies for Europe."
Thus, following the flawed George W. Bush approach to boosting the US economy, the Germans are considering massive tax cuts. It is to be hoped that if they do so, they will not follow the US's regressive tax changes, but will at least seek to be progressive in their approach. However, the other side of the coin is almost certain to be regressive—that is where the cuts in spending will bite.
What is happening in Germany is a direct rebuttal of the oft-repeated argument by EMU enthusiasts that membership of the euro will not invalidate or limit the spending choices that are open to Governments. They say that the rules of the pact limit only borrowing—on the face of it, that may be true—but they do not admit that one policy will have consequences for others. In this case, radical fiscal policies are being implemented because of reduced freedoms and stagnation in others. It is ironic that the Germans are following the United States down that route, because the US's tax-cutting policy has been attacked by the Bank for International Settlements for creating the danger that Government debt could reach unsustainable levels and may be followed by a painful correction. However, at least the Americans have their hands on all the economic levers and may be able to use them all to avoid such a boom-and-bust scenario. They also have more freedom than we do to move more regional assistance around, so deprived areas may have some protection. By comparison, the European Union's regional budgets pale into insignificance, and cannot realistically be seen as sufficiently effective tools to even out the damage of a one-size-fits-all monetary policy in more than a handful of cases.
Enlargement spreads that support even thinner. That is not to oppose enlargement, but merely to recognise the basic truth that unless we are prepared to put a lot more money into the EU, we will not see many more transformations like that of the Irish Republic. It may prove excessively ambitious to have enlargement take place so early in the life of the eurozone. There are already plenty of strains in the European Union, and it

1457
would have been better to ensure that enlargement bedded down well before embarking on the single currency. I place more importance on enlargement than on the expansion of the eurozone. It is far better to engage with those further 10 countries and to help their development in all the areas that I have mentioned than to force them swiftly into an as yet unproven experiment, especially since we do not yet feel confident enough to join the single currency despite being in a stronger position.
It would be advisable to consider another impact of enlargement on the eurozone—its impact on democracy. The European Central Bank has already looked to its future enlarged structure, and has concluded that the only way in which it can cope with enlargement is by restricting the participation of national representatives through a system of rotation on its key rate-setting committee. That is highly undemocratic. It is already difficult enough for the ECB to be influenced by events—hence its sloth-like responses to the current downturn—but for it then to deny a vote to member countries would be appalling. That is not pooling sovereignty, but losing sovereignty.
Moreover, the ECB is speculatively seeking to introduce ideas that go way beyond its remit. During a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, I drew the Prime Minister's attention to the suggestion in a recent ECB bulletin that in future countries may not be able to afford to run health services, so Governments should perhaps consider a system of co-payments. That runs absolutely contrary to this Government's policy. However, although we may look on the policy wonks at the ECB with haughty disdain, there is no denying that when such ideas are combined with the tax-cutting agenda in Germany, people may begin to wonder whether two plus two equals four, and to suspect that the ECB is influential in unintended ways.
Another, entirely intended, feature of monetary union is that it should be a major plank in constructing the single market. I suspect that many citizens originally believed that the single market meant simply removing some tariff barriers to shifting a container-load of widgets between one country and another. The more naïve may have fondly imagined that it meant simply reducing some paperwork on cross-border trade. If so, they will have long been disabused of that misconception, which Margaret Thatcher and her band of scheming acolytes nurtured assiduously.
The single market, of which economic union forms such an integral part, means removing every obstacle to free trade. For example, although we currently find the phrase "tax harmonisation" difficult because we want to retain control of our tax policies, it is increasingly obvious that that objective does not appeal to everybody. Companies such as Marks and Spencer that trade in more than one country and want to offset their losses in one country with their profits in another are wont to go to the European Court of Justice to seek the removal of tax regulations that prevent them from shipping their losses around the European Union. I assume that the same principle would apply to a company's profits and that the least onerous tax regime would be sought.
1458
That leads to tax harmonisation not though the front door, with countries agreeing a common rate, but through the back door, where judicial decisions are to taken to remove so-called barriers to the single market. There is an inevitable drift in one direction.The European Court of Justice, through implementing economic union bit by bit, may have more to say on the matter than, for example, the European Parliament. The court is making far-reaching decisions, which cut across the powers of elected representatives.
I recently highlighted the court's decision that Governments may not own golden shares in companies. The decision, especially its effect on Royal Mail, shows that the court is finding an ever wider role in determining the detailed application of what stands in the way of a true single market. In the light of that decision, the Government are reviewing the status of 25 British enterprises.
Some decisions may appear peripheral to the central theme of the debate. However, I highlight the way in which the detail of the grand vision is increasingly determined outside the democratic arena. The further the European Union enters economic and monetary union, the more the European Court of Justice will be employed to interpret its implementation. If Governments can be told to sell strategically important assets, what next? How does the project enhance our democratic rights? Are we meant to admire only the grand vision, and never mind the detail? What will be national Parliaments' ability to pass legislation that may challenge the European Court of Justice's decisions?
I said that economic union had a duty to underpin a wide range of goals. National Parliaments must therefore scrutinise the institutions that implement the single market to ensure that definitions of the public good that are too narrow or run counter to democratic expectations are not used. We must answer for the consequences, just as some elected representatives on the continent are grappling with the European Central Bank's failures.
5.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is making a speech, the central theme of which is that if the European Union is to be relevant to its electorates in the 21st century, it must abandon its old agenda of deeper integration in favour of the construction of an intergovernmental Europe. He is right. Europe's leaders have behaved myopically since the fall of the Berlin wall, and there has been scandalous foot-dragging over enlargement.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that most of the old European integrationist agenda needs to be ditched, along with much of the regulation and most of the EU budget. However, as I shall try to explain, although I strongly oppose joining the euro now, I would be wary of throwing it out with the rest of the integrationist baggage for ever.
Economic and monetary union is part of the global logic for fewer currencies. Currency instability costs countries dear. Since international trade took off in the 19th century, periods of free floating among major countries have been rare and some form of currency arrangement and stabilisation has been common

1459
Global financial deregulation will make setting monetary policies increasingly difficult, especially for smaller countries.
Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that having a stable world currency regime with occasional relocations or adjustments is very different from having a single currency?
Mr. Tyrie: Over the last century and a half, we have had a mixture. We have had the gold standard, which was a reference standard currency, and we have had Bretton Woods, which was a fixed and adjustable peg system, to which the hon. Gentleman appears to be alluding. The problem with a system such as Bretton Woods is that once the capital account has been liberalised, very heavy speculative flows can be generated, which make the system very difficult to run. That is why a number of countries in Europe started to discuss something like what we have now. There are many other approaches to currency union, apart from the one that we have. If I have time later, I shall allude to the fact that EMU was perhaps designed not with the best economic interests in mind, but with too many political interests in mind.
I shall complete the point that I was making a moment ago. In the absence of a massive global shock in the 21st century, there will definitely be fewer currencies around the world. There will probably be more countries, however. The number of countries is growing all the time; half a dozen new ones have been created on Europe's doorstep over the past decade. The first thing that many of those countries have done—paradoxically, after they have created a currency—is to find ways of abandoning their monetary independence, because they have needed to find a way of stabilising their exchange rates.
I certainly do not think that Britain should join the single currency at the moment, but before setting out my reasons for that, I should like to address some of the more strongly put arguments that have been adduced for never joining. First among them is the idea that joining a monetary union involves an irrevocable loss of sovereignty, and that it would be the end of Britain as we know it. That is utter nonsense. If a country wants to withdraw from a monetary union, it can. I am sure that, sooner or later, a member of the EMU will withdraw, and there will be no Panzers rolling anywhere to prevent that.
Currency unions come and go. That has been the history of all previous currency unions, and there have been a lot of them. All the same, there is a quasi-constitutional issue at stake, which is whether monetary policy should be determined by an unaccountable and undemocratic body. We have already enabled that by the Bank of England Act 1998. We put in some safeguards, including a section in the Act, to enable us to claw back monetary control—at least in theory. I think that it would be very difficult to exercise that power in practice without triggering a colossal speculative run in the bond markets. Of course, reclaiming one's currency from the European Central Bank would be an altogether bigger job than exercising a power under the Bank of England Act, and I do not underestimate how messy it would be. It would certainly be possible, however.
1460
A second major argument for never joining the euro travels under the guise of "one size fits all", a concept about which we have heard a great deal today. The theory is that at any given time, a single interest rate cannot be right for everyone. Stated in those terms, it is irrefutable. If we can set the optimal interest rate, we will, by definition, achieve an optimal result. If we scratch that argument a little, however, it is nothing like as strong as it looks.
The argument makes a number of assumptions, the first of which is that our monetary authorities will always set the appropriate interest rate. The second is that markets—particularly exchange markets—do not overshoot. Of course, we know that they do. Most importantly of all, the argument assumes that there is a clear and single answer to the question, "What is the right size for the currency area?" Well, there is not. Each economic shock or problem that might come our way might best be handled by a different size of currency area. The optimal size might not coincide with a country's frontiers. No doubt the English regions could, from time to time, have put up a good theoretical case for having their own currency or for calling themselves an optimal currency area. From time to time, an area larger than Britain could have benefited from being in a currency area as well.
Mr. Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of dealing with problems in the English regions, for example, is to have fiscal transfers within the country from poor areas to rich areas? By analogy, the same applies within Europe, except that it is necessary to have the political integration and authority at the centre to establish the taxation to make that possible. That is one of the fundamental problems.
Mr. Tyrie: In theory, fiscal transfers can be used to assuage the impact of one-size-fits-all interest rates. In practice, however, what has happened in the United States shows us that only about a quarter of the shock that might hit a particular state ends up being assuaged through federal transfers. Three quarters of the burden is borne by the state or region. Fiscal transfers play a much smaller role in the effective working of currency unions than is commonly supposed.
I was saying a moment ago that the English regions themselves might decide that they wanted their own currency to absorb a particular shock, but the best way for a region or part of a currency area to absorb a shock is to introduce supply-side reform, and to have flexible labour markets. That is what the Chancellor should be calling for when he talks about regional pay initiatives, and that is what Germany needs if it is to absorb the shock of an entry rate that was undoubtedly too high. "One size fits all" is a very good rhetorical line—indeed, it is a bit more than that—but it is a long way short of a knockdown argument against the euro.
There are also some largely bogus arguments. I will not devote too much time to knocking them down unless I am challenged. We hear, for example, the argument that we will inevitably pick up the German economy's pension bill, the argument that the European Central Bank will steal all our reserves, the argument that EMU will inevitably mean the EU's setting our direct tax rates or even our spending levels, and, most

1461
extraordinary of all, the argument—we have heard quite a lot about it today—that we will end up importing continental levels of unemployment.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read the proposed European constitution. At its heart is the theme that there should be an approximation of economic policy, that that should be an explicit objective of the Union, and that everything possible should be done to promote it. What Brussels calls unfair tax competition—we regard it as a competitive advantage for the United Kingdom—is not something that the Convention would bless.
Mr. Tyrie: We have a veto, and if the Government do not exercise it they will be colossally at fault. Ministers have said at the Dispatch Box that they will exercise it, and they had better do so. It would be crazy to consider direct tax harmonisation.
Those who argue that employment may be affected in the long run by a single interest rate and "one size fits all" are really making a Keynesian point. They are suggesting that somehow there is a Phillips curve—that there is a trade-off between interest rates, and thereby inflation, and the level of employment. Even this Labour Government have ditched that idea, but amazingly a small chunk of the old left and a small chunk of the new right seem to have alighted on the same territory in order to oppose EMU.
What are the strongest arguments for not joining EMU? There are two, the first structural and the second semi-political.
The structure is faulty in several respects. We will find out just how faulty it is only in the face of a serious economic crisis, but there is plenty of evidence that it is not right at the moment. The stability and growth pact, for instance, has more or less crumbled between our fingers at the first whiff of trouble.
Secondly, it is simply not possible to divorce monetary policy from fiscal policy in the 21st century, as it was in the 20th. We may be creating institutions with completely separate monetary and fiscal policies at the very time when more fiscal and monetary co-ordination is needed. We may have created an independent Bank of England while looking at the rear-view mirror when we should have been looking at the windscreen. I am not predicting deflation, which would of course mean our needing much more fiscal and monetary co-ordination; but it is a risk. The ECB is out on a limb as a model of almost complete monetary independence. Fiscal and monetary policy are made in virtual isolation. The ECB is even more independent than the Bank of England is now. We do not have to join EMU now, so why take the risk? Let us wait and see. Let us watch for a while.
A third structural weakness is that, as the Chancellor has rightly pointed out, the ECB's methods of democratic accountability leave a great deal to be desired. The Treasury Committee may get only half a loaf from the Governor each month or two, but at least it is half a loaf. On current form, Parliament will be lucky to get a crumb from Wim Duisenberg or his successor.
1462
The second big argument for being careful about joining EMU at this time relates to my previous point about politics. Even if there are clear economic gains to be had from a single currency—or from a global currency, for that matter, in the long run—can we take our electorates with us on this issue? Democratic legitimacy does not flow from Brussels, and no amount of institutional reform will divert it there; I do not even want to try. When the next major financial crisis occurs, people will turn not to Brussels for protection and guidance, but to this place.
Let us imagine a serious economic crisis that hits some countries more than others. What would happen? The stability pact would collapse altogether—of course it would, because it is a very weak instrument—and then,one or more countries might get themselves into very serious financial difficulty. A debate would then take place as to whether that country should be bailed out or allowed to go bust. Nobody raises these issues at the moment because we are a long way away from such a situation. The credibility of the treaty's no-bail-out clause has received far too little attention. Virtually no mention of it is made in the 18 studies—some 1,000 pages, with almost nothing on it. Sooner or later, we may be facing just such a crisis, and whatever we do we could end up facing a large bill. If the EU bailed out the country in question, we would have to help write the cheque; if we did not bail it out, huge instability could arise in our bond markets anyway, as the contagion effect in those markets got through to all other members of the eurozone.
It is possible to imagine currency unions that do not have the political and structural flaws that I have just discussed. The fundamental problem with EMU is that it was not designed primarily to maximise the global benefits of free trade and investment. It derives from a grubby political deal. It was a child of the Franco-German alliance—a deal through which the French would get their hands on the Bundesbank; they were sick of being told what to do by Frankfurt—and of Helmut Kohl, who wanted to edge Europe towards an ever-closer Union in which the German problem, particularly after unification, could be subsumed in a wider European framework.
In the short term, the French have won. For now, they have got much of what they want—such as a measure of control over monetary policy, where before they had none—without having to sign up to a superstate. The truth is that they are as intergovernmental as we are, but they know how to do euro-rhetoric much better than us. However, I am not so sure that the French have won in the long run. Charles Powell, Margaret Thatcher's foreign policy adviser, once described the relationship between France and Germany as like that between a stoat and a rabbit. The trouble for France is that the rabbit is gradually turning into a stoat. That is why France wants Britain in EMU: they want two medium-sized stoats to deal with Germany.
I am sure that the French and the EU will be able to ward off a superstate. The pressures for a superstate are overwhelmed by the key players, who want to prevent it and who want an intergovernmental structure. The old

1463
federalist German vision, such as it is, is in any case being overtaken in that country by its own domestic worries.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: My hon. Friend is outlining a number of instabilities, uncertainties and vested interests that surround the entire debate on the euro. Does he agree with me that the best thing for our country is for this debate to be ended as soon as possible and for the British people to make a decision, so that we have some certainty about the long-term future?
Mr. Tyrie: No I do not, but explaining why to my hon. Friend would take time out of my speech, so I shall do so later over a cup of tea, if I may. The French may find out that once enlargement beds down, the disproportionate influence that they have exercised over Germany for nearly half a century simply will not be there.
Did the Government get it right in publishing the material that they did and in taking the position that they have? Who really is right: the Chancellor, whose 1,000-page study has kicked the ball into the long grass, or the Prime Minister, who has been looking for the ball ever since he got to No. 10? I think that the Chancellor has it, but he has done the right thing for entirely the wrong reason. One cannot help sensing that he kicked the ball into the long grass precisely because he knows that the Prime Minister wants to get his hands on it. There is hubris, I am afraid, on both sides. The Prime Minister thinks that EMU might give him a bigger place in history, but of course, the Chancellor seems to believe that blocking EMU might give him a bigger place in history.
Fifteen years ago I saw from the inside a first-class row between No. 10 and No. 11. It was about monetary policy and the eurozone, and it literally ended in tears. I do not know who will end up crying, but if the Prime Minister persists in trying to get Britain into the eurozone quickly, I would not bank on a happy ending.
5.50 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: During my long sojourn on the Back Benches during this afternoon's debate, my spirits were somewhat lifted by the thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), which stood in some contrast to the rather miserable fare offered from the Conservative Benches during the rest of the afternoon. Conservative Members have joined in shouting to each other, "Never, never, never"—I cannot do the accent—without any indepth argument in support of the proposition beyond an inference that terrible things will happen. Exactly what, we do not know.
One feature of the Conservative argument has been to dismiss the idea that any serious analysis of this country's interest in economic and monetary union in Europe should be conducted. The issue is presented as a tussle between No. 10 and No. 11, or an entirely bogus exercise. The nadir of that approach came from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has given his leader a lovely little present for when he returns from Prague. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) spent the day attempting to convince people that the Conservatives
1464
were in favour of Europe and not about to back out. He will enjoy reading the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham on his return.
The truth is that if we are serious about assessing the implications, conducting something like the five tests is a good way to proceed. As the hon. Member for Chichester mentioned, one starting point is optimal currency area theory. If we are serious, we should reflect on it; the theory has been around for much longer than the current debates on economic and monetary union. Roughly speaking, the theory states that two countries will benefit from sharing a common currency if the micro-economic benefits of lower transaction costs and exchange rate risk and greater price transparency exceed the macro-economic costs of adjusting to country-specific asymmetric shocks in the absence of the ability to set national interest rates or the possibility for the nominal exchange rate to adjust. That is a pretty exact description of what the five tests have been trying to achieve.
Indeed, that rather sets the seal on the frankly inane riposte of the shadow Chancellor to the Chancellor's statement a few days ago and in today's debate. The shadow Chancellor sought to make fun of various inter-country currency areas—a joke he thought was so good that he repeated it twice. It is perfectly logical to examine experiences in history in order to develop a serious case for deciding how best to proceed. I have already expressed my disappointment at the contributions of Conservative Members this afternoon, and the shadow Chancellor's speech had something of the slight about it.
If we examine the benefits and costs in respect of how that theory has developed, we see that lower transaction costs—perhaps saving between 0.1 and 0.2 per cent. of gross domestic product, or £1 billion a year—are not insignificant. In that context, it is extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said today on the BBC that he was in favour of a European Union with a single market, but did not even mention the issue of transaction costs. We can also put on the plus side of the micro-economic benefits that the theory suggests the potential increase in trade, of perhaps 50 per cent. over 30 years, a cut in borrowing costs, on a sustainable basis; and better investment. Against that is the question of the sustainable convergence of the economy and the ability to withstand country-specific asymmetric shocks without exchange rate protection, which are the macroeconomic consequences.
The decision must, however, be based on other factors. Some critics of the theory have suggested that its limitations include the fact that in reality most decisions are made under changing circumstances. That is true, and circumstances are changing fast at present. It is significant that we have had a mea culpa—I welcome that—from the Conservative party on the previous Government's entry into the exchange rate mechanism. We have also heard several claims from Conservatives that they were right all along, but the record demonstrates that they have been systematically wrong about how things would develop and how the changing circumstances would affect the question of whether to join EMU.
Conservative Members initially said that the single currency could not be achieved, when the idea was suggested. After the framework had been agreed, they said that no detailed agreement could be reached and the

1465
member states would not be able to agree a final modus operandi to make it happen. When a detailed agreement was reached, the Conservatives said, "Well, it may have been agreed in theory, but it will not happen in reality. The currencies will not be converted in time, the cashpoints will run out of money, it will descend into chaos and the economies simply won't work." Of course, from the first day, the economy worked well, the currencies were converted and the new currency worked fine. Then the Conservatives said, "Ah yes, but as soon as there are any strains, it will all collapse, like the ERM." But it has not collapsed under the first strains. Then they said, "Well, it hasn't collapsed, but the rate will sink inexorably against the dollar, and that will be the end of the single currency." Of course, not only has the euro not collapsed against the dollar: it has improved against the dollar in recent months.
The Bank of England has said that the technical success of the single currency was greater than anyone could have anticipated. That is the reality, and that is an important factor in consideration of the tests. We now have a single currency in the single market of which we are part. Even the Opposition now say they are happy for us to belong to that single market, and that is a central plank of their new pro-European stance, as described in Prague. We are in a single market with a single currency that operates in the majority of states that make up that single market, and that has implications for our decision on whether to join. The likely outcome is that foreign investment in the UK will start to slip. How long will our trading partners continue to believe that we will join eventually and therefore give us the benefit of the doubt? The evidence is that doubt is beginning to creep in. Some hon. Members have cited a survey by Ernst and Young. More recent figures released by Invest UK and the OECD show a 7 per cent. fall in projects between 2001–02 and 2002–03 and a 60 per cent. fall in foreign direct investment in 2002. Figures from EUROSTAT show that foreign investment in Britain from outside the EU fell by no less than 73 per cent. in 2002. We are therefore seeing the real effect of the ground moving under our feet. In my view, it is essential that we should have the tests, and that they should be applied properly and rigorously, but additional factors must be taken into account.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Seven o'clock.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
Question agreed to.

Economic and Monetary Union
Question again proposed,That this House do now adjourn.
6 pm
Dr. Whitehead: I therefore welcome the Government's announcement that they are going to campaign vigorously for the benefits in principle of the single currency and, more importantly, for a combination of those benefits and the benefits that accrue from membership of the EU and the single market. In the end, the single currency and the single market are not distinguishable. It is in our strong long-term interest that Britain join European monetary union as soon as that is compatible with our interest. I shall certainly support the Government strongly in their efforts to bring that about.
6.1 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Before I begin my speech proper, I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) for his absolutely excellent speech. I can only imagine that the Conservative party's present difficulties will continue for as long as he remains on their Back Benches rather than being on their Front Bench.
I speak from the perhaps quaint premise that it ill behoves Members of this House to be either pro-European or anti-European. The only thing that Members of the British Parliament should be is pro-British. That is why I reject the Conservative dogma that says that EMU should be opposed even if it were good for Britain, and the Liberal Democrat dogma that would insist on joining EMU, even if that were bad for Britain.
Of course, Conservative Members would respond by saying that EMU could not be good for Britain, and Liberal Democrat Members would say that it could not be bad. That is the trouble with fundamentalists—one cannot hold a rational argument with them because they refuse to consider possible anything that might expose their position as flawed.
When the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Chancellor, spoke in the House on 9 June, the whole House laughed. It was a genuinely funny speech, with some excellent gags. I cannot claim that the speech has since been forgotten, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has committed the mistake of repeating most of the gags several times. However, the shadow Chancellor experienced something worse than laughter today: his speech was ignored. He singularly failed to win the attention of the House.
By contrast, the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor contained no quips or gags, and no polished delivery of a line. However, it had a very clear line. The message was, "Not now, but not no." The euro will be good for the UK. It will reduce long-term business costs, and act as a spur to economic dynamism in this country, but we can join only when there is real convergence with the European economy.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is not present. He spoke about the fallacy of convergence—the notion, as he put it, that economies

1467
could become linked together like spaceships floating in space. His view has been widely held. It is a classical one, in the sense that it was held in great esteem in the 18th century classical period, when cities had walls around them. The thought that economic decisions could be taken that would work as well for both Bremen and Bonn was deemed to be ludicrous. What made that view outdated was greater communication, improved technology and better transport. It is technology, transport and communication that render the classical view that he espoused equally inappropriate when considering independent nation states today.
The business community welcomed the Chancellor's message. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, noted:
"The process for review on convergence and flexibility will be welcome to businesses that need certainty to plan ahead. We are pleased the government is doing nothing to harm the hard-won economic stability that has made the UK the most successful economy in Europe",
while the leader in The Economist that week concluded:
"the main thing to understand is quite simple: the policy is right, politically and in economic terms as well."
Business welcomed the statement because it showed the Chancellor's determination to ground the decision in economic fact and not in political dogma. The Chancellor's announcement that a draft referendum Bill would be published this autumn and the release of further details about the UK's preparations for adopting the euro sent a clear message that the decision of principle has already been made. What remains, of course, is the need to satisfy the economic tests. Businesses need clarity and they need transparency. That is what the Chancellor's statement offered—a clear road map to euro entry and an assurance that his sound economic policies will not be diminished. So we can continue with the record levels of investment in the public services and with the clear long-term fiscal and monetary policy, but in addition when we enter the eurozone, business should reap the benefits of lower transaction costs, diminished exchange rate volatility and substantially easier cross-border trade.
The 9 June statement was about more than the decision to enter the euro, momentous though that is. It was about dealing with systemic problems in the British economy as well—problems that we need to deal with regardless of whether we join the eurozone. Under the Conservatives 300,000 families were in negative equity as the economy went through cycles of boom and bust—not an impressive record. That is why today the Chancellor has set out his vision of a sustainable housing market: one that would ensure added personal economic security for home owners and sustainability for the impressive economic framework that we have established. Those are the domestic prospects that EMU membership holds out. Attaining the goals set down by the Chancellor will ensure that home owners have long-term security with the increased use of fixed-rate mortgages.
The Chancellor also made it clear that he will seek reforms to the stability and growth pact so that when Britain enters the eurozone it will benefit from reforms to the structures that govern Europe's economy. There is growing agreement that the current structures are not right and that there needs to be reform if the UK and the rest of Europe are to benefit from our joining the
1468
European economy. It is because Britain has a policy of engagement with the EU that we can expect movement on that issue.
On jobs and prosperity, investment may produce a short-term increase in employment, but Europe's labour markets are far more restrictive than the UK's. Ultimately, that may present problems. As for convergence with the eurozone economy, our GDP growth, unemployment and the output gap are not aligned, although they are closer than they were six years ago. Tackling that problem is difficult, because on all those indicators Europe is lagging behind the UK. In effect, we have to wait for Europe to catch up with us. If we want to join in the near future, the economy cannot afford to grow too much. Growth of even 2.5 per cent. while Europe is in recession will mean large gaps opening up and causing real problems in meeting the convergence criteria. Convergence is, of course, about cycles. It is not just about having the same vital signs at the point of entry; it means having the same cycle and experiencing and responding to the same shocks and stimuli thereafter.
Mr. Portillo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gardiner: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will not, as a number of other hon. Members wish to speak and I was about to conclude my remarks to allow them to do so.
The final test, flexibility, poses the greatest challenge. I doubt that our economy is flexible enough at present to lose the shock absorber of its own exchange rate. Fiscal constraint to stop the public sector borrowing requirement running at more than 3 per cent. of GDP would severely restrict the Chancellor, irrespective of the overall level of debt. I suspect that that loss of flexibility, so necessary to our economy, as the Red Book figures on the public sector net cash requirement show, means that the UK economy must continue outside the eurozone for a little while longer.
It is clear, however, that the course is set. We should go in when we can go in, and when we do, it will be because it is right for Britain and the British economy.
6.10 pm
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly because much of what I wanted to say has already been said by others, probably better than I could say it.
I congratulate hon. Members on making good speeches, whether or not I agree with them; for example, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) seems to be in favour of EMU, while I am against it. His speech convinced me that I was right.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on his dismissal of the need for fiscal transfers and provision for subsidiary fiscal transfers in a single currency. That is mistaken. More than 20 years ago, the McDougall report stated that the European budget would have to be multiplied many times if the European economy were to work under a single currency.
Mr. Bacon: I was a little perplexed by my hon. Friend's comments, too. Does the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) agree with Hans Tietmeyer, the former president of the Bundesbank, that greater fiscal harmonisation is essential in a single currency?
Mr. Hopkins: Indeed. McDougall argued that, in essence, one would need a single government and a single economy, with a tax and benefits system, which would automatically make for big fiscal transfers—plus regional policy and government, locating industry in the regions and so on.
The hon. Member for Chichester mentioned America. Federal spending is vital to keeping the American states together and helping the poorer states to survive. If the Americans wanted to reduce the differentials in living standards between rich and poor states, the fiscal transfers should be even bigger.
Mr. Tyrie: Fiscal transfers play a role in narrowing income differentials between states, although in the United States that role is relatively small. The important point is to identify the flows that may take place as a consequence of a shock hitting one part the US, creating asymmetric performance between regions, and the extent to which the federal budget can compensate for that. That issue has been extensively studied and the conclusion is that federal transfers provide only limited protection—about 25 per cent. The main study has been carried out by Barry Eichengreen.
My general point in response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that many currency zones with free trade and high investment flows have no fiscal protection at all—the gold standard being the clearest example.
Mr. Hopkins: We could, no doubt, debate those points at great length. The hon. Gentleman denies the efficacy of the new deal in America in the 1930s and the post-war period—the Bretton Woods era, to which I refer time and again—when we had the fastest growth, the highest employment, the greatest equality and the development of a full welfare state. For most people, living standards rose as they had never done before. Throwing away the gains of that period was a great mistake.
In effect, EMU will marketise the economy and will give away even more of the gains a the immediate postwar period. Former Chancellor Erhard must be turning in his grave. The miracle that he guided through, based on an undervalued Deutschmark—allowed by the west as a shining example of how capitalism could work across the border from where communism did not work—is being reversed.
I was interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Chichester that it would not be difficult for a member state to withdraw from the EU. That would be likely to cause problems. It is at least possible, indeed some people might say it is likely, that EMU will soon run into serious problems. Germany is a case in point. Portugal will try to tough it out by using flexible labour markets or whatever, without any attempt to change its macro-economic variables. While on holiday in Portugal last year, I saw a notice at a building site, put there by trade unionists, that said. "No to flexible
1470
labour." Well, that is what I thought it said—it was in Portuguese—but I think that my translation was pretty accurate.
Last year, a study said that if interest rates were appropriate to the national economies of the member states, we would have a vast range of interest rates. At that time, Germany would have required an interest rate of 1.5 per cent. Ireland was at the other extreme, at 6.5 per cent. Spain was at 4.5 per cent. and France at 3.5 per cent. Those are big differences in interest rates, and I cannot envisage the appropriate interest rates converging. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Chichester and others have said, Ireland is booming and Germany is going into serious recession and is in serious danger of deflation.
A year from now, we may have to assess not whether we join the eurozone, but whether the eurozone will survive and whether major countries will abandon the euro and reinvent their own currencies, as has been done in recent years. When the Soviet Union collapsed, all its member states took up their own currencies. We have recently seen the dissolution of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and they have their own currencies.
I am fearful about losing our own currency because we would lose control of macro-economic policy, which is of fundamental importance to ensuring that we can retain full employment and growth in living standards and that we can manage our own economy in the way that we want, according to the democratic dictates of our population. Every other country in the EU ought to have that as well.
My concern is that EMU might destroy the EU, with serious political consequences. In previous generations, economics was always called political economy, and economics and politics are inevitably locked together. When economics go wrong, we get dictatorial regimes, and there is an uncomfortable growth of the extreme right in Europe at the moment. If German unemployment went up to an even more frightening level and deflation occurred, some rather unpleasant political groupings could grow in popularity in Germany, and that could happen elsewhere. One or two hon. Members are concerned about that, because they are perhaps somewhat older than I am and have longer memories and can remember what happened immediately before the war. Serious political possibilities arise from the problem that EMU will cause all the member states.
I want Europe to work, and I dislike being told constantly that I am anti-European because I am anti-EMU and anti-euro. No one is more pro-European than me. I am culturally European; I go there for my holidays; I try to speak European languages. I am not from any other continent. I am deeply involved in European culture and life, and I go there regularly. I want to have good, friendly relations with all my European colleagues and to talk about politics and music, and, indeed, to drink their wine. Europe will not work if we smash its economy by driving forward the euro, the eurozone and EMU. I have possibly spoken for too long, and I hope that I have not taken up other hon. Members' time.
6.18 pm
Jon Cruddas: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a few comments at the end of the debate. In echoing the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), I want to explain briefly where I am coming from. I am not anti-European. Indeed, I am very much pro-European. I am not anti-euro in principle. I was elected on a manifesto that supported the principle of joining a successful single currency.
I feel that I am quite pragmatic about entering the euro, but I cannot understand how we can join in the immediate future, for two reasons: first, the structural reforms necessary to live permanently with eurozone interest rates, and secondly, the scale of reform needed to the policy framework that operates in the eurozone. To date, the debate about monetary union has tended to be dominated by caricature. On the one hand, pro-euro advocates are seen as selling out our history and traditions and propelling us towards a superstate, governed by an elite. On the other, those who are anti-euro or cautious about early entry are seen as little Englanders and as road blocks standing in the way of the inevitable laws of history and of our political and economic destiny.
For me, the main problem for my party is that over the past few years we have given the impression of appearing to collapse two separate issues into one: first, that we are a pro-European political party; secondly, that we are in favour of joining the euro as soon as possible, irrespective of political and economic context. The consequence of that is that for some in the party, preparedness to join the euro is seen as a hallmark of their pro-European—and new Labour—bona fides. At times, it has appeared that anyone who is cautious about early euro entry, and who wants to see some of the policy frameworks and institutions reformed before we join, is in effect perceived to be an "outer", a non-believer, and almost an opponent of a modernised Labour party: a de facto member of the Bruges group. In that sense, some pro-euro enthusiasts have done a disservice to their cause, as their lack of pragmatism has distorted the debate and served to underplay the profound and complex issues at stake.
For me, the real significance of the Government's recent announcements on the euro is that they decouple those two positions: on the one hand, our general pro-European position, and on the other, a cautious approach to early euro entry. As such, our pro-European bona fides have been re-established while simultaneously mapping out a major agenda for reform, both here and within the eurozone. The approach is to consider the issues around prospective entry through the grid of self-interest rather than a determinist assumption about destiny and inevitability.
In terms of the five tests, I want to focus briefly on the issue of convergence, as in 1997 it was determined as the critical test. It pivots on the fundamental questions: are our cycles and economic structures compatible so that we can live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis; and what are the risk factors for sustainable and settled convergence? It seems to me that, alongside that, a political test should be related to convergence: is the euro interest rate on a permanent
1472
basis compatible with our domestic political agenda? Without the monetary policy flexibility that we currently maintain, emphasis is placed on the operation of a more discretionary fiscal policy to enhance economic stabilisation. That means discretionary direct and indirect taxes and temporary tax credits either to cool down or to stimulate the economy. Those issues are covered in the interesting Treasury discussion document, "Fiscal stabilisation and EMU".
There is no doubt that if we were to join the euro now this discretionary fiscal policy would have to kick in to raise taxes significantly. Let us imagine what would happen if interest rates were cut by 1.3 per cent. now. We would see another bout of consumption and a surge in the housing market, reinforcing the way in which the housing market in the south-east constrains our macroeconomic performance. In Dagenham, for example—the area that I represent—the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London, house prices have virtually doubled over the last three years. Of the 39,000 council dwellings, 17,000 have been sold off over the last 20 years. We currently have 6,000 applicants on the waiting lists, last year there were 2,000 homeless applications in the borough, and there is a chronic shortage of social housing. Many find it very difficult to enter the private sector. At the same time, it is estimated that the population of London will grow by some 750,000 over the next 10 to 15 years, and it is assumed that much of that will be handled on the east side of the city. In the borough that I represent, we are talking about some 25,000 extra dwellings over the next 10 to 15 years.
The simple points that I am seeking to make are as follows: first, pressures exist on the housing stock at the moment; secondly, tensions are at work even within the lowest-cost housing market in London; thirdly, pressures on the demand side are going to intensify; and fourthly, we need to acknowledge that there is a long-term supply-side plan to hand. The scale of this project of economic restructuring cannot be overstated, however; nor can the implications of significant interest rate cuts and the abolition of national level monetary policy to regulate these markets before structural reforms kick in.
Let us consider this: we join the euro, we trigger another boom in the housing market, but we have not sorted out the supply side issues, and we have no national control over interest rates to constrain this renewed consumption. The solution would be significant increases in tax rises through this discretionary fiscal policy. Two words jump out—stop-go. However, the situation could be worse. The Treasury discussion paper suggests that there is no guarantee of success: witness the failure of discretionary fiscal policy in the 1950s and 1960s under Bretton Woods.
At the same time, this discretionary policy sits uneasily with the Government agenda of tax rises that are levelled for investments in public services. This strategy is politically acceptable only if the tax rises are transparently linked to investments in public services. That is the implied compact that we have with the British people. Without major structural reform, we would join the euro and would put up taxes to cool down the housing market in the south-east. There is little evidence that that discretionary fiscal policy would work, yet we would have undermined the compact with

1473
the people regarding a general transfer of any new revenues into public service investments. Any Government who proposed such a package would develop a pretty uncomfortable relationship with the electorate.
The situation could be worse, however. At the moment, we are in the mid-term of the agenda for refinancing public services. Cumulatively, there will be a £61 billion increase in public service investment by 2005–06. That is having an effect at a local level and change is occurring. Yes, it is uneven and at times slow, but it is occurring and that is the agenda that we were elected on. I think people will be patient provided that we preserve the link between the tax rises and the expenditure plans. That could be derailed in one of two ways: first, if we had to push up the discretionary tax rises that I mentioned earlier or, secondly, if we were to enter a system whose rules would bring into question this strategy and imply spending cuts to restrict borrowing.
Under the stability and growth pact, the objective was balanced budgets by 2002–03. Late last year, that was changed to an objective of 0.5 per cent. cuts off borrowing for the next three years. Simply on the Red Book numbers, that would imply cuts of £35 billion. The excessive deficit procedure has been triggered in Portugal and Germany, as has the early warning system in France. There is also trouble in Italy. It is vital that we resist pressures to compromise our domestic strategy.
We have had to revise our borrowing estimates upwards over the last year. The estimates for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are cumulatively some £74 billion, 2.4 per cent. to 1.9 per cent. of GDP in terms of Government net borrowing, or what the Red Book describes as the treaty deficit. Any further downward revision of our growth estimates will push us very close to the 3 per cent. levels introduced at Maastricht.
Even to preserve our spending plans, we could fall foul of the current budgetary rules of monetary union while having to signal more tax increases before the election. Therefore our compact with the electorate could be more difficult to sustain over the next few years, irrespective of euro entry. Inside the euro, our spending plans could well be compromised. Moreover, the discretionary tax rises that would be needed if there were no substantial structural reform could rupture this compact.
Overall, the Government's recent statement has rebalanced debate in the Labour party by separating our pro-European agenda from an early rush into monetary union. It is a rational and pragmatic position to take. The structural reforms needed before we again contemplate entry are significant. Without the reforms, the discretionary fiscal policies needed are not necessarily workable or politically desirable, given our domestic strategy to rebuild public services. Notwithstanding this, our current approach to revenue raising and expenditure will itself require renewed work over the next few years. The present rules of the eurozone regarding borrowing would compound rather than resolve these problems.
1474
The rational position, therefore, is a cautious one. That is why I fully support the Government agenda. We should concentrate on the manifesto we were elected on: rebuilding our public services and linking any tax rises specifically to that project.
6.28 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
This has been a timely debate, although perhaps not if one is a Liberal Democrat. I was not sure whether the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) was acting as spokesman for the Liberal Democrats or acting as a literary agent. His endless references to biographies and so on seemed something of a distraction.
This has been an informed debate and we have heard some excellent contributions from both sides of the House. Indeed, I commend the contributions of the hon. Members for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). As we came to end of the debate, we heard the contribution of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). Perhaps more than any other speaker in the debate, he showed that one does not have to be in the euro to be a good European.
We heard tremendous speeches from Conservative Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) gave an eloquent exposition of the reason why the economics and politics of the euro are inextricably interwoven. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made a typically robust speech in which he drew out the central question of volatility. I was sorry that I missed the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), although I am told that it was both humorous and honest. It is interesting that he and my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) were able to encapsulate all the key issues that we are considering in their short yet strong contributions. I enjoyed not only the rigour of the speech made by the hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, but his comparison involving stoats, and I shall remember his speech in that context.
Conservative Members welcome the debate on the Government's policy on the euro because it relates to perhaps the single most important decision to face this country for a generation. It is important because of economic and constitutional implications and because such a decision, once taken, is irreversible. Although we have largely focused today on the broad monetary and fiscal aspects, the real significance of the euro is that it affects each and every Member of the House and all those whom we represent.
With a single currency, of course, would come a single interest rate, which would set the cost of borrowing for home owners and business and the value of savings. It would affect the cost of the goods and services that we buy and the worth of our assets. Thus no one in the House or beyond it is immune from the decision. That was why everyone was hoping that after months of Cabinet wrangling, the announcement on 9 June would provide clarity and certainty. Indeed, as the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, David Frost, said a week before the announcement, on 1 June:

1475
"Any euro verdict that can be reopened and reviewed, within 12 to 18 months, will be potentially destabilising and will lack credibility."
Sadly, the Government were not listening. Instead of a clear and unambiguous decision, we got a political fix. The Chancellor announced that four of the five tests had failed, but then said that the Government would go out and promote the case for the euro anyway. Worse still, he announced that the whole process would be rerun in a year's time, thus creating maximum uncertainty. As the highly respected chief executive of Next plc, Simon Wolfson, pointed out:
"Business wants certainty, so that it can plan ahead with confidence. What it does not want is continued speculation over whether the Government intends to take risks with the British economy in order to pursue its political ambitions."
What of the famous five tests? As several hon. Members said, the first and most important is the need for sustainable convergence—the stability test, as the Chancellor put it. The former Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Edward George, said that there was a risk if countries' economies were not convergent:
"The risk is that a single interest rate, which has to go with the single currency, is not going to be appropriate for all the member countries at the same time."
Indeed, the problem is ideally illustrated by the current combination of a boom in Ireland and the record unemployment in Spain and Germany to which hon. Members in all parts of the House referred.
According to the Treasury's analysis, convergence of the UK economy and eurozone economies is likely to be especially difficult. As the shadow Chancellor told us, the document "Analysis of European and UK business cycles and shocks" says:
"It is generally recognised that fluctuations in UK GDP are…idiosyncratic in certain respects, when compared to behaviour in the euro area countries."
However, most tellingly of all, the study concludes:
"It remains true that the UK's cycle is strongly correlated with that in the US, somewhat more so than with those in Europe."
There is, however, a second aspect to convergence that is equally important: sustainability. Even if, at a particular moment in time, this country's inflation rate, interest rate, growth rate, unemployment rate and so on were similar to those in other European economies, it would be wrong to assume that that was sustainable. Given the Treasury's view that the UK economy is idiosyncratic, it is far more likely that our economies would be like ships passing in the night, coming together momentarily before moving off in different directions. The chief economic adviser to the Treasury, with whom I assume the Chancellor is familiar, Mr. Ed Balls, stated:
"If interest rates and the exchange rate come down sharply, you haven't got a settled and durable convergence."
It is clear why the Government thought that the test had failed.
The second failed test related to economic flexibility. Following the Conservative Government's reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, this country's ability to respond to mobile and price-sensitive capital and labour movements was transformed. In spite of this Government's best efforts to weigh British business down with 15 new regulations every working day and additional annual taxes of £15 billion, this country is still managing to compete.
1476
What is of equal concern, however, is the lack of flexibility in the eurozone economies. Indeed, in April the Treasury Committee stated that
"insufficient progress has been made in the Eurozone in making labour markets more flexible."
Even the Prime Minister conceded, in a recent review of progress on the Lisbon objectives, that
"there remains a daunting amount to be done."
On the third test of investment, to which several hon. Members referred, the Chancellor stated:
"If sustainable and durable convergence is achieved, then we can be confident that the quantity and quality of investment would increase, ensuring that the investment test was met."
Note the all-important word "if". As we have learned in the debate, no such sustainable convergence has been achieved and nor is it likely to be achieved. One thing has become clear, however. Three years ago we were warned that if we did not join the euro we would lose inward investment. Yet, as Barry Bright, head of Ernst and Young's UK location advisory team, says:
"The issue of euro membership appears to be a bit of a damp squib, as far as inward investors into Europe are concerned."
Indeed, Ernst and Young's latest figures show that Britain's share of EU inward investment projects rose from 26.5 per cent. in 2001 to 28.4 per cent. in 2002. Conservative Members will be aware that that is still significantly down from the 40 per cent. achieved under the last Conservative Government.
Of course the one test that the Government reckon did succeed related to whether entry would have a positive impact on our financial services industry. Apparently, the Government's answer was yes, it would. Yet at the same time the Treasury's paper "The location of financial activity and the euro" conceded that
"the euro has not affected London's ability to compete in international wholesale markets."
That simply affirmed the earlier report by the Bank of England in 1999, when it stated:
"The evidence indicates that, since the launch of the euro, the City has maintained its market share."
That raises an awkward question, to which I hope the Chief Secretary will respond. If it makes little difference to financial services whether we are in or out of the euro, what function does the test serve?
The final test on employment, which the Government declared failed, seems similarly inconclusive. While some people like to claim that joining the eurozone would immediately and significantly boost jobs, a large part of the evidence seems to disagree. Even the Chancellor has admitted that
"macroeconomic stability would be harder to maintain inside EMU than outside, were the UK to join at the present time",
and of course stability is crucial to growth and jobs.
A number of hon. Members have rightly highlighted the findings of the 18 documents that accompanied the Chancellor's statement—and yes, I have read all 1,700 pages or so, which is a good comment from a professional point of view, although I am not sure whether it says much about my social life around 9 June. Nevertheless, I have read all the documents, and I should like to consider an issue that applies to a number of them.

1477
In their study of housing consumption and the euro, the Government recognise that housing has a vital influence on whether the UK meets the key test on convergence, not least, as hon. Members have pointed out, because of an historic preference by British homeowners for short-term variable mortgages. The Chancellor told us on 9 June that it was his intention to review the mortgage market. He has affirmed that today. He also told us that he would accelerate the rate of house building. Given this Government's record in that regard, that will not be very difficult.
In the accompanying document, the entertainingly entitled "Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU", we were treated to what I can describe only as a psychedelic trip back to the 1960s, with an agenda of active Keynesian-style fiscal regulators that would enable the Government to vary indirect taxes several times a year, and also in different parts of the country, in order to stabilise the economy. According to the Treasury,
"investment in housing is relatively lightly taxed by comparison to other investments".
Of course, that ignores the small fact that, for most of us, our house is our home. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham rightly highlighted, the document goes on to look at other issues about property taxes and how they could be used to dampen the housing market in raising stamp duty land tax or imposing capital gains tax on our homes. Naturally, many people following this debate will be deeply concerned by those statements—[Interruption.] If the Chief Secretary could stop listening to the Chancellor for a moment and listen to the debate, perhaps I could ask him to reassure the House on these questions. Does he believe that housing in the UK is lightly taxed? Does he support the statement that taxing housing has some immediate appeal; and which—stamp duty land tax, capital gains tax or even VAT—does he think would be preferable?
The decision whether to join the euro is vital to this country's future direction. It is an issue that affects us all, and as it is irreversible it is a decision that must be based on clear and unambiguous evidence. On 9 June, the Government had a wonderful opportunity to end the backstairs bickering and Cabinet squabbles and give us a clear direction. Instead, we were told that while four of the five tests had failed, the Government were going to go ahead anyway and promote the case for the euro. Instead of a firm decision helping investment and jobs, we got a threat of endless uncertainty undermining business confidence. Instead of a principled decision in the country's best interests, we got a political fudge in Labour's best interests.
As on so many issues, this Government are failing to provide either the direction or leadership that they promised. What a breach of faith, and what a wasted opportunity.
6.43 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): The debate that we have had today is one of fundamental importance, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made a number of valuable and interesting contributions.
1478
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) for their contributions. In particular, I thank them and all members of the Select Committee on the Treasury for their sixth report, to which we responded today and which we recognise as an important contribution to the debate that we are having about the euro. I have no doubt that we will return to it from time to time in the coming months.
The debate has not lacked passion. I was struck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He made the case for passion in our discussion of these issues. That passion was reflected on the other side of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins). We had passion, too—of a slightly different sort, but equally so—from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, at a stroke, undid any good that the Leader of the Opposition might have been doing in Prague. When today is remembered, in so far as it is remembered at all, it will be for Wokingham, not for Prague, because Wokingham reflected the true nature of the Conservative party and the Conservative Opposition—they have an almost tangible animus against Europe. Indeed, it was almost tangible in the Chamber.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: In a moment.
I pay tribute to the thought and care that went into all hon. Members' contributions, whatever their perspective. I certainly sensed that in the speech by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch was good enough to give me a copy of the original speech that he made in 1990. I found the first iteration of his thoughts more acceptable—no wonder, because it consisted of a diatribe against Treasury Ministers and officials. Given the then role of the hon. Member for Chichester, I fancy that he would have been obliged to sit in the box and listen to that speech.
We want the debate to be reflected more widely in the country because of the great significance not only of the decision that we are considering, but of the radical programme of reforms that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced to the House on 9 June. Those included a new inflation target; reforms to housing and planning; reforms to achieve greater flexibility in markets for products, capital and labour; and a consultation on a new fiscal policy regime—reforms that are essential to Britain's economic success inside or outside the euro.
In today's debate, as in my right hon. Friend's assessment of the five tests, we made clear the strength of our commitment to and support for the principle of joining the euro and our determination to base a decision on EMU on Britain's long-term national interest. The assessments show that if durable convergence and flexibility can be achieved, the potential gains from joining to trade, business and living standards are, if anything, greater than previously anticipated. But the potential benefits cannot be captured unless we achieve settled convergence between the economies of the UK and the euro area and the UK economy has sufficient flexibility to respond to economic shocks.

1479
It is therefore essential that the five tests be met, because they are the guarantee that joining the euro will not prejudice growth, business investment, jobs or our radical agenda to deliver better public services. That point was made clearly and helpfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas). He stressed the central importance of convergence and structural reform of the policy framework to our approach to these issues.
Mr. Redwood: Given that the pensions tax has destroyed many pension funds and the telecoms tax has destroyed many telephone companies, does the Chief Secretary worry that extra housing taxes will destroy the housing market, and with it much consumption? Is that a price worth paying for the euro?
Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman reverts to a favourite theme. I do not know why he attacks the windfall levy and denies the importance of the corporate taxation reforms. The reforms have been well received by those who want to remove distortions in taxation. I believed that that was a concern of the right hon. Gentleman's.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) suggested that we had a hidden agenda on taxing property. That is nonsense. Only the Conservatives, when they had stewardship of the economy, used stamp duty as a regulator in that way.
Mr. Prisk: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Boateng: I shall finish my argument first.
No one who has listened to the debate could be in any doubt about the dividing lines on the issue. Some would rule out membership of the single currency on principle, even if joining were in the national economic interest. [Interruption.] Opposition Members cheer that. They reveal themselves through their own mouths. I fear that that approach was characterised by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), from whom one would have hoped for better. His blithe dismissal of the five tests as irrelevant and a cover for a political decision did not do the arguments justice.
Let us consider the Liberal Democrats—at least I can now use the term in the plural. For almost the entire debate, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), with whom we spent many happy hours in the Committee that considered the Finance Bill, was entirely alone. However, Liberal representation has doubled: two members of the party are present. They urge us to join the euro, regardless of the five tests. Such a course would prejudice our stability, risk repeating past failures of exchange rate management and could return us to the days of stop and go, at the expense of our ambitions for high investment, full employment and high and sustained growth.
We are considering not the "now or never" options that Conservative Members represent, but what takes forward our agenda of concrete, practical reforms that promote stability and dynamism and are right for Britain's future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said, it is not a question of
1480
being pro or anti-Europe, but of being pro-Britain. The pro-Britain approach is also right for Europe, which can benefit from our reform agenda.
Many hon. Members, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), spoke about convergence. Hon. Members asked what could change in the year before the next Budget, when the Chancellor will revisit the matter. As my right hon. Friend made clear, the Government are not in the business of giving a running commentary on that. However, we have also made it clear that we believe that there is a realistic prospect of making significant progress in the next year. We will outline the implementation of several step changes in policy in the pre-Budget report.
Mr. Prisk: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
Mr. Boateng: In a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East requested such a timetable. The Chancellor outlined it in his statement to the House on 9 June.
Mr. Prisk: The Chief Secretary has referred to the need for reform and to the changes that will take place over the coming year, yet he has made light of the question that I and others have asked about whether he believes that property is lightly taxed. The matter is dealt with in the Treasury document to which I have referred, and the Chief Secretary is a Treasury Minister. Is it true or not?
Mr. Boateng: I refer the hon. Gentleman to section 6.102 and 89, which make it clear that there are no proposals for new taxes in the fiscal stabilisation paper. How many times do we have to say that there are no proposals here for new taxes? I have given the hon. Gentleman the answer to his question; he really needs to grasp it.
Important issues relating to the housing market must be addressed. Our agenda is not to attain market structures identical to those of other countries. Every country's market will have unique features, but history shows that the combination of house price inflation and volatility has been a problem for stability. We all know that, and we are determined to do more to entrench stability and to reduce the risk of inflation, irrespective of the decision on the euro. That is right for Britain, and for those who look to the housing market to meet their needs and aspirations. That is why we have asked Professor David Miles to examine the obstacles to the development of a bigger market in fixed-rate mortgages and to make recommendations on how the obstacles can be removed.
That review is taking place alongside major reforms to speed up the planning process to ensure that we give more certainty to developers and businesses, and that we meet the housing needs of the regions, backed up by £22 billion of investment over three years through the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable communities plan. The Conservatives never put such investment into housing when they had stewardship of the economy. Outside EMU, our reforms will enhance the stability of the housing market and of the wider economy, and, if the UK were to join EMU, a more stable housing

1481
market would increase the compatibility of UK and euro business cycles, facilitating sustainable convergence. That must be right, and we are doing the right thing. It is right for Britain, right for our future, and right for the needs and aspirations of our people.
At the same time, we are taking the necessary steps to set the Bank of England a new inflation target based on the harmonised index of consumer prices, which is a measure of inflation that has much to commend it. The HICP provides a more accurate reflection of consumer behaviour than RPIX, and allows for consumers substituting cheaper goods for more expensive ones when relative prices change. This more accurately reflects people's spending behaviour, and is in line with international best practice. That ought to be welcomed by Conservative Members. It gives a more complete picture of spending patterns, as it takes account of spending by all consumers, including the richest earners, foreign visitors and all pensioners. It is the most comparable international measure used by our neighbours in Europe, and it enables people to make sound decisions on pricing and investment in the context of increasingly integrated global markets.
Our objective is to ensure that Britain, as a nation, benefits from those markets, from European reform and from the steps that we have taken to build on the framework of macro-economic stability that has characterised the Chancellor's stewardship of the economy. Conservative Members have made great play of the horrors that they say lie ahead in terms of closer working with Europe. In so doing, they reveal their blindness to the benefits of reform. The Government have consistently supported a prudent interpretation of the stability and growth pact. We have also consistently supported reforms designed to meet the objectives of the Lisbon agenda, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East specifically called.
We are determined to safeguard the UK's stability and prosperity, and to ensure that they go hand in hand with a readiness to play our part in Europe's reforms and to build a modern, pro-European political consensus at home. That is why we, as a party, have the confidence to say that our future lies in Europe and that we should lead in Europe, and why the conclusions of the assessment and the package of reforms presented to the House on 9 June represent the right way forward as we work to build greater flexibility and higher productivity, growth and employment in Britain, and a more prosperous and successful Britain in Europe.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

DRAFT MENTAL INCAPACITY BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 12th June relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Mental Incapacity Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Mental Incapacity Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and proposes that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of November 2003.
That a Select Committee of eight honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any draft Mental Incapacity Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—

(i)to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii)to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii)to report from time to time;

(iv)to appoint specialist advisers;

(v)to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That Mr John Bercow, Mrs Angela Browning, Mr Paul Burstow, Jim Dowd, Stephen Hesford, Mrs Joan Humble, Huw Irranca-Davies and Laura Moffatt be members of the Committee.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

DRAFT CIVIL CONTINGENCIES BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 12th June relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Civil Contingencies Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Civil Contingencies Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and proposes that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by the end of November 2003.
That a Select Committee of eleven honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any draft Civil Contingencies Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—

to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii)to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii)to report from time to time;

(iv)to appoint specialist advisers;

(v)to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That Mr Richard Allan, Mr Adrian Bailey, David Cairns, Mr James Clappison, Mr Kevan Jones, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Patrick Mercer, Chris Mole, Dr Lewis Moonie, Kali Mountford and David Wright be members of the Committee.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

DRAFT GAMBLING BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 2nd July relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any clauses of a draft Gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution relating to the said Joint Committee.
That a Select Committee of eight honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider any clauses of a draft Gambling Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—

to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii)to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii)to report from time to time;

(iv)to appoint specialist advisers;

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom; and

That Janet Anderson, Mr Tony Banks, Jeff Ennis, Mr John Greenway, Mr Alan Meale, Mr Richard Page, Dr John Pugh and Mr Anthony D Wright be members of the Committee.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

PETITIONS

  Trade Justice Movement
  7 pm
  Ian Stewart: In recent weeks the Trade Justice Movement has been running a campaign to raise awareness of the issue of trade justice throughout the world. During the campaign Members of Parliament have been asked to participate in what has been an excellent exercise. During the week in which I was involved, I visited Wentworth high school in the city of Salford, in my constituency.
  A five-hour session during which the pupils took no prisoners and asked pertinent and pointed questions developed into a dialogue about how young people could take part in the political process. As part of their campaign for trade justice, the pupils at Wentworth high school have asked me to present a petition signed by 586 people.
  The petition of the pupils, teachers and helpers of Wentworth High School declares our concerns about unjust rules that are weighted towards the benefit of rich countries. We would like to see changes made to the trade rules such that instead of "free trade" which keeps countries poor, that we have "trade justice" meaning that rules will benefit the poor people of the planet.
  We request the House of Commons to urge the Government to raise our concerns at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting which will take place this September in Mexico and we would request that our concerns are raised with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry before this meeting.
  As supporters of the Trade Justice Movement which is campaigning for trade justice and not "free trade" we believe that the world leaders should use this vote to:—
  Stop forcing poor countries to open their markets and champion their right to manage their own economies.
  Regulate big business and their investments to ensure people and the environment come before profits.
  Stop rich countries promoting the interest of big business through trade interventions that harm the poor and the environment.
  1484
  Ensure trade policy is made in a fair, transparent and democratic way.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Further Education (Hemel Hempstead)
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I wish to present a petition from 2,132 constituents and people in areas neighbouring Hemel Hempstead, where a further education college was merged with Watford college in 1992 as a cost-saving exercise. Since then there have been successive depredations of the Hemel Hempstead site and the building up of the Watford site, as a result of which many of my constituents now have no access to further education.
  The Petition of West Herts College Students Union and concerned residents and parents of Hemel Hempstead
  Declares that West Herts College plans to close the majority of courses for 16–18 year olds at its Hemel Hempstead campus and move them to Watford; that the petitioners oppose this move and contend that there should be a college located in Hemel Hempstead that is large enough to suit the needs of the borough of Dacorum.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ask the Secretary of State for Education to urge the West Herts College Corporation to maintain its current provision for 16–18 year olds at its Hemel Hempstead site,
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Humberstone Village Post Office
  7.5 pm
  Keith Vaz: I wish to present a petition on behalf of 180 of my constituents who are outraged at the Post Office's decision to close Humberstone village post office. They are particularly outraged at the behaviour of the local official, who refused to meet my constituents and me before the post office was closed. I hope that Mr. Paul Masey will look at this petition in Hansard and recognise that there has not been proper consultation. I present it on my and my constituents' behalf, and particularly on behalf of Cynthia Bunton and Sharon Clarke, who collected the signatures.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of the community of Humberstone village declares
  That the post office in Main street is vital to the local community.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry call on the Post Office to keep open the post office in Main street, Humberstone village.
  We believe that the closure would be detrimental to the community of Humberstone village.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Tetra Mobile Communication System
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  7.6 pm
  Jim Dowd: I wondered for a moment whether the Members presenting the petitions were attempting to talk out the Adjournment debate. However, they made valid and valuable contributions to the work of this House.
  I am deeply grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to express the concerns that a substantial number of my constituents have about this issue. I should also mention my constituency neighbours—my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice)—who are suffering similar problems and doing the best that they can on their constituents' behalf. However, I shall confine my remarks to the issues confronting my constituents as they relate to the Tetra mobile broadcasting system.
  This is my first formal opportunity to welcome the Minister to her new post; I am sure that this is just the first of many journeys around Whitehall before she ends up at the Cabinet table. She will readily appreciate that this issue has a deeper resonance across the country because of the nature of the system in question. In fact, a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or from the Department of Health could easily have responded to this debate, because this issue falls into the category of what we in this House have recently come to know as a cross-cutting issue. I am certain that, because of the nature of it, the Minister will be unable to answer all of the several questions that I shall ask, but I hope that she will answer what she can.
  Mobile communications was just about the fastest growing sector of British industry in the past decade and a half. Oftel estimates that, from a figure of virtually zero 15 years ago, there are now 50 million mobile phone subscribers in this country. It is obvious that this is an irreversible trend in modern society. There are those who regard mobile communications as the greatest curse of our modern world; equally, many others find it difficult to imagine how we ever got on before we had them on their current scale of availability.
  I do not want to talk about the general issue of public mobile phone networks, however, because the Tetra system—it was originally known as the terrestrial trunk radio system—is actually a private network, and it is the specific technology that it employs that is a matter of concern to my constituents and many others. It falls under the public safety radio communications project—now known, more easily, as Airwave. It is a £2.5 billion investment in providing a nationwide digital voice and data communication system for the police. It is a private, closed system, so it is not immediately comparable with the mobile phone networks that most of us use.
  Let me say from the outset that I am strong supporter of what the Government have done, both in increasing spending and investment in the police so that their numbers have reached record levels, and the concomitant of giving the police the best equipment to help them in their valiant and valuable fight against
  1486
  crime in our community. No one in my constituency—or, I suspect, anywhere else in the country—would do anything needlessly to hinder their efforts on behalf of the community.
  Experience with the contractor for the system—O2 Airwave—in my corner of south-east London has, however, been deeply troubling. In the Metropolitan police area alone, it requires 91 sites for transmitters: I am informed that 60 have been completed and that 28 are, as quaintly described, "in build", leaving only another three sites to find. I do not know whether the experience in my constituency is unusual or atypical. The figures that I have been given show that rapid progress appears to have been made elsewhere. In our part of the world, however, it has been a different story.
  A site for the system was identified late last year on a building owned by Lewisham borough council. There is some dispute between the company and Lewisham borough council's planning department as to who said what to whom, and how much public consultation was engaged in. Suffice it to say, the site directly overlooked one primary school and another school was nearby. I shall not go into the dispute between Lewisham council and O2 Airwave, because I was not party to those discussions. However, it is self-evident that O2 Airwave did not follow the code of best practice on mobile phone network development, to which it is a signatory, to any degree at all. The company is not a member of the Mobile Operators Association—even though it is part of the greater O2 empire, it is not signed up to the 10 commitments of the MOA—but it is a signatory to the code of best practice.
  If the code of best practice were followed—the traffic-light model is contained in the MOA's 10 commitments—the site would clearly have been revealed as a red zone and the company would have been required to engage in far greater community involvement and far more consultation than it actually achieved. The local community was alarmed at discovering the company's intentions. Following a fairly stormy public meeting and strong local opposition, the company decided to move to a nearby site. In fairness, that site is an existing transmission site for the Metropolitan police—it has been since the second world war—and falls under the permitted development provisions that the company believes apply to it. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong—it is for my learned colleagues to pick the bones out of that—but the second site was chosen not far from the first without consultation, without acknowledgement of the traffic-light model, and without any attempt to establish contact with the local community.
  Lest I be accused of special pleading, let me say immediately that I live near the chosen site. However, I am not speaking on my own behalf, but on behalf of my constituents. On this occasion, they also happen to be my neighbours. At the first public meeting, O2 Airwave at least had the decency to apologise for its oversight, but made no attempt to clarify how it would deal with it. What is the point of the detailed code of conduct, to which it has freely put its name, if it takes not the slightest notice of it and simply maintains that it has a job to do and will get on with it, regardless of the views of the public in the area?

  1487
  I call on O2 Airwave to halt all the work that it is doing on its new site, until proper consultation and explanation has taken place with the local community, and in particular with the staff, pupils and parents of Horniman primary school, which is opposite the site. By its own ineptitude or an oversight—I do not wish to impute malice—O2Airwave has made a delicate and difficult situation much worse.
  Some 200 people—from a small community, so they were representative—attended the public meeting when O2 Airwave announced its decision on the new site. The main concern was the health implications of Tetra. The arrogance and incompetence of O2 Airwave was irritating enough, but it was clear that my constituents and neighbours were most concerned about the unique technology used by Tetra, and their perception of it. They readily understood that it met the guidelines published by the National Radiological Protection Board and the fabulously named ICNIRP—or the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection—but they felt that those guidelines did not go far enough.
  A few years ago, the then Minister with responsibility for public health—now Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—commissioned a report on the concerns about radiation from mobile phones from an independent expert group. It was chaired by Professor Stewart, and the report is known as the Stewart report. However, that report principally addressed the issues of the thermal effects of mobile phone technology. I readily accept that the most dangerous part of the system is the handsets, and that they are a far greater risk than the transmitters. However, my constituents—and those who share their concerns about Tetra—worry about the biological effects. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that, with the time division multiplex access system that Tetra uses, only the handsets pulse at what Stewart perceived to be a dangerous frequency, not the base stations.
  According to the Library, 176 Tetra systems are in use across the world in 46 countries. It is not new technology. Those who fear that they are being used as guinea pigs to determine the effects of the system are misled. However, public fears do exist. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for supplying a written answer in which she confirmed that 14 forces in the UK already have the system, and that the Metropolitan police will acquire the full system in October. The answer also directed me to the Home Office Tetra website, which I found helpful.
  I have some questions that I hope that the Minister will address in her reply. I note that the Home Office commissioned the NRPB to report on the implications of using the Tetra system. The report was published in July 2001 and made eight recommendations for further testing and examination of the system. By my calculation, the first experiment has been completed, but I do not understand the chronology used in the section of the report headed "Current Status". The website states:
  "The second experiment concerns the behaviour of calcium ions in heart cells…measurements will be completed in March."
  I am not sure which March that is. The site goes on:
  "The third and fourth in vitro experiments, on brain slice electrophysiology and epileptiform activity respectively, are expected to be completed in summer."
  1488
  On the fifth experiment, the website states that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is also setting up a human volunteer study and that the work is expected to start in April. Will my hon. Friend the Minister say which March, summer and April are meant? When will the evaluation be made?
  On the base station audit called for by the NRPB, the site said that tests had already been carried out in Lancashire and that 10 further measurements were planned before the end of March. I am not sure whether I was looking at an old site that had not been updated. Have the tests been carried out, or is the site talking about next year and not this year?
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give me whatever undertakings she can in respect of her Department's knowledge of future reports and developments, as more science becomes known. What troubles my constituents is the fact that this is a new technology that has burgeoned in a way that no one imagined when we set out on this path a decade and a half ago.
  My constituents want to support the police and the systems that they need and rely on for the valuable work that they do on behalf of the community. However, I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will realise that there is a specific and considerable public concern about the system. I hope that she can provide the assurance that all our constituents want.
  7.22 pm
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising an important issue that is of concern to his constituents and to those of all hon. Members. Certainly, we have all received correspondence and representations from members of the public who share some of the concerns.
  I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) for his kind welcome to me in my new post. I am perhaps slightly better able to answer his questions than another Minister would be, as until six weeks ago I was Minister for public health, and responsible for some of these matters. I shall do my best to respond in detail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West has outlined the basis of Tetra. I am delighted that he knows that it stands for terrestrial trunked radio. He described how the technology has been developed, and was right to say that it is not brand-new. It is in operation in various countries: Tetra systems are deployed for emergency services in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway. I am sure that the concerns that my hon. Friend set out are shared in those countries.
  Tetra has some specific advantages over the old-fashioned police radio systems. It is a modern digital technology, which means that it offers much more accurate voice recognition. Gone are the days of hiss and crackle, when police had to turn their radios up to maximum volume to work out what messages were coming through. Tetra also allows for quite sophisticated encryption techniques, which stop people

  1489
  hacking into the police radio system and ensures that information is secure. It can also provide very high capacity when needed. Given the necessity to get all emergency services involved in the major incidents that take place these days, that high capacity is increasingly vital. I am sure that the public are very keen to support the police in tackling crime, making communities safer and responding very quickly to incidents as they occur.
  However, people are also right to be concerned about their health and that of their families. This is complex and detailed new technology, so it is right for us to address as many of people's concerns as we can.
  I am delighted that Airwave is now available to 15 forces, which is one more than when I answered my hon. Friend's question last time. The system will be rolled out across the country by mid-2005.
  Police officers are pretty keen on the system. They feel that it has given them a greater ability to do their job. I am told that they no longer get into black holes where they cannot communicate, so their personal safety is increased as they can call for help on the ground. Also, for the first time, police helicopters can communicate directly with the police attending an incident, so the police are pleased about that.
  On the health concerns, my hon. Friend is right to say that as the technology has developed there have been concerns not only about Airwave but about mobile phones in general. That is why the Stewart report was commissioned. It was a detailed and comprehensive examination of all the existing health evidence and it was published in 2000. That report primarily focused on general mobile phone technology; it was not aimed in particular at Airwave or Tetra. It identified the latter as just one form of technology that it was considering.
  In particular, the report looked into work on pulsing signals, which is one of the key arms of concern. It noted that some researchers had found that biological effects could arise from pulsing signals even at weak powers. The experiments were carried out in the 1970s and it has since been virtually impossible to replicate them. The report was based on the precautionary principle of trying to deal with every eventuality. Whether or not they had any scientific basis, it decided to take account of some of the tests that had been carried out. The report concluded that the existing research was inconclusive and that no obvious health effects had been suggested. However, it recommended that as a precautionary measure, and those are the important words, modulation, the pulsing sensation at around 16 Hz—signal patterns that repeat them selves at a pulsing rate of 16 times a second—should be avoided if possible for future systems.
  My hon. Friend is right to say that it is the handsets that pulse and not the masts. The masts do not pulse, and independent evidence has confirmed that to be the case. Many communities have perhaps become seized of inaccurate information, which has led them to be concerned on a false scientific basis. I can offer that reassurance to people everywhere that the pulsing identified in the Stewart report comes from the handsets, not the masts. We need to be clear about that.
  1490
  On the Home Office response to the Stewart report—these were important issues for us—we took advice from the National Radiological Protection Board on the health implications of the Tetra technology. As my hon. Friend said, the advisory group on non-ionising radiation, AGNIR, published a report in July 2001, which said:
  "Although areas of uncertainty remain about the biological effects of low level…radiation in general, including modulated signals, current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the special features of the signals from TETRA mobile terminals and repeaters pose a hazard to health".
  The report was reassuring, but it is right that we recognise that further research needs to be undertaken because this is a developing and emerging technology.
  That report suggested further research and we have set up a comprehensive research programme to take those recommendations forward. We have commissioned studies to be undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. My hon. Friend referred to those reports. I can confirm that those experiments and studies show that Tetra has no effect on the calcium exchanges in brain and heart cells. That was the main concern of the Stewart report. I should not be delighted that the website is out of date, but I am delighted to be able to say that all the dates to which my hon. Friend referred were this year, and the studies have come up with that evidence.
  The Stewart report also recommended that all mobile phone masts should be included in a database so that we know where they are and can see how they are spread across the country. The Sitefinder database has now been established. The first upload of Airwave base stations on to the database takes place next week, so we are keeping good track of them.
  We have also set up a national health monitoring study of police Airwave users. Obviously, the Police Federation was concerned on behalf of its members. Although it welcomes the practical improvements, it also wants to ensure that there are no health risks. We have awarded a £5 million contract to Imperial college. A study of 10,000 police Airwave users will be undertaken to monitor their health in the next 15 years. That is a good long-term research study to find out what the implications are. Therefore, we are taking proper precautions to ensure that the impact is not untoward.
  I shall comment on the Lewisham situation, as I am aware of the concern that has been caused to local people because of the lack of consultation. I understand that my officials are meeting the chief executive of O2 Airwave next Monday. I will ensure that the matter is raised and will emphasise the company's responsibility to consult local people.
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister code of best practice is not just a piece of paper; it requires everyone involved to take their responsibility seriously. Where there is good community consultation, people understand the issues and reach a proper view, so it is important that such matters are open and transparent, and discussed in a mature and adult way. Local people need access to the best scientific information for reassurance for them and their families.

  1491
  The code of practice states that companies should be especially careful about siting masts in the vicinity of schools and hospitals. The situation in Lewisham fell firmly into that category and we shall ensure that the company is fully reminded of its responsibilities.
  My hon. Friend indicated the importance of all Departments working together to ensure that we take effective action. I am delighted to confirm that we shall continue to take an active interest in the health implications of the Tetra system, but I emphasise that
  1492
  the introduction of that new technology will help us to tackle crime more effectively and to build confidence that our communities are safer places to live, work and bring up families. We shall, however, always be conscious of the health implications. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. We shall continue to focus our efforts on it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eight o'clock.

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

Terrorism Financing (Northern Ireland)
[Relevant documents: Financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland—Fourth Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, HC 978–I, and the Government's response thereto, Sixth Special Report, Session 2001–02, HC 1347.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Vernon Coaker.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Michael Mates: It gives me pleasure to open this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. May I express my appreciation to the Minister and to those hon. Members who are not members of the Committee who are attending our debate? It is good to have their support for a debate on such an important subject. I know that it will be much appreciated in Northern Ireland.
We decided to conduct our inquiry at the start of the current Parliament. Our motivation was to explore the development of Government strategy since the Northern Ireland Office created its terrorist finance unit in 1988. Shortly after we made our decision, al-Qaeda made its attacks on New York on 11 September. By the time we came to take evidence on the subject, in the period January to May 2002, the political environment and, perhaps more importantly, public attitudes had acquired a much sharper focus on the importance of cutting off terrorists from the money that buys both bullets and bombs and subtler forms of persuasion.
We published an interim report in February 2002, and were delighted at the Government's very positive response to it. At this point, I should also express our thanks to Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, my predecessor as Chairman of the Committee, who kindly assisted us by pursuing progress in implementing our recommendation in the House of Lords. Our final report was published in July last year, and the Government's response was published in November.
In spite of the ceasefires, Northern Ireland's terrorist organisations still need money. Not all of them are on ceasefire, and those that are have what might be described as asset portfolios—resources such as properties and businesses that require continuing maintenance and investment. One of our key findings was that, although those organisations continue to have substantial running costs, they also have a capacity to raise funds that far outstrip their actual needs. Moreover, they have considerable expertise in raising money illicitly and, thanks to the ceasefires, considerable time on their hands. Thus the energies of many in those terrorist organisations have been channelled into serious and organised criminal activity,
312WH
providing vast profits both for the organisations and for the individuals, who often have very lavish lifestyles.
The most recent threat assessment from the Organised Crime Task Force indicates that some 700 individuals are involved in organised crime in Northern Ireland, and an increasing proportion of groups are now getting involved in more than one area of criminal activity and over a wider geographical area. In addition to old-style paramilitary fundraising activities such as extortion and armed robbery, those organised criminals are now engaging in activities such as fuel laundering, the smuggling of fuel, cigarettes and tobacco, and the production and sale of counterfeit videos, CDs and designer goods.
Such crimes are significant for a number of reasons. They are highly lucrative for the criminals involved. Their scale is significant, as evidenced by individual seizures of millions of cigarettes destined for sale on the black market. They are crimes that may help to foster the organisation's standing in the community. As the Police Service of Northern Ireland pointed out to us, some people will
"not have any real gripe against the paramilitaries"
if they can provide cheap alcohol and counterfeit designer clothes for their children. It may be worth noting that the most recent OCTF threat assessment estimates that the market in counterfeit goods in Northern Ireland may be worth as much as £135 million a year. The Government face a great challenge in tackling this deep-rooted and serious criminality. We were very pleased to discover that they were acting fully on their commitment to deal with these problems through the Assets Recovery Agency and the formation of the Organised Crime Task Force for Northern Ireland.
The OCTF operates at the strategic level to encourage joint working between different agencies, and to encourage co-ordination in the fight against the many facets of organised crime. The Assets Recovery Agency, which began its work only recently, will be at the sharp end of the fight against organised crime. It will identify criminal assets and ensure that they are taken out of the hands of the criminals. We fully support both groups in the often complex work that they must do.
In our interim report and our final report, we expressed concerns about the operation of the Assets Recovery Agency. As I said, we are very pleased that the Government recognise the importance of our request to protect the identities of the agency's staff in certain situations. They made statutory provision to that effect. However, we remain concerned that the overall resources provided to the agency may be insufficient for the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland. I am fairly certain that the Minister will argue that time will tell on the question of resources, but I want to anticipate her and advance a different argument.
During the Select Committee's inquiry, we spent a fascinating afternoon at the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin, and have since been there again. In many respects, the bureau is the model on which our own agency has been created. Its staff told us that it is vital for such an organisation to be feared in the criminal

313WH
fraternity. That will be possible only if the agency can make a real impact from the start and hit the criminals in the wallet, where it really hurts. The Criminal Assets Bureau achieves that by very high-profile prosecutions and significant asset seizures. Although the legitimacy of its action in seizing the assets of individuals was challenged, the courts upheld its authority. In six years of operation, it has lost only one case, and that was on a technicality.
Our agency will be able to make a similar impact only if it has the necessary resources and can gain the evidence that it needs. On our last visit to the Criminal Assets Bureau, its staff also made the point that it was able to have such an impact partly because it took the criminals by surprise in the enjoyment of their criminal gains. Our agency, which has been heralded by us and by others, does not have that advantage. The organised criminals of Northern Ireland and Great Britain have had plenty of warning to move their assets out of sight. If anything, we must give our agency even more support, as its work was that much more difficult from the outset. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us assurances this afternoon that it is being given the resources that it needs and wants.
I would be grateful for a progress report from the Minister on some other matters. We raised concerns on several strategic issues, particularly the availability of data on organised crime, the development of datasharing protocols, the application of witness protection schemes in cases of extortion, and the creation of an aggravated offence relating to extortion. The Government's response assured us that these matters were receiving further consideration. If we can be told of any developments on those points, it would be valuable to have that information on the record.
In closing, I shall repeat the key message of our report.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's explanation. Is he aware of the growing concern that republican terrorists are amassing far more funds than others, as our figures show, and that the latest figures from other sources suggest that they are not being targeted with the same accuracy to assess their funds and capabilities? Does he share the concern that republican terrorists are not being tackled to the same extent as loyalist terrorists? I must add that none of us has any time for loyalist terrorists—I certainly do not—and I am not asking that they be let off the hook. Has there been any self-denying ordinance?
Mr. Mates: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are, of course, concerned about anyone involved in illegal activities. I know that he has the feeling that the attack is a bit one-sided, but he will doubtless make that point if he decides to address us. However, the overriding concern is that the agency may not have the assets to do its job.
Northern Ireland's paramilitary organisations continue to raise substantial sums of money year by year through criminal activities. They use those funds to consolidate their power bases. It should be
314WH
remembered that the funds are available to them for use in future acts of terror should it become expedient, in their eyes, to renew that option. If we can cut them off from their funding, the threat of terrorism will be diminished and the arguments for a democratic resolution to the difficulties in Northern Ireland will become that little bit more persuasive.
I commend the report to the House.
2.40 pm
Mr. Adrian Bailey: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I admit that I did not expect to be called so early in the debate.
I endorse many of the comments made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). The Committee was rather surprised at the integration and evolution into crime of the paramilitary activity of former terrorists. The figures that the hon. Gentleman outlined give cause for enormous concern. We are now witnessing the transformation of groups with a political ideology who carried on the sustained intimidation of local communities into groups that are specifically focused on common-or-garden criminality using techniques that they have honed to perfection over the years.
Most worrying is the fact that for a variety of reasons, several of which were outlined by the hon. Gentleman, some crimes are regarded as victimless—as an opportunity to obtain cheap petrol or to buy cheap designer goods or counterfeit materials. That is a worrying development—almost a tacit acceptance of a criminal subculture. Its corrosive effect on society and on legitimate business is difficult to quantify financially, but it undoubtedly has a huge impact. Such crime also has debilitating long-term social implications. Generations are growing up seeing known criminals engage in activities and adopt lifestyles that are antisocial—and get away with it. They see that crime pays in that context, and such people act as role models for generations to come.
A number of issues arise from the report. It is imperative that all agencies involved in Northern Ireland work together to combat criminality—it is not the responsibility only of the police. The hon. Member for East Hampshire outlined some of the problems that have arisen. Criminal groups and gangs employ highly professional people to hide their assets, and the police force alone cannot identify, locate and prosecute without the help of well-trained specialists.
There is a need to ensure protection for those who are brave enough to come forward as witnesses in court proceedings against known criminals. People must feel confident that they can speak up for law and order without being victimised as a result. That involves strengthening the procedures designed to protect potential witnesses.
On a slight tangent, but equally important, agencies such as the Customs service, which is a highly cost-effective organisation, should have more resources and power. One captured container of cigarettes or a hit on a large shipment of drugs can more than justify the substantial investment in the equipment needed to identify the target.

315WH
Above all, there has to be a collection of policies, backed up with investment, that will give members of the law-abiding community renewed confidence that action is being taken against criminals. People must feel that they are in a position to support the forces of law and order in ensuring that criminals are brought to justice.
I have been through the Government's responses to a number of the recommendations of the Committee and would like to highlight three on which I hope the Minister can enlighten us. The first is support for witnesses. There is a huge body of evidence to demonstrate that many cases that could be won in court are lost because the original complainant or plaintiff decides not to give evidence. We all know that that happens because of threats to potential witnesses' personal safety. It is a requisite of any law-abiding society that people who want to act on behalf of the community and carry out their responsibilities be given some sort of protection.
The Government response to the original report states that
"The PSNI has agreed to lead discussion within the Legal Subgroup of the OCTF"
The report amplifies that statement, but it amounts to an undertaking from the Government to have discussions. I accept that that is a snapshot of progress at the time of the report, but we would welcome news on whether there has been further development in that policy area.
Secondly, people need to feel that the punishment will fit the crime. One of the issues raised is the unacceptably mild tariffs that convicted criminals obtained in certain circumstances. That is demoralising for the police, who have taken the trouble to prosecute people, and it sets a bad example to the rest of the community. The point was put to the Department, whose response was:
"The PSNI has agreed to lead discussion within the Legal Subgroup of the OCTF on legislation surrounding extortion offences, including the suggestion of an aggravated offence and the possibility of raising the tariff. If there is a clear case for updating the relevant statutes, the Government will take the lead."
The feeling of the Committee is that there is such a case. I would welcome a progress report from the Minister.
Lady Hermon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this Parliament—the UK Parliament—is responsible for criminal law in Northern Ireland? The Criminal Justice Bill addresses the important issue that he raises. Will he therefore bring pressure on his ministerial colleagues to ensure that stiffer sentences are imposed on those who deal in, peddle and control drugs in Northern Ireland and that they receive the same penalties as those who do the same in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Bailey: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is an expert on these matters and we respect her views. The answer to her question is yes and that is the reason that I am making these points. What she suggests is part and parcel of our approach and I am grateful to her for emphasising its importance.
The Chairman of the Select Committee alluded to the staffing and resources of the Assets Recovery Agency. Originally, there were to be only 10 staff, but subsequent
316WH
discussions suggested that more resources would be put in. The Committee's investigations indicate that such an approach is potentially one of the most beneficial in terms of cost-benefit analysis: merely in financial terms, the return on investment in the agency is likely to be very substantial and most beneficial.
Also beneficial is public recognition that the assets of people whom we may not be able to prosecute in the criminal courts but who are known to benefit from a criminal lifestyle may be removed. That removes a major incentive to other people to engage in that sort of lifestyle. I should like to know the Minister's thinking on those matters.
As a native of mainland Great Britain who was not substantially involved in Northern Ireland before becoming a member of the Select Committee, I conclude by saying that I could not fail to recognise the difference between the public perception of Northern Ireland and the reality. Northern Ireland is an area within a country that has enormous potential. The report's recommendations to buck up the forces of law and order and civil society are essential and they will go a long way towards the realisation of what can be done in the Province.
2.52 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Many outside Northern Ireland believe that in recent years we have witnessed an end to terrorism; others believe that those paramilitaries still in existence will, if left alone and given time, turn away from violence and openly embrace democracy. However, the people of Northern Ireland know that that is not the case. One only has to read the newspapers to see that paramilitary activities remain rife within both traditions: murders, threats, beatings and enforced exiles are reported almost daily. Terrorism clearly remains a feature of life for many in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that despite the ceasefires, paramilitary activity not only continues but has expanded in recent years to include such organised crime activities as fuel smuggling and counterfeiting, which hon. Members have already referred to this afternoon. As the report states:
"Whether paramilitary activity is directed outwards towards society at large, or inwards towards the communities in which the paramilitaries live, these are still acts of terror."
I draw hon. Members' attention to a new report by Professor Liam Kennedy, entitled, "They Shoot Children, Don't They?" It highlights many horrific cases in which children and young people have been shot, assaulted and abused by paramilitaries in the past year. One particularly harrowing incident occurred in March. It involved two youths, a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old, who were chained to a lamp post for public display and humiliation. They were stripped to the waist, chained by the ankles and the waist to the street light and oil, tar and paint were poured over them. Their crime was antisocial behaviour, but their punishment, carried out by the Irish National Liberation Army, was positively barbaric.
Paramilitary activities must be stopped. Clearly, an effective way of doing just that would be to cut the paramilitary organisations off from their coffers.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I do not normally intervene, but I want to

317WH
associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the report, "They Shoot Children, Don't They?" Does he accept that the paramilitaries often seek to justify those brutal attacks on young people as punishment for alleged offences when in fact they are often a way for paramilitaries to exert their power when youngsters have refused to toe the paramilitary line? The attacks are therefore a way of trying to impose an even tighter stranglehold on the communities that the paramilitaries purport to defend.
Mr. Beggs: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in every respect. Paramilitaries use such means further to dominate their group and the community in which they reside and operate. Only when we cut off their funding sources can we begin to thwart terrorist activities and move towards ridding society of their menace for good.
Like other organisations, paramilitaries have running costs. They have to buy weapons and communications equipment, not to mention pay salaries. As the report highlights, the PSNI has estimated that it costs the Provisional IRA £1.5 million each year to stay in business, but its yearly fundraising capacity is thought to be between £5 million and £8 million. Fundraising is not solely a republican practice. The PSNI has estimated that the Ulster Defence Association can raise between £500,000 and £1 million and the Loyalist Volunteer Force £2 million each year in funds. With organisations such as the Provisional IRA employing professional accountants, it would be a serious mistake to regard paramilitary organisations as in any way amateur or less than sophisticated.
The 2002 threat assessment published by the Organised Crime Task Force for Northern Ireland identified 76 organised criminal gangs, of which nearly half had links to paramilitary organisations. We need a huge increase in resources and manpower to keep tabs on these gangs, which are involved in money laundering, drug dealing, extortion and racketeering, counterfeiting goods, excise evasion, customs fraud and alcohol duty evasion. Their activities are not limited to Northern Ireland: according to the Metropolitan police, Northern Ireland paramilitaries, particularly the Real IRA, are increasingly common in mainland Britain and Europe as the economic opportunities in the island of Ireland become more limited for them.
While the continued support of the United States Government in identifying and taking action against paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland is welcome, I encourage ongoing dialogue with the United States Government to press for the introduction of further measures to stop paramilitary organisations raising funds in the United States. It is of concern that Sinn Fein, whose links with terrorist activities are well known, was able to raise $700,000 in the United States between November 2002 and May this year. We are all aware of the use to which such money has been put in the past, and we have been given no reason to believe that things are different today. It would appear that the post-September 11 tide, when the world assumed the
318WH
democratic and moral responsibility to engage in antiterrorism action by not funding terrorists, is turning once again.
Mr. Stephen Pound: Like everyone here, I have been following the hon. Gentleman's cogent argument with great interest. However, does he accept that the figure that he quoted for fundraising from the United States is in fact an historic low compared with previous years—the figure from some 10 years ago was more than twenty times that amount—and that the indications that both he and I have received are that the sums raised in this country and in the United States are, thankfully, decreasing?
Mr. Beggs: I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's observation, but I still point out that $700,000 is a huge resource for a political party in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that a flaw in United Kingdom legislation is causing a problem in the Irish Republic? Funds that are not allowed to go through Dublin to Sinn Fein can come through the United Kingdom, owing to our unwillingness to close the loophole on funding political parties from abroad.
Mr. Beggs: I believe that the Government will again have to consider measures to restrict the access to such funds from outside Northern Ireland.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Is not everyone making the hon. Gentleman's point for him? Thankfully, we have seen a decrease in recent years in funds raised in the United States. The fact that the paramilitary organisations have become institutional in their fundraising means that they will have to look closer to home as well as to mainland Great Britain to expand their markets. Although we are seeing a decrease in the amount of money raised in the United States, such groups still need to raise money, which is why other activities, such as extortion, are on the increase.
Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman points out clearly that both paramilitary organisations and those organisations that are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations still require significant funds. If they do not get those funds from one source, they will find others.
The establishment of the Organised Crime Task Force and the Assets Recovery Agency has been a positive step in the right direction. I particularly welcome the provision for statutory protection of the identities of agency staff, which will ensure that they are able to work more effectively and safely. However, the Government must also look more closely at the extent of the protection given to witnesses in trials involving terrorist activities. Only 10 per cent. of extortion cases in Northern Ireland are reported to the police: in simple terms, that means that 90 per cent. of extortion cases are never prosecuted. The proportion prosecuted could be increased if measures were in place better to protect the anonymity of witnesses and their families.
The Committee was staggered to discover that Assistant Chief Constable White was highly critical of the resources available for witnesses. As reported on page 38, in paragraph 131, he told the Committee that

319WH
"it … is a very money-pinching way in that the individual … is moved in to a council estate, given a minimum sum of money in terms of what he would be entitled to as an unemployed person. If he is a businessman he gets absolutely no money to re-establish himself and is required to sell his own business within the Province if he can and he must employ his own lawyer to do that. His house will be taken off him under the emergency provisions … so he gets the bare minimum for what that house is worth … if you … go on the run leaving behind your whole social fabric and getting nothing to replace that, you do not really have much of a choice as a businessman. When you do the sums in your head you just roll over and pay."
The issue is being addressed, but I encourage the Minister to do as much as she can to increase the number of witnesses who are prepared to come forward to help us to establish law and order. If we are truly serious about combating organised crime, we must do much more to encourage witnesses to come forward. Financial measures must be introduced to enable members of the business community in particular to come forward with confidence.
It is vital that the facts and dangers of organised crime are effectively communicated to the public. There is something alarming about children and teenagers looking up to paramilitary godfathers as their heroes and role models. Many children grow up idolising what they see as a glamorous lifestyle, and the general attitude is that crime does pay. Recent publicity campaigns by Customs and Excise to target fuel laundering and tobacco smuggling are excellent examples of how public perceptions can and should be changed. I trust that the Minister will do her utmost to ensure not only that such campaigns continue but that they are introduced in schools and youth clubs, so that our children and young people are made aware of the extremely negative impact of paramilitary organisations, paramilitary activities and organised crime on their communities.
The recovered assets fund provides a means of returning the spoils of crime to the victims, as well as to the communities that are most affected by paramilitary terrorism. However, it is important that the fund is publicly associated with the Assets Recovery Agency if support for the agency's work against terrorist fundraising is to be truly fostered. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that grants provided by the fund are not only community based and fully supported but appropriately monitored as they are spent. It has come to light that members of paramilitary groups may still be lining their pockets with funds that various Government and European Community sources gave to ex-prisoner support groups that were established after the 1994 paramilitary ceasefires.
According to a recent BBC "Spotlight" documentary and reports in The Irish News, the Shankill Prisoners Aid and Post-Conflict Resettlement Group employed former Ulster Defence Association leader Johnny Adair as a community worker for five weeks until 13 September 2002. During that time, Mr. Adair was paid with funds that came indirectly from the Department for Social Development. Although that case has been uncovered, it may only scratch the surface of the close relationship between ex-prisoner support groups and the paramilitary organisations to which former prisoners were inextricably linked. Clearly, the Government have not adequately administered and monitored the spending of EU funds by ex-prisoner groups, and they are unable to tell us which groups have
320WH
received money under which EU measures; nor can they tell us how much of that money has been used or for what purpose. I therefore call on the Minister to carry out a full audit of all EU Peace I money received by ex-prisoner groups.
The Government have undoubtedly taken significant steps to combat organised crime in Northern Ireland. We welcome that and we encourage the further development of the strategy against terrorism. It is important that such advances continue to be followed through. If the Government are serious about tackling paramilitary activity, the PSNI and other agencies must have the resources and support to do the job.
Lady Hermon: It would also be extremely helpful if Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office discussed the implications of legislation that was going through the UK Parliament with the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the police ombudsman. I refer in particular to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, which will help to freeze assets in the Republic of Ireland that are used to finance paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. When legislation is passing through Parliament, Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office should discuss its implications with the Chief Constable and the police ombudsman.
Mr. Beggs: I have no doubt that the Minister has noted my hon. Friend's every word. She gives sound advice, which should be followed.
When it comes to the global war on terrorism, the Government must be careful not to make a distinction between fighting domestic terrorism and fighting international terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism and must be dealt with in the same way, whether it is on the global stage or in our own backyard. Cutting off paramilitaries' sources of income is central to the success of the Northern Ireland political process. Both traditions must cease all paramilitary activity.
As the Select Committee's report concluded, we must have evidence that spying, targeting, gun running, intimidation and brutal physical assaults by paramilitary organisations have stopped for good. Only when the paramilitaries have gone away for good can Northern Ireland and all its people live in peace, without the fear of terrorism.
3.11 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: Certain forms of terrorism can be carried out cheaply. Fanatics give freely of their time and learn inexpensive techniques to produce explosives. Northern Ireland has experienced, and continues to experience, pipe bombs and fertiliser bombs. Some terrorist acts are highly cost-effective. Dr. Silke, whose work is mentioned on page 12 of the report, points out that for every pound that paramilitary organisations spent in 1993 they achieved £130 of damage. That damage had to be paid for by the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. We should be aware not only of the problems of finance, but of other activities that may not require much expenditure. Tackling one might have a great impact on the other.
Paragraph 14 of the report states that:
"access to money enables organisations to increase the sophistication and impact of their activities."

321WH
Rocket launchers, arms shipments, hidden stockpiles and so on are expensive. When high-tech communications systems, safe houses, transport networks, training in bloodthirsty techniques, wages for those in the front line of terrorism and their back-room support, and welfare costs to support families are added, the cost of the terrorists' horrible activities increase considerably. Tackling the financial aspects of terrorism is important to limit terrorist activities to those of fanatics who use cheaper methods.
We have seen old terrorism being subsumed by new terrorism. Unfortunately, for many paramilitaries, full-time terrorism or preparedness for that has become a way of life. When the peace process came along, some would not accept it and breakaway organisations were established; other people, some of whom were not involved with peace movements, stayed with their organizations. Many members of groups such as the Provisional IRA could not give up the lifestyle and turned to criminal, mafia-type activities, which hon. Members have described. The old, distorted political tactics of terrorism were replaced with new methods such as kneecappings, shootings and the maintenance and control of territories by acts of fear and engaging in crude forms of "community justice".
The financing of terrorism, which is described in the report, is highly relevant. As far as finance is concerned, terrorism has not gone away. Page 18 of the report contains a table, which shows the PSNI's estimate of the annual finances of paramilitary bodies. Paramilitary bodies require approximately £4 million for their running costs and have the capacity to raise £15 million a year. The issue is serious because it distorts Northern Ireland's development and the peace process, which many of us firmly support. It has already been mentioned that the main source of finance is the extortion from businesses. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) said that only a tiny proportion of extortion is reported because of the business community's fear.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has investigated fuel laundering and smuggling—there have been two reports on the matter—which cripples the petrol industry in Northern Ireland and has a distorting effect on the economy.
Mr. Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whereas tobacco and fuel smuggling result in lost revenue, extortion, particularly from larger companies, is more damaging to the economy of Northern Ireland in the long term because it dissuades inward investment, which creates jobs and economic opportunities?
Mr. Barnes: I agree. My attitude to the smuggling of alcohol, tobacco and fuel is that we should move towards the harmonisation of fuel duty and other taxes in order to create a level playing field across the border, which will begin to destroy the opportunities to make money. The difficulty is that Northern Ireland's population is a third of that of the United Kingdom—
Mr. Pound: Give us time!
Mr. Barnes: Sorry, I meant to say 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. It is difficult to consider
322WH
the interests of 3 per cent. of the population when determining taxation policy. However, the circumstances of the 3 per cent. should be to the fore when we make decisions on Treasury problems. Cutting the ground from under people who are involved in smuggling operations is of great importance.
Armed robbery is still used as a money-raising technique. There were 120 attacks on cash transits in 2001. The counterfeiting of currency and goods, such as CDs, clothes and videos, is also a major market. The report pays attention to ways to persuade the public not to purchase those goods, because they have serious consequences for the lives of people in Northern Ireland that need to be recognised. Although the lines between those who are ideologically motivated and those who are simply into organised crime have become increasingly blurred, to use the words in the Government response, the consequences remain much the same in terms of the disruption of life in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for East Antrim referred to Professor Liam Kennedy's report "They Shoot Children, Don't They?" He will remember that Professor Kennedy gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in relation to the final report produced before the last general election, the report on relocation following paramilitary intimidation and the problems of people being forced into exile. Professor Kennedy's words are given serious consideration. He has a high standing and a good reputation in the field in which he has been involved. His current report was produced in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Committee Against Terror. It is the third and final report to be produced on that topic.
When the hon. Gentleman cited material from Professor Kennedy's report, I noted his remarks carefully. They referred to action taken by the INLA. For the sake of balance, given that that was a case on the republican side, I will cite a different case. Generally, the report analyses those aged 17 and under, but this case involves a slightly older age group. The report states:
"A 23 year old man, Harry McCartan, who had previous convictions for joy-riding' … over a long period of time, was attacked by the UDA in the Seymour Hill estate, outside Lisburn. The gang used six-inch nails to impale his hands to a wooden fence and beat him mercilessly with nail-studded baseball bats about the head, arms, hands and legs. When received at the Royal Victoria Hospital later that day he was so badly bloodied that his father could only identify him by a tattoo."
The incidence of such cases is considerable. There has been an increase in shootings in recent years: the highest figure is for 2001 and there was only a slight decrease last year. There were so-called loyalist paramilitary shootings of 13 children aged 17 and under in 2002, and republicans were involved in the shooting of 12 such children; in addition, there were, respectively, nine and 13 assaults on children. Threats of shooting, beatings, systematic mutilation and the exile of children abound, some of those are in addition to the figures that I cited.
Children have been caught up in action against their parents, like the six children of Joseph McCloskey. When we debated paramilitary intimidation in this Chamber, Joseph McCloskey and his mother Bridie McCloskey were present. Luckily, by bravely raising the issue, they have been able to return home. We need

323WH
many others to do that just as bravely, and associate with organisations like Maranatha, which assists the process of returning people to their homes.
The cutting off of finance to paramilitary groups is one of the best means of destroying this network of evil, and the report stresses that. We have already heard about the need for co-ordinated action and the developments carried out by the Organised Crime Task Force that are already taking place. That is to be encouraged, and it is important that the necessary resources are provided.
The Northern Ireland Office's lack of data on organised crime is a problem, and we hope that that is being tackled. In addition, we want information to be shared easily between the different organisations involved. Sometimes there are technical reasons for information not being supplied. Improving information flow is one of the measures that will help.
We need to win the hearts and minds of the public, so that they do not purchase smuggled or fraudulent goods. It is not victimless crime: businesses and jobs are lost because of such activity. There is also the matter of poor-quality goods being sold on, especially fuel that may have been laundered and may damage people's tanks. The matter is one of self-interest.
Mr. Pound: Is there any evidence of reluctance on anyone's part to purchase such goods? Does my hon. Friend feel that the Government could do more to underscore the implications and dangers of what may seem an innocent purchase at a car boot sale?
Mr. Barnes: There is a problem throughout UK society of getting people to turn away from cheap opportunities to buy goods at car boot sales, or wherever. The dominance of individualistic values and concerns helps to create that problem. Some concern for the well-being of others would help, and it ties into people's self-interest because society would generally be better as a result. However, getting one person to change when others are not changing is very difficult. The Government have been involved in running campaigns in the area, and they are dedicated to developing those further.
Lady Hermon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my view that we have an excellent Home Secretary in the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). He has made it quite clear that sentencing policy will restore public confidence in the police service and the justice system in this country. We have to have clarity and certainty in sentencing. The way to deal with counterfeit goods is to send a clear message to those who make and supply counterfeit goods that the sentence will match the crime.
Mr. Barnes: First, there must be an attempt to get people to understand the problem. We need to report on developments and to encourage reasonable and decent behaviour. The "Jane and Reg go shopping" campaign in which the Northern Ireland Office has been involved is part of that activity. It may be extended in future.
The Select Committee was concerned that effective prosecutions should take place. There should be better witness protection, as has been mentioned, and a
324WH
toughening up of sentences when the offences are known to be related to paramilitary activity. However, there are indications of a reluctance to go down that road because of the progress in the peace process. There is a feeling that if extra bits are added to sentences because of links with residual paramilitary activity, that might lead to the paramilitaries digging their heels in. I raised that in questions with my hon. Friend the Minister during our inquiry.
Mr. Pound: The Select Committee and the House—nay, the country—need to be reminded at regular intervals of Jane and Reg's shopping trip. I am not bitter, although they certainly did not bring me anything back.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the enormous markets at Nutts Corner and Jonesborough, where there is a cross-border dimension. Does he feel entirely confident that our links and relationships with the guards are having an effect in that area? In effect, such places are becoming a money mill in an increasingly unaccountable area.
Mr. Barnes: We are increasingly told that the relationships between the police forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic involve the closest co-operation, yet there are difficulties in the border areas, which are probably the areas where they find it most difficult to engage in the sort of connections that are required.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be no need to make a distinction between criminals who are freelancers and criminals who are linked to paramilitary organisations, and that sentences should fit the crime? Does he further agree that, just as individuals are likely to be prosecuted if found to be holding stolen property, so those who purchase counterfeit goods should have to face the risk of prosecution at some future time?
Mr. Barnes: I do not deny that we need to be tough on crime. If the crime is seen to be connected to paramilitary activity, it could well provide a reason to take stronger action. Such activity is an extra element that needs to be deterred for the sake of Northern Ireland.
The final matter that we deal with is the work of the Assets Recovery Agency. Hon. Members have referred to it and no doubt it will be stressed further, but we were quite impressed by the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic. It was interesting that some of the people who were impressed by that were Committee members from the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party. They saw that the Republic was doing something from which we could learn.
World events have hit one source of funding: Noraid money from America. Hon. Members have referred to that. When we went to America, we met policemen and firemen who had helped to organise funding in the past, but who said that they would never again be involved in that type of activity. Home-based action must also be taken to ensure that those activities wither.
Although the report deals with the financing of terrorism in one set of circumstances—Northern Ireland—it seems to me to have much wider

325WH
implications. It was said that the years that they had spent operating in Northern Ireland meant that the British troops in Basra used different techniques from the Americans, and that those techniques were helpful in that situation. Likewise, some of the points that the report makes about grappling with the financing of terrorism, undermining terrorists' financial position and dissuading people from pursuing those avenues, should be used on a much wider basis. The report might have much relevance to the example I quoted of Iraq, and unfortunately it applies to many other areas of the world.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now have one hour and 55 minutes left, and I advise hon. Members that we should allocate 45 minutes of that time to the three Front-Bench speakers. Hon. Members contributing to the debate from now on might bear that in mind in tailoring their contributions, so that everyone present has the opportunity to take part.
3.36 pm
Mr. Nigel Dodds: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, and begin by commending the Select Committee on its thorough work and investigation into this area. I know that on one occasion this debate was postponed for reasons beyond the control of the Committee, but none the less we are debating the report some considerable time after its publication—almost a year to the day. However, the issues that the report raises remain relevant.
I noticed the other day in the Belfast Telegraph that the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland had updated and reconfirmed the figures for the funds raised by various paramilitary organisations per year and the running costs associated with each of those organisations. The figures are quite staggering, and have already been referred to by several hon. Members. Not long ago, the political wing of the Provisional IRA was in the Government of Northern Ireland—part of the United Kingdom—with two of its members as Ministers, despite the opposition of those of us from the Democratic Unionist party. The Provisional IRA raises between £5 million and £8 million a year, whereas its running costs are £1.5 million. One therefore must ask what it is doing with those substantial amounts of money, and the Committee helped us by outlining what such money is used for. The report pointed to the fact that some of that money will be used to prepare for future military action, if we can use that term, and we should note that the IRA has shown no hesitancy in using military action against its own community and, along with other paramilitary organisations, is still responsible for a reign of terror in the areas that it purports to control.
I welcome the fact that, as reported by the Press Association yesterday, the chief of the Assets Recovery Agency, Alan McQuillan, was able to report that progress has been made in the Government and the Agency's offensive against racketeers and drug smugglers in Northern Ireland, with which many of those paramilitary organisations are closely entwined.
We often see leading members of paramilitary organisations on our television screens, hear them on radio programmes and read about them in the press
326WH
purporting to deprecate the drug trade and condemn those involved in it, yet we know that they are intimately involved in the entire control and business of drugs in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that Alan McQuillan has announced that progress has been made. He said that
"25 cases in the current financial year"
will be adopted by the agency, which is an increase on the target of 15. He said that in its first four months of operation, the agency has
"adopted 11 cases with assets in excess of £2 million."
Alan McQuillan said that the agency had been to the courts for several disclosure orders, search warrants and production orders, and that one injunction has been issued
"freezing the assets of an individual believed to be involved in organised crime."
That is welcome. When the Assets Recovery Agency was set up, many of us wanted it quickly to establish its authority and to inspire confidence in the community that action would be taken against known individuals who were seen in the local communities driving about in flashy cars and living in fancy houses with substantial assets that could not be accounted for.
I am reminded of an individual who, when asked how he could afford his fancy Mercedes, country house, town house and so on, said that he had carefully saved the money that he had received in prison and had taken up craft production. A person would have to be in prison for a substantially long time to afford a Mercedes on those proceeds. Such behaviour continues. People are frequently described by the press and officers of the law enforcement agencies as well-known drug barons and paramilitary leaders. Time and again constituents have said to me, "If that is known, why cannot something be done about it? Why are such people still walking the streets? Why are they not charged with membership?"
The report refers to evidential difficulties. We accept that, but something must clearly be done to bring confidence to people in Northern Ireland that these guys will not be allowed to get away with it and that action will be taken. I welcome the start that has been made. I hope that such a process will continue and that it will lead to high-profile cases being brought to court, as a result of which people will be stripped of the illegal assets that they have gained through drugs, counterfeiting, racketeering, intimidation and extortion.
Lady Hermon: I have been critical of the Government—and justifiably so—but, in fairness to them, the one part of the Criminal Justice Bill that has been extended to Northern Ireland deals with new and compelling evidence. Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcome the fact that DNA evidence is now often available about people who have traded and possessed drugs, especially those in paramilitary organisations? Does he agree that such people need to know that they run the risk of a retrial in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Dodds: Yes. Such a measure is a useful addition to the armoury of the police and others in combating serious crime and illegality in Northern Ireland. I hope that that power will be used, and that criminals will be brought to justice.

327WH
The extensive report into the financing of terrorism shows that terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland are still powerful and have the capacity to raise substantial amounts. They are involved in a range of illegal activities and impose their authority on vulnerable people who feel intimidated and are often unable to speak out against such a reign of terror. The report highlights the fact that terrorist organisations are becoming ever more sophisticated in their dealings. As one avenue of operation closes down, another opens up. It is important that the pursuit of terrorists is taken to the nth degree and everything possible is done to bring them to justice. I hope that what is regarded in Northern Ireland as a softly, softly approach in dealing with paramilitary organisations that subscribe to the peace process will not continue—although that is perhaps a perception, if not a reality.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members' contributions. It is almost as though our discussion is taking place in the context of an unchanged situation in Northern Ireland. Under the Belfast agreement, we were told that many paramilitary organisations were observing a ceasefire and were committed to peaceful and exclusively democratic means. Although that has not been referred to today, it has been said previously that those organisations should be brought into government in Northern Ireland, that they could be trusted and that it was time to take a chance on them.
It is hard to divorce what we are talking about today from a political context, given that, in addition to the financing of terrorism and extortion, which has been mentioned, the main activity of these organisations is violence and has been for 30 years. Even on that front, figures show clearly that violence has increased over the past five years compared with the five years running up to the signing of the Belfast agreement. I have the figures in front of me. They are not my figures: they are the Government's and were produced in response to a parliamentary question. They show clearly that, between 1993 and 9 April 1998 there were 1,155 shootings, and between 10 April 1998 and 2002–03 there were 1,348, which is an increase of 16 per cent. That is clear evidence of paramilitary activity on both the loyalist and republican sides.
There were a total of 534 bombings in the period 1993 to 9 April 1998 and 861 since the signing of the Belfast agreement—an increase of 61 per cent. In recent days there was a massive increase in the amount of money allocated by the Government to pay for people to move out of their homes as a result of paramilitary intimidation and threats. Last year, £11 million was spent by Government on the special purchase of evacuated dwellings scheme, which is designed to get people out of their homes in an emergency when they are threatened. In the year ending 31 March 2003, the figure was £33 million. Previously, it had run at an average of £4 million or £5 million.
Those statistics show that we in Northern Ireland are still living with sophisticated, dedicated and determined paramilitary organisations. For that reason, many people in Northern Ireland ask how it is credible to argue that the organisations responsible for those activities and that violence can be trusted again to be part of the legitimate, democratic Government of part of the United Kingdom.
328WH
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). He made many comments with which I agree. He said that there needed to be sentencing for people, regardless of whether they were linked to terrorism or ordinary criminality. That point was also made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Yet, if I recall rightly, it is still the law in Northern Ireland—a law that emanates from the Belfast agreement, which was supported by the two hon. Members and the section of their party that they represent—that if the perpetrator of a crime committed prior to April 1998 is associated with a certain paramilitary organisation, he does not have to go to prison. Indeed, under the proposed legislation, if he is on the run, he will not even have to show up in court to answer for his crime. It is a bit rich to talk about the sentence matching the crime when support has already been given to the principle that crimes can be differentiated, depending on whether they were carried out for political or paramilitary reasons by certain organisations, and thus on whether the perpetrators have subscribed to what is called the peace process.
Lady Hermon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not pick up on the previous intervention, which was to do with new clause 10 of the Criminal Justice Bill. In extending the provision to Northern Ireland, the Home Office Minister responsible for the Bill explained that new and compelling evidence will lead to the retrial of people who escaped the first time round, so as to ensure that Northern Ireland does not become a safe haven for those who want to escape prosecution. That was put to the Home Secretary, with a plea for some joined-up thinking to prevent terrorists on the run from escaping in such circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman were in the Chamber more often, he would have heard it.
Mr. Dodds: I shall take that last point with a pinch of salt: my record is as good as anyone's from Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady tries to justify her indefensible position. She has supported a position whereby the murderers of a police officer in Northern Ireland—a murder carried out on behalf of an organisation that is on ceasefire and which supports the peace process—will not have to serve the full sentence. The fact is that she is on record as supporting that, as is her party.
There is a clear difference. If the murder of a police officer in the United Kingdom took place prior to 1998, the whole weight of the law would be brought to bear on the perpetrator, and the full sentence would be meted out. In Northern Ireland, it will not be. The hon. Lady and her colleagues supported the Belfast agreement, thereby helping to bring that situation about. That position is totally indefensible.
I move on. I agree with other hon. Members that the Assets Recovery Agency should have all the resources and staff that it needs to carry out its job properly. The point was made in the report that a substantial amount of money can be recovered. The more work that can be done, the more assets that can be recovered, the more everyone will benefit. It would be a shame if, for the sake of a few extra staff and some extra resources, the agency could not do the work that it has been set.
In that context, I urge the Government to look again at the issue of police numbers. The report speaks of the necessity to devote proper resources to tackling that

329WH
problem, yet in another Government initiative—the joint declaration, which was published recently—they talk explicitly about reducing police numbers. Although, in the report and in today's debate, we have emphasised the sophistication and determination of those organisations, the figures show a rising level of terrorism and an increasingly frequent use of the bomb and the bullet.
Notwithstanding that, there is a proposal on the table that will reduce the number of police officers even further from the current level. Many of our constituents rightly argue that that level is already far below what is needed to tackle ordinary crime. At a time when the main parties in the House are vying with each other to show who can put more police on the streets and more bobbies on the beat, it seems that in Northern Ireland the Government, in concert with their partners in Dublin, are doing their best to reduce the number of police. That situation should be examined carefully.
I reiterate the view that a witness protection scheme is needed. It is important that we back members of the public who come forward: we should give them every possible assistance. The evidential issue, to which the Minister will no doubt refer, has been one of the obstacles to bringing cases to a successful conclusion. What chance have we of addressing it if nothing is done to protect witnesses? The hon. Member for East Antrim rightly referred to the statement that was made by A.C.C. White in his evidence to the Committee. He graphically illustrated how impossible it would be to expect people—especially those who run small businesses—to come forward, giving up everything and receiving little or no protection in return. I have seen that too often in my constituency.
I recently had occasion to bring to the Minister's notice the case of a man who had been intimidated and forced to give up his business, having spent many years building it up for himself and his family. He was in an impossible position, given the risk to himself and his family—little protection could be offered to him as a witness—and there was no compensation available to him. His business and the property from which he ran it are virtually worthless, yet the Minister has told me that nothing can be done under the present compensation scheme for such cases. I urge her to reflect on the situation. Cannot something be done for people such as my constituent? He is entirely innocent and blameless. Could not compensation be payable or forthcoming?
In closing, I ask the Minister to give us more details of the grants and the way in which money will be paid out of the recovered assets fund in Northern Ireland. It is important that people see that money is coming back into the community, having been recovered from illegal activity, paramilitary organisations and organised crime. The Government must monitor carefully money that is distributed to organisations such as community groups in Northern Ireland. When the Government hand money to third parties or intermediary funding bodies that are given the task of spending it according to certain criteria—as happened in the case to which the hon. Member for East Antrim referred—some of it goes to people to whom it should not go. Government Departments want to distribute money in such a way that those who allocate and spend it know where it
330WH
should go and how it should be applied, so they need to ensure that they retain control and prevent it from being misspent.
Recently, many representatives of victims groups have come to me to complain about the substantial imbalance between money allocated to organisations that help victims and those that are concerned with, for instance, ex-prisoners. That is the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office, and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Something needs to be done, and I make a plea to the Minister to investigate the matter in order to ensure that victims and organisations dealing with them are properly funded. They should not be made to feel that they are being put in a subordinate position to that of organisations that deal with those who perpetrated the crimes against them and their families.
3.59 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I very much agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said. On his point about the peace process, whatever view one takes—he knows that I take a different view from him—about whether on balance it was right to override some of the fundamental principles of our legal system for essentially pragmatic reasons in concluding the Belfast agreement, no one should be under any illusion about the momentousness of that decision, the importance of the principles that were overridden and the inevitable anomalics created as a result. He is right to remind the Chamber of that.
I am particularly grateful to you for calling me at this stage in the afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Chamber that I will be unable to remain until the end of the debate, because I have a deputation coming to see me, which was arranged a long time ago. I could not put those people off, because of the rest of their schedule in London, so I find myself, as we all find ourselves sometimes, being forced to be discourteous in one direction or another. I hope that the Chamber will bear with me.
I shall not speak for too long, not only for that reason but because I am very impressed by the number of Members who are not on the Committee—particularly those from the two Unionist parties from Northern Ireland—who have turned up this afternoon despite the fact that outside it is one of the most glorious days that one could wish for, and despite the fact that there are no votes in the main Chamber. We are familiar with the assiduousness shown by those who represent both Unionist parties, but we do not take that for granted, and it is right to draw it to the attention of anyone who might read our the report of our proceedings.
I want to make a few brief points. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) and the whole Committee for the work that they have done. It is a characteristically thorough piece of work on an important subject, and there is no doubt that for a long time it will be the locus classicus for anyone taking an interest in the financing of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It corrects many of our assumptions. It always takes a while for us to adapt to changes, and our impression, even of important situations, can sometimes be out of date.
Many people have the impression that terrorism in Northern Ireland is mainly funded by contributions from the United States and from extortion in Northern

331WH
Ireland. We all know about the endemic scandals in the building trade in Northern Ireland, in particular, which has always been subject to extortion from paramilitaries on both sides. Neither of those funding sources has anything like disappeared, but as a result of the report, we can see the increasing importance of two particular sources of illegal criminal funding for paramilitary organisations: drugs, and the smuggling of petrol and diesel.
I make my second point not in a party political sense, but because it is a fact—an extremely important, salient fact of the situation. There cannot be any economic activity in this world unless there is both demand and supply. The supply, so far as the new smuggling of fuel and diesel is concerned, has been provided by paramilitaries on both sides. There is no doubt about that, and the report is very graphic in its description. That is very important; but demand has been gratuitously created by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He decided that we should have by far the highest fuel prices in the European Union, and has thereby inevitably created enormous pressure to import illegal, smuggled fuel—both petrol and diesel. The consequences are highly regrettable.
We should not hide our eyes from the fact that although Customs and Excise does a valiant job trying to build dams against the tide, that tide was created by the Chancellor. What he has done is deeply resented in the whole of the United Kingdom, and perhaps particularly in Northern Ireland, because it already has the highest prices for electricity—another important source of energy—in not only the UK but the European Union. The people of Northern Ireland feel that they have been insidiously picked on, and so there is an unfortunate moral climate in which there is not as much opposition to the concept of smuggling as one might hope.
The figures in the report are graphic. I do not have the second section of the report; I was hoping to find it on the Table, but although documents are always put on the Table in the Chamber and in Committee, that does not seem to happen in Westminster Hall. However, I can remember the figures clearly, because they are striking.
Consumption of taxed fuel and diesel in Northern Ireland has approximately halved since 1997. Anyone would recognise on common-sense grounds that consumption must have increased since 1997, because there has been considerable economic growth, and the end of the violence and the periods of ceasefire have led people to travel more freely, which is desirable. It is therefore fair to assume that less than half the fuel consumed in Northern Ireland is taxed. The report estimates that about half of the untaxed fuel is perfectly legal personal imports obtained by people driving cars across the border. The second and third cities in Northern Ireland, Londonderry and Newry, are just a few miles from the border. I suppose that everyone automatically goes across the border to fill up. The other half is smuggled. We should not hide our eyes from the obvious source of that smuggling or the market that has unfortunately been created, from which some very unpleasant and ruthless people profit.
My third point, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, is on the connection between the smuggling and the peace
332WH
process. We in the official Opposition are committed to the peace process as, I think and trust, are most of us in this House. We all deeply regret that, since the Government's disastrous decision to call off elections, the process has completely stalled. We hope that it can get back on course before too long.
If the peace process it is to make any progress, there will have to be a clear distinction between organised crime and political movements that have embraced violence and various forms of criminal activities to raise money in the past, but which we hope will adopt a purely peaceful and democratic course in future. There is a sharp distinction to be made; we do not want any ambiguity. Those who choose the criminal path and decide to turn from paramilitary organisations to organised crime syndicates must know that there are considerable penalties for doing that.
In the next few months, it is important that the Assets Recovery Agency and the police and so forth establish that there is a considerable price to be paid, and that the law enforcement mechanisms are effective, because people will be making that choice when or if the peace process reaches its consummation, as we hope it will. It is important that they make that choice 100 per cent. They will all be calculating where their interests lie, and smuggling involves considerable cash flows that people will be reluctant to give up. We want to make it absolutely plain that the penalty of going down the criminal path will be considerable and enforcement will be likely. That is a key point.
I endorse what is said on page 38 of the report about the witness protection scheme, to which reference has already been made. I have had occasion to raise the matter with the Government before. From anecdotal experience, in the past two years, I have often come across people who have seen acts of violence or who have been reluctantly involved, in that their cars have been borrowed by paramilitaries who have carried out an act of violence or a crime. Of course, when I hear such stories, I ask, "Did you call the Police Service of Northern Ireland about it afterwards?" Every time, I receive that sympathetic smile which is always addressed to some poor fellow who comes from across the water and does not understand the reality in Northern Ireland.
I make no apology for asking that question; we should continue to ask such questions, even if people simply open their hands in exasperation and say, "You must be joking. No way would I risk telling someone." That has happened often, and I have taken up the matter with the police and the Government. I have received the usual bureaucratic soft soaping; people say that they are doing something about it, that they are very aware of the problem and that things are much better now than they were.
I am delighted that the Select Committee has used its full moral and political force in expressing a view on behalf of the House and on a bipartisan basis, and in drawing the Government's attention to the fact that the witness protection scheme is not functioning as it should. Improvements need to be made, and I hope that the Government pick up on that. If I am not here when

333WH
the Minister responds, I shall look forward to reading Hansard. She might want to make one of her vituperative attacks on me—she occasionally does that when she feels provoked—so I look forward to reading her speech. I apologise if I am not here to hear the response in person.
Lady Hermon: The problem is more than just witness protection. My concern is not just for the witnesses but for those who serve on juries. The concern is that pressure is brought to bear on juries and their families if they take part in the trial that we hope will be shortly forthcoming. Will the hon. Gentleman give some thought to the possibility of non-jury trials where there is sufficient evidence to prompt concern about jury tampering?
Mr. Davies: The hon. Lady is suggesting an extension of the Diplock court system to non-terrorist related offences. That is a serious minefield. Going back to the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Belfast, North, we should all be conscious in this place when we make derogations from the norms of justice to which we are all attached—in this case, a jury system. I do not share the admiration of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for our Home Secretary; I think he is a deplorable Home Secretary. The levity with which he attacks the jury system is thoroughly to be deprecated. I hope that the hon. Lady has not allowed her evident admiration for the right hon. Gentleman to carry her away. She is a distinguished academic lawyer, and her instincts probably lie in rather sounder areas.
I agree with what the hon. Lady said initially: there is a climate of intimidation, especially in inner-city areas of Northern Ireland, including Belfast, and on both sides of the interface. All colleagues in Northern Ireland know that even better than I do, and they have lived with it. In those communities, people live for generations with the certain knowledge that, if they want to survive, the one thing that they should never do is cross the local gang or paramilitary boss. People think that no one but a lunatic would breach that code.
The only way to get rid of that climate of intimidation—the hon. Lady is right to say that it affects juries as much as witnesses—is to remove these people. The only way to remove them is to get convictions; the only way to get convictions is to spend a bit of money and provide a much better form of witness protection. We should not provide an incentive, as we should not incentivise people to give testimony in court, but we should provide a greater counterweight to the intimidation, which is the first thought that people will have when faced with the prospect of giving evidence against criminals and terrorists. I hope that the Government take that on board, especially as my latter remarks have been implicitly endorsed by the hon. Lady, who seems to be such an admirer of other things that the Government are doing. Sadly, I cannot follow her in her admiration.
Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. I know that the following might cause him to have a sleepless night, but I refer him to the Criminal Justice Bill, which
334WH
has passed through our House and is in another place at present. It makes provision for the prosecution to
"apply to a judge of the Crown Court for the trial to be conducted without a jury"
if
"there is real and present danger that jury tampering would take place."
That is already in the Bill, and it is already extended to Northern Ireland.
Mr. Davies: I thought that I had terminated my remarks. The hon. Lady is referring to a text that I did not draft: the Government provided it, so it would be proper for the Minister to respond to that point.
4.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief because the salient features of the debate have been established and there is no need to develop again arguments that have already been made.
First, I shall inject a note of caution. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said about the Government having created the circumstances in which smuggling has prospered. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a comparable point when he talked about new and old terrorism and new and old methods of raising funds for terrorism. However, that distinction can be overstated.
If one looks back over the years, one finds that there are few means and methods whereby the paramilitaries now raise funds that were not being used in the mid-1980s. There is an evolutionary consistency in the way that terrorists have raised funds. What is alarming is that successive Governments have failed to come to terms with that. The fact that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee rightly conducted this inquiry and published the report is indicative of the failure of successive Governments to address the funding of terrorism.
My next point relates to the background against which the report was composed. Paragraph 6 rightly states:
"Paramilitary activity remains a feature of life within both traditions in Northern Ireland. Individuals are still being murdered, threatened or forced into exile from their families and communities. Beatings occur almost daily."
However, paragraph 8 may raise some eyebrows:
"Much of what we have learned has been very positive. We have been encouraged by the evidence we have received that the Government is tackling these issues, and developing powerful and effective strategies to counter them."
I find it hard to equate the Select Committee's optimism and confidence on that point with the evidence on the ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) made that point.
The simple fact is that, for instance, there have been 200 more shootings and bombing incidents in the five years after the Belfast agreement than there were in the five years before it. That is most regrettable. That increase is even more alarming when one considers the statistics regarding so-called devices: a "mere" 258 were defused in the five years before the Belfast agreement;

335WH
more than twice that number have been defused in the five years since. I mention those statistics to make the point that the evidence on the ground does not suggest that the Government are tackling these issues with powerful and effective strategies, although that is what the report states.
So far, the debate has focused on three main deficiencies in the Government's handling of terrorist funding. Several hon. Members referred to the underfunding and under-resourcing of the Assets Recovery Agency. I will not rehearse those arguments. I wish simply to emphasise that this matter is of concern to many hon. Members of different parties, and the Government should take it on board seriously.
Likewise, consideration has been given to the weaknesses and inadequacies of the witness support and protection regime. It is interesting to note that testimony to that effect was given by the police to the Committee during our deliberations. We also had an exchange about the proposition put forward by the Committee that there is an inadequacy of deterrence in sentencing. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North said, that is a bit rich coming from hon. Members and a Government who so undermined and compromised the independence of the judicial system in Northern Ireland by making it subject to political influence and interference.
Those points have been covered in debate. I would not for one moment deny the importance of addressing the issue of terrorist funding. It is an aspect of terrorism that must be covered. But we should throw in for good measure some considerations that are barely covered in the report or in the testimony and evidence that the Committee received. In the first place, of course, there is the issue of the utterly demoralised police force. The implications and consequences of that for all aspects of law and order are horrific.
We also have in Northern Ireland a society that arguably is more divided and polarised than ever before as a consequence of an appeasement process that has institutionalised sectarianism. Then, of course, we have the indisputable fact of the concessions that have been made to the unreconstructed terrorist organisations and their political representatives. All in all, it is not surprising that there is widespread despair in the Province.
4.20 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: First, I place on record what a pleasure it is to be the last Member to speak before the Minister. That privilege is normally given to the spokesman for the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has already spoken and has extended his customary courtesy in explaining why he cannot remain for the entirety of the debate. His is a position that I will be pleased to occupy after the next election. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us all a little taste of things to come.
Mr. Quentin Davies: If the hon. Gentleman achieves that ambition, it will not be at the expense of the Conservative party. He will simply replace the Labour party spokesman. I wish him the best of luck.
Mr. Carmichael: With the best will in the world, I thought that I had my tongue firmly in the cheek. The
336WH
hon. Gentleman, in talking of another Conservative Government, indulges in flights of fantasy which, if time were not so readily available, might be ruled out of order by a stricter Chairman than you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
First I congratulate and commend the members of the Committee on a thoroughly well-researched and thoughtful consideration of the issues, particularly the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who gave such an able exposition in opening the debate this afternoon. The importance of funding to the continuation of terrorism in Northern Ireland is self-evident. The exchange between the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and the Minister earlier was an excellent analysis of what we are dealing with and the subtext of the report. Terrorism is about control of communities. The financing of terrorism is essential to enable paramilitary groups to maintain their current control over the communities that they represent.
The peace process is about normalisation, and as long as questions of social or antisocial behaviour are dealt with by paramilitaries rather than the proper forces of law and order, clearly there has been no normalisation. That is why the very subject of the report is so important. The report went straight to the heart of that issue. In its introduction, it says:
"Terrorism is about gaining power through violence, and money is a means to that end."
The money raised by paramilitaries is used in many ways to sustain terrorist campaigns and, increasingly, to fund political ones. The most obvious use of their finances is for explosives, weapons and communications systems—all the practical tools needed to carry out a terrorist attack.
We must also take into account the cost of planning an attack and of ensuring that members are properly trained. Financial support has also been given to those who carry out attacks, and to provide assistance to their families in the event of their imprisonment. That has been a useful tool in maintaining support and sympathy in local communities for organisations and their aims. Propaganda and political campaigning have been used more in recent years to maintain that support. An aspect that concerns me is the potential for, if not the practice of, cross-fertilisation between money provided to paramilitary groups and to some of the parties on the fringes of democratic politics in Northern Ireland that have very close links to them.
At this point, it might be appropriate to place on record my appreciation of the Government's speed in accepting the need for compensating political parties when the Northern Ireland elections were cancelled on 1 May. The easiest way to squeeze out small parties that do not have access to such support, or even the larger parties that are solely part of the democratic process and do not have those links, would be to leave them high and dry, and I am very pleased that the Government did not do that.
The report clearly sets out the estimated annual running costs for each of the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland, their estimated capacity for fundraising, and the ways in which paramilitary organisations have raised money over the years, including armed robbery, extortion, smuggling, counterfeiting goods, drugs, fraud and the use of legitimate businesses for laundering some of that money.

337WH
Several hon. Members referred to funds coming from abroad. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) quite properly brought to our attention the fact that the amount of money coming from the United States is decreasing, but as the hon. Member for East Antrim said, it is still significant and far too large. People in the bars of New York must wake up and smell the coffee. They must realise that whatever romantic notions they may have about a struggle of the oppressed back in their homeland, the money that they are putting into collecting tins is buying guns and bullets used for knee-capping innocent people and for intimidation, to which the hon. Member for East Antrim referred. I hope that we will miss no opportunity in the House to ram home that message to those outwith the walls of this building and, indeed, the shores of cur country.
Mr. Dodds: Would the hon. Gentleman say that that advice should apply whether or not the political wing of an organisation happens to be part of the Government of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Carmichael: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Sinn Fein. The point will come when that issue must be addressed. Unfortunately, I believed that the crux for that organisation would come at the point of election. The decision to cancel the election let Sinn Fein and the IRA off the hook in so many different ways. It would have been the point at which they had to say whether or not they were part of the democratic process.
The other point that has been made repeatedly in relation to the report was about petrol or fuel smuggling. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has had several meetings with the Northern Ireland association that deals with petrol retailing, and it has raised that problem as its principal concern. The detrimental effect on the Northern Ireland economy of fuel smuggling is a growing concern, combined with legitimate cross-border shopping, so-called, because of the price differentials between petrol in the north and in the Republic.
In an intervention on the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said that he felt that extortion was the principal concern and that the question of smuggling fuel in that way was perhaps of secondary importance. The hon. Gentleman might have a good point there, but it is not particularly helpful to try to construct a hierarchy of such ills, if I may put it that way, and it certainly does not serve anyone well to diminish the impact of smuggling, which excludes people with normal business interests at heart from a legitimate business practice. Simply regarding the problem as a loss of revenue understates the true significance of fuel smuggling.
Mr. Barnes: Is not one interesting characteristic of fuel smuggling and the involvement of paramilitaries, with people acting on licence from such organisations, that when the fuel comes over the border republican paramilitaries are involved who have links with loyalist paramilitaries, often selling it on in Belfast and other
338WH
areas? That is a sign of a move away from military forms of political activity into a purely criminal, mafia approach.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes, the hon. Gentleman reminds me of an important point, for which I am grateful. His comment serves to illustrate the fact that republican pararriilitaries, so-called, and loyalist paramilitaries, so-called., are just opposite sides of the same coin: they are thugs and crooks. To dignify them with terms such as loyalist or republican does not serve particularly well. At the end of the day, they are operating as crooks, and one has to ask what has happened to their great principles when they can operate in the way that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
On the whole, the Government's response to the Committee's report has been welcome. Reading the report, I have been particularly concerned that the Northern Ireland Office has had difficulties in accessing or locating data on organised crime. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has now established a central statistical collection point that will ensure that data from the different taskforce partners is comparable. The Northern Ireland Office is also storing court activity data in a new database, but when the report was produced that was said to be a complex task; indeed, it was stated that the data would not be available for some time. As the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) said, it is almost a year to the day since the report was produced, so I wonder whether the Minister is in a position today to say how those new systems are working. What impact have those systems had on the police's ability to identify and deal with organised crime?
Further, in response to the Committee's recommendation that the Northern Ireland Office and the Organised Crime Task Force should jointly consider the development of an information strategy, the Secretary of State said that a serious organised crime desk would be created within the intelligence structures of the PSNI and that that would be in place by late 2002. Again, can the Minister say what impact that has had, if it is now up and running?
Concerns about the operation of the Assets Recovery Agency were raised in the report and during the debate. I pay tribute to the Committee for the work that it did on this subject, which produced one of the most thorough examinations of the issues that I have seen. I served on all 39 sittings of the Standing Committee that examined the Proceeds of Crime Bill, as did the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)—we can compare our scars later on. It is for that reason that I am interested in the operation of the agency.
I share the Committee's unease about the resources that were allocated to the agency in Northern Ireland. The point was well made that the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin serves as an excellent example for us. That demonstrates that if the resources follow the necessary powers, which have now been provided under the Act, their combination can have a significant impact on serious and organised crime.
The Government presumably want the Assets Recovery Agency to be as effective and respected as the Criminal Assets Bureau in Dublin. I accept the Secretary of State's response, in which he says that the

339WH
resources allocated to the ARA must be assets in the round and that the agency in Northern Ireland is able to pull in support from the agency elsewhere in the UK. However, the Committee made a strong case for ensuring that the agency in Northern Ireland is properly resourced.
A large proportion of organised crime in Northern Ireland is related to paramilitary groups. In my view that makes it considerably more dangerous and sinister than the ordinary organised crime—if I may use that term—that we deal with on this side of the water. We have a duty to ensure that the proceeds of crime are recovered, and that that is done efficiently and effectively. It is more likely that the agency will receive support from politicians and the public if it is seen to be making a real difference.
The Secretary of State said:
"The Government will ensure that the Agency, including its Northern Ireland branch, has the staff and resources that it needs in order to make the required impact."
Will the Minister indicate what resources are being dedicated to the Northern Ireland branch?
We all recognise that it is important to cut off paramilitary organisations from their sources of income. That will impact not only on the peace process, but also on the Northern Ireland economy and, most importantly, on those who have suffered at the hands of those organisations. I welcome the report's recommendations and I hope that the Government will deal with some of the minor concerns that I have mentioned.
4.37 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): We have had an interesting and worthwhile debate. I am grateful to those who took part, and I shall deal with as many of their points as possible. I cannot use the excuse of there being too little time available.
The many Members who were present at the start of the debate was a fact not lost on me. I appreciate the great interest in this subject on Government and Opposition Benches. I also appreciate that due to the non-contentious business elsewhere in the House—in the sense that it cannot be divided on—other hon. Members may have chosen to manage their time differently. That would explain the absence of various Members at this stage of the debate.
As we said in our response to the Committee's report, the Government are fully committed to bringing all paramilitary violence to an end as soon as possible. Various hon. Members made strong, powerful speeches about the threat that paramilitary organisations pose to Northern Ireland. The continuation of paramilitary activity is standing squarely in the way of political progress. It is also preventing the development of the sort of society for which most of the people in Northern Ireland voted in 1998, which they fully deserve. We will continue to pursue the political path while giving law enforcement agencies the support that they need to fight criminal behaviour.
The Organised Crime Task Force was created in September 2000. It reflects our determination to tackle all forms of organised criminality, whether paramilitary or not. It is also a manifestation of our commitment to
340WH
help Northern Ireland make the transition to being a normal society that is free from terrorism and paramilitarism.
Clearly, paramilitary activity and organised crime have become increasingly interrelated in recent years. As the taskforce enters its third year, our intelligence and information about how and where the criminals operate has greatly improved as a result of our enhanced collection techniques. Using that improved information, the PSNI analysis centre drew together its third annual threat assessment, which was published on 11 June, and the Committee referred to it. It updates our assessment of the current position and makes it clear that two thirds of the groups known by the law enforcement agencies to be involved in organised criminal activity in Northern Ireland are associated with or controlled by loyalist or republican paramilitary organisations. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) also mentioned that.
It is not always obvious how that relationship works. It is not clear what proportion of the illegal profits criminals pass to their organisations and what proportion they retain to fund the lucrative lifestyles to which hon. Members have referred. However, we know that those involved nearly always capitalise on their paramilitary links to prey on their communities. The Government are therefore resolute in our mission to secure a safe, just and prosperous society for everyone in Northern Ireland, and we have a clear remit to tackle paramilitarist and organised criminality.
Since its inception, the Organised Crime Task Force has sought to bring the collective might of government and law enforcement to bear on organised criminality, whatever its source. The taskforce's strength has been its ability to bring all the agencies together in a way that respects their independence and autonomy while allowing them to share information, agree priority areas and, most importantly, take action. The Committee acknowledged the success of that multi-agency approach and recommended that the Government should consider how its benefits might be extended and shared more widely. My officials and I have spoken to more than 20 separate groups in the past year, highlighting the approach and methods adopted by the taskforce. In addition, the taskforce has launched its website, which provides a further opportunity to explain to a more global audience the method that it has adopted to fight the pernicious form of crime that we are debating. Since its launch in September 2002, the website has received an average of about 100,000 hits a month.
The taskforce has also sought to augment the work of the partner agencies by forming expert groups to tackle each agreed strategic organised priority area. Through those groups, law enforcement agencies have further developed information-sharing capabilities and established links with other Government agencies, as well as with trade associations and industry. For example, the deliberations of the expert group tasked with studying armed robbery have been open to industries and businesses that have been directly affected by the increase in armed robberies in Northern Ireland. As a result, the way in which cash in transit is organised and the way in which the industry goes about its business have been examined from a crime-reduction point of view, and we are beginning to see a reduction in

341WH
the number of armed robberies. As several hon. Members have said, the expert group tasked with dealing with the priority area of counterfeit goods has brought together organisations with an interest in intellectual property crime, and there have been very productive discussions and seminars involving, for example, the British Phonographic—
Mr. Mates: Institute.
Jane Kennedy: I momentarily forget what BPI stood for, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me.
As I was saying, we brought together the BPI and other organisations with an interest in the issue to examine the way in which industries and businesses go about their legitimate business to ascertain whether we could work with them to reduce the ability of criminals to exploit industries and businesses.
Nutts Corner in Antrim was mentioned and the Jonesborough market in south Armagh. Nutts Corner is an easier environment for the police to operate within. However, police in both areas have been proactive in trying to tackle the counterfeiting and the sale of counterfeit goods that has been prevalent in those markets, and have had a considerable amount of success.
As the Committee acknowledged, publicity is an effective tool, and our challenge is to encourage the public to report organised criminality to the police. I heard the comments from hon. Members about the reluctance of ordinary folk to come forward, give evidence and tell the police what is going on, but throughout the past year via the law enforcement agencies we have consistently reminded people of the seriousness and invidious nature of organised crime as well as pointing out the value of taskforce work.
As a result, there is a growing confidence that the police and the other law enforcement agencies are taking the matter seriously. For example, last year at the Ould Lammas fair, local traders approached the police and trading standards officers asking for a co-ordinated response to the potential misuse of the fair for the sale of counterfeit goods. It was reported after the fair that that was an enormous success, and the legitimate traders and shopkeepers in Ballycastle were delighted with the response from the law enforcement agencies.
Several hon. Members referred to extortion, and I shall come to the issues raised during the course of that discussion. Crimes such as extortion are vastly under-reported and victims often withdraw complaints before the police can fully investigate the matter. A further focus of the taskforce on racketeering over the past year has been to consider how to enhance existing provisions for the protection of witnesses. Proposals are currently being developed with colleagues in file Home Office to see how witness protection schemes might be developed further.
I would like to describe some of that work to assist the House, and reassure hon. Members that we are taking the matter seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) and the hon. Member for East Hampshire started with the same
342WH
point. It is true that only 10 per cent. of extortion is reported to law enforcement agencies. It is part of our determination to expose the successes and the difficulties faced by law agencies that we publish such data. As a result, we rightly increase the pressure on Government and law enforcement agencies to examine what is going wrong in such areas, and why it is so difficult to bring the extortionists to account.
Hon. Members will be aware that Professor Ron Goldstock is an adviser to the Secretary of State. He has been asked to examine the problem of extortion and to provide recommendations on how it can be tackled more effectively. Discussions with the law enforcement agencies concerning a number of issues relating to extortion, including sentencing and bail conditions, are also continuing with the taskforce legal sub-group.
The law and order action group that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who is now the Secretary of State of Health, established last year is considering similar issues such as bail reform. If there is a clear case for updating the relevant statutes, the Government will happily take the lead in reforming the law. As I have said, officials are currently working with colleagues in the Home Office to consider the enhancement of witness protection provisions that are currently available, but the Committee will appreciate that such an enhancement has implications throughout the UK.
I want to comment further on witness protection measures. We have commissioned research through the Northern Ireland Office into how prosecution witnesses believe they have been treated by the criminal justice system, especially at the court stage. Information on intimidation and related matters should emerge as a result of that research. We expect an interim report from the researchers by the autumn.
Lady Hermon: May I bring to the Minister's attention the serious escalation and intensity of brutal attacks on the Chinese community, which is the largest ethnic community in Northern Ireland? Language can be a problem when members of the Chinese community wish to give evidence and to be witnesses in cases of extortion and other paramilitary activity. I ask the Minister to bring that to the attention of Professor Goldstock, who is considering how best to eliminate pressures on people who wish to come forward and deal with paramilitary activity.
Jane Kennedy: I shall be happy to draw the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of Ron Goldstock, and as a result of what she has said today I shall look into the matter myself.
People who are subject to the crime of extortion face a real and serious threat to their personal safety. They also risk losing their business, their livelihood, their family connections and their wider social circle. Hon. Members are right to draw the House's attention to those facts. I am alive to the problems, and we are examining what needs to be done to enable the law enforcement agencies to have greater success in dealing with the problem.
I was asked to respond more fully and to give an update on improvements in data sharing and information management. I hope that I can reassure

343WH
hon. Members that we are making progress. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 allowed much greater sharing of information between the agencies than had existed before. For example, it allowed the Inland Revenue to play a fuller role as a partner agency in the Organised Crime Task Force.
We do not face the same difficulties now in collecting and managing data on organised crime as we did before 2000. As the Committee is aware, the objectives that were set for the taskforce last year included a requirement for the work of the taskforce partner agencies to be measured against impact and activity indicators. We published those results last month, and they serve to underline the intensive work rates that have been adopted by partner agencies to combat the threat from organised crime. I hope that that reassures hon. Members. I am continuing to monitor the progress that has been made. It is obvious that the more information we share, the greater the ability of the law enforcement agencies to respond quickly and effectively.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) and others referred to the Assets Recovery Agency and its work. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) intervened on the hon. Gentleman and questioned the agency's choice of cases. I have discussed the matter before with hon. Members. The selection of cases that are pursued by the agency is entirely a matter for the director of the agency supported by the assistant director in Northern Ireland. She will act in accordance with her statutory duty to use her powers as she considers best calculated to reduce crime. She is as aware as we are of the need to pursue the criminals, whoever they are and whatever activity they are engaged in, to the extent that the agency has jurisdiction over their activity. She is alive to the need to develop successful techniques to bring cases before the courts.
I am trying to go through the points made by hon. Members in order, as it helps me to respond to them. I have temporarily mislaid the note that I wrote in response to the point about aggravated offence, but I can say that we are considering the issue very carefully. [Interruption.] I have been miraculously assisted. We are considering the question of an offence for aggravated extortion as part of our overall review of the structure of criminal offences and whether unnecessary difficulties and hurdles are placed in the way of the law enforcement agencies in tackling extortion and other criminality.
We are examining the idea of an aggravated offence, but we are also considering carefully the ideas that we have been discussing and the experience that other Administrations have shared with us. For example, America has a specific sentencing structure to deal with racketeering. We have also had the chance to examine the system in Italy. What is more, we have been bringing together different experts from around the world to share their experience with us in Northern Ireland. As a result, we have been able to test our structures against those that have been developed in other jurisdictions, always bearing it in mind that we have a different legal structure. I am confident that that work will prove fruitful. We have made changes already, but we are still considering the aggravated offence idea.
I think that I have answered the point about the improved collection of data. That reflects the growing confidence that the different agencies have displayed as
344WH
they have developed their ability to work together and to share information. It also reflects the ability of the taskforce to improve its data collection procedures, and thus to present the public with a clearer picture of what is happening with organised crime in Northern Ireland. That development has proved beneficial, and will continue to give an enormous amount of ammunition and data to hon. Members who want to keep us under close scrutiny. I welcome that, because the more that we can discuss these issues and debate them in public, the more we will be able to engage the support of the public in Northern Ireland, who are, as hon. Members repeatedly say, sick and tired of the difficulties that their society faces.
I shall now deal with the severity of sentences. You will remember me from many years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I used to be a social liberal, but following a long involvement with the law enforcement agencies—I love them dearly—I have at last joined the same school of thought as the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds), which believes that something must be done. I accept the point that he made. We take a close interest in what happens will regard to the severity of sentences. In fact, we are reviewing the whole process from start to finish, including the difficulties and obstacles that the police face in bringing charges in the first place, in getting witnesses and information, and in making the information accessible to the court as evidence. We are considering the whole procedure to ensure that unnecessary barriers are not placed in the way of the law enforcement agencies, so that we have the most effective and successful operation possible against the organised criminals whom we seek to defeat.
I have one further point on the Assets Recovery Agency and information sharing. I believe that the provisions in section 436 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 will enable the director of the agency to have access to all the information that it requires. Under that section, organisations that have been designated as permitted persons may disclose information to the director of the agency for use in the exercise of her functions. However, such a disclosure must not contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. With those two provisos, I can tell hon. Members that there is greatly enhanced sharing of information and intelligence.
The commissioners of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are permitted to delegate to an Inland Revenue official or Customs officer the power to authorise disclosures to the director. Increasingly, we are seeing the development of joint operations in which police engage the support and assistance of either a commissioner of the Inland Revenue or a Customs and Excise officer to go jointly to a business premises or house to exercise their different powers and have the maximum effect.
I was asked about the recovered assets fund. I accept the need to publicise and demonstrate the benefits that communities derive from projects financed by that fund, but the rules and conditions governing the disbursement of grants under the fund, which the hon. Member for Belfast, North raised, include audit arrangements to ensure proper, efficient and effective use of public money, and arrangements for independent monitoring and evaluation of results. I hope that that safeguard is

345WH
regarded as a response, although it will not entirely satisfy everyone. I am not in a position to give much detail at this time, but we are conscious of the need to ensure that the public are aware of the benefits that flow from the fund.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is not in his seat. I accept his apologies for that. When he reads Hansard, he will be pleased to realise that I am in a mellow mood and will try not to be vituperative in any way. He made a number of points that had already been made by other Members and I have covered the majority of them—the same is true of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter).
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) asked about fuel smuggling and laundering. Of enormous interest is his point about the co-operation between the different organised crime groups that we are increasingly identifying. As far as they are concerned, business is business and they will work and co-operate with whomever they need to to maximise their profits.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to look closely at the work of the oils expert group. Other hon. Members also mentioned fuel laundering and smuggling. The oils expert group has brought together a range of agencies—including the Health and Safety Executive, trading standards services, environmental services in Northern Ireland, the PSNI, and, hon. Members might be surprised to learn, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—into one expert group.
One of the group's strategies has been to get Customs and Excise officers to work with trading standards and Health and Safety Executive officers in order systematically to visit every petrol station in Northern Ireland. Those involved are producing amazing results when it comes to ensuring that petrol stations are selling legitimate fuel that has had excise charged on it. They plan to continue that scheme throughout the year. I am confident that it will have a high degree of success.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the organised crime desk in the PSNI. Obviously, that is essentially a matter for the Chief Constable. However, a further indication of the police service's commitment to tackling organised crime in the community is his recent announcement of a restructuring in the PSNI. The purpose of that restructuring, at senior management level, is to improve further the PSNI's crime-fighting capability.
The new structure is intended to be introduced in November. It was disclosed to the Policing Board and published recently. The central plank of the new arrangement will be the creation of a crime operations department, headed by an assistant chief constable. That department will tackle serious and organised crime, including murder investigations, as a priority.
A criminal justice department will also be created. Again, an assistant chief constable will head it, and it will deal with all non-operational crime-related functions. I expect that to be a further driver in prompting reviews of the way in which the criminal justice system operates. Further changes are also proposed. The announcement was welcome and indicates the determination of the PSNI to ensure that its structures are as fit for the purpose as possible.
346WH
I took careful note of the comments that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made during interventions about ensuring that provisions in UK legislation elsewhere are applicable to Northern Ireland. We will consider her comments, and I am grateful for her support in saying that good progress is being made. I am aware of the UUP's concerns about the Criminal Justice Bill that she and her hon. Friends raised. I understand that her party is due to outline its concerns specifically to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), who has agreed to examine the matter when he has had a chance to discuss the issues with the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends.
Lady Hermon: The Minister's new colleague in the Northern Ireland Office's ministerial team kindly arranged a prompt meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). The meeting was scheduled for 26 July, but we had it earlier than anticipated.
Jane Kennedy: I am pleased to hear that there has been progress already.
I also take on board the point made by the hon. Lady about consulting the Chief Constable and the ombudsman about a particular aspect of the legislation, and I shall consider that when I have read Hansard carefully to study the point that she made.
During an interesting exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) and the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), the hon. Member for East Antrim referred to the impact of reduced funding from the United States of America leading to greater emphasis by the paramilitary organisations on fund-raising through criminal activities. I accept that too much funding is still coming through to paramilitary organisations. We must keep that under consideration, but the more that funding from other sources is reduced, the greater the effect that is felt in Northern Ireland will be. There will be an ever-increasing emphasis on paramilitaries to continue to fund their activities through criminal activity. We must focus on that and work to ensure that we hold those activities in check and make them ineffective.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke raised a different point and said that paramilitaries in Northern Ireland have always engaged in crime. That is true and we accept the point but, irrespective of the strictures of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, progress has been made. It is because the paramilitaries and their criminal activities are standing in the way of that progress that we continue to vest so much importance in the work of the taskforce in tackling organised crime.
I believe that I have covered the point about fuel tax evasion that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised. I hope that he and the hon. Member for East Antrim will forgive me if I do not explore now the issues that they raised about the paramilitary beatings that continue in Northern Ireland. We have discussed the matter previously, and it can be discussed again on another occasion. The increase in the number of Customs and Excise personnel who are dedicated to tackling that crime indicates how determined the Government are to ensure that that form

347WH
of fund-raising for terrorists in Northern Ireland is closed off. It is important to note that there has been an increase in legal, excise-paid, duty-paid fuel in Northern Ireland. That is the only indicator that we can look to for a specific quantitative measurement of the progress that we seek.
Mr. Barnes: The two reports of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, one in the previous Parliament and the other in this Parliament, make it clear to people such as myself, a member of the Committee, that considerable advances have been made in the operation of Customs and Excise during that period.
Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Encouraging progress is being made, but that needs to be kept under review.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North spoke of his constituent, whom I was pleased to meet when he brought him into my office. He gave a graphic description of the problems that he had experienced in operating his business in north Belfast. Speaking more generally, however, individuals must be prepared to assist the police, if we are to be able to offer witness protection. A person must be a witness before the witness protection scheme can operate. I accept that there are ways in which individuals can assist law enforcement agencies without actually becoming witnesses, and we are not shy of using such methods, but someone must be a witness before they can benefit from such a scheme. I would encourage all those who have suffered from organised crime, and particularly from extortion, given its extent and nature, to assist the police and other agencies in defeating it.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Basingstoke made several points about the joint declaration. I note those points, but I will leave them for discussion on another occasion.
I shall conclude my remarks by discussing the question of resources and funding. The Government remain resolute in the fight against terrorism, and continue to ensure that the Chief Constable has at his disposal the resources to meet the threat. Yesterday, when we were considering the Select Committee's report on drug use and drug-related crime, we discussed the resources available to the drug squad in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Ministers responsible for the police will never say that we can do without more police officers. We can always put them to good use. However, it is important to remember that Northern Ireland currently has a police-to-population ratio of 1:186, including the full-time reserve. In Scotland, England and Wales, the ratio is 1:409.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland is highly effective. I accept that it is undergoing an enormous programme of internal change. The numbers able to
348WH
take advantage of the redundancy scheme have depleted the number of police officers in the older age group, who have taken with them vast amounts of skill and experience. The change programme has taken its toll on the morale and energy of police officers. However, I am constantly encouraged by the dedication and enthusiasm that police officers in Northern Ireland continue to bring to the work that they do.
As I said, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is highly effective, and those at every level of the police force are very aware of crime and terrorist crime. The best evidence of that is their ability, a couple of weeks ago, to intercept that large van bomb in Londonderry. That was good police work: ordinary police officers being aware and working effectively to prevent terrorist crime. Similarly, in Newry and South Armagh policing district late one night, police reserve officers stumbled on one of the largest fuel-laundering plants ever discovered in Northern Ireland, and they were able to bring both police and Customs to that spot very rapidly, in an effective police operation.
Customs has increased its resources by more than 160 personnel, who are dedicated to tackling oils fraud in Northern Ireland. The question of funding for the Assets Recovery Agency should also be addressed. The agency is adequately funded for its current case load. I applaud its cautious approach, which is similar to that of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the Republic of Ireland—it has bedded itself into the criminal justice culture of Northern Ireland by ensuring that the first cases that it takes are as strong as possible, to ensure that the law is effective and that the courts will develop confidence in the new laws.
As recently as yesterday morning, I was briefed by the Northern Ireland assistant director on the progress that the agency is making. I am confident that as it continues its cautious and successful approach, although it may not be fast enough for those of us—all of us—who want rapid results, it will continue to make good progress, and I am delighted that it is ahead of the targets that we set it.
I know that there is more time allocated to us, but I believe that I have responded to all the points that I noted during the debate. We in government will do everything that we can to continue to tackle the combined threat of terrorism and organised crime in Northern Ireland. I am convinced that by confronting organised crime using the multi-agency, joined-up approach, the strategies that we have adopted with partner agencies within the Organised Crime Task Force, and with the help of the community at large, we have found the most effective way of delivering a safe, just and prosperous society in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Five o 'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Taxis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the means by which(a) black cab drivers and (b) private hire taxi drivers can prevent passengers from smoking in their vehicles; [124827]

  (2) if he will bring forward legislation to enable taxi drivers to enforce a no smoking policy on passengers in their vehicles; [124829]

  (3) what research he has commissioned into the health impact on taxi drivers of secondary smoke inhalation from passengers who smoke in their vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [124828]

  Mr. McNulty
  We consulted nationally on smoking in taxis in 1999–2000. In March 2001, we announced that while we recognised the merits of banning smoking in taxis, we did not consider that the case was sufficiently strong to make a commitment to legislate when parliamentary time permitted. This was because we were satisfied that the present voluntary approach whereby taxi or private hire vehicle drivers have the choice of asking passengers not to smoke for the most part worked satisfactorily.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he gives to the Civil Aviation Authority regarding air traffic control delays. [124336]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) exercises its role as the independent regulator for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. through the licence issued to that company; one of the conditions of which is a delay term. The CAA sets this delay term taking into account consultation with interested parties and its duties and objectives under the Transport Act 2000.

  Airports Consultation
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to assess the research submitted by BAA on air quality as part of the consultation into the future of air transport in the UK south-east. [124411]

  Mr. McNulty
  Research undertaken by BAA will be assessed rigorously by the Government as part of the overall analysis of consultation responses.

  Congestion Charge
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the impact of the London congestion charge. [l24485]
  880W
  Mr. McNulty
  The London congestion charging scheme is the responsibility of the Mayor, not the Government. However, Ministers have regular meetings with the Mayor at which a wide range of transport matters are discussed.

  Connex South Eastern
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the removal of the rail franchise from Connex South Eastern. [124484]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 26 June 2003, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) served notice to terminate the Connex franchise on 31 December 2003. They did so because they were not satisfied that Connex had introduced agreed changes to their financial monitoring and reporting arrangements designed to ensure that the substantial public subsidy they had received was being properly used. The SRA will run the service under their 'operator of last resort' powers, but have emphasised that they will do so for only as long as is necessary to appoint a new private sector operator. In the meantime, the SRA expect it to be business as usual for passengers and for the great majority of Connex staff.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the consultation documents issued by his Department in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124572]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government recommend that policy development should be done in close consultation with stakeholders. Formal consultation documents are only one part of this process, which includes:

  stakeholder meetings;

  listening events/public meetings;

  web forums;

  public surveys;

  focus groups;

  regional events;

  free-phone and freepost surveys and events;

  targeted leaflet campaigns; and

  road shows and exhibitions.

  It is standard practice for Departments to evaluate the policy development process, including the use of consultation. The specific information requested is not collated on a central basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department for Transport was established in May 2002. A full list of consultations on transport issues that have taken place from May 2002 (as DfT) and before (as DTLR) can be found on the Department's website (www.dft.gov.uk).

  DfT consultation documents are available on the relevant policy website links:

  aviation (www.aviation.dft.gov.uk/conmdex.htm)

  local transport (www.local-transport.dft.gov.uk/conindex.htm)

  881W

  Mobility and Inclusion Unit (www.mobility-unit.dft.gov.uk/ conindex.htm)

  railways (www.railways.dft.gov.uk/conindex.htm)

  roads, Vehicles and road safety (www.roads.dft.gov.uk/ conindex.htm)

  shipping (www.shipping.dft.gov.uk/conindex.htm)

  DfT consultations are also available through the UK Online website: www.ukonline.gov.uk

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the number of residents in London who would be affected by increased noise levels if a third runway was constructed at Heathrow airport. [124408]

  Mr. McNulty
  The "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom—South East" consultation document (Table 7.3) does not give estimates for London alone. In the consultation document it is estimated that in 2030 the population living within the 57dBA Leq noise contour would be 332,000 if a third runway were constructed (which would include parts of Berkshire, London, South Bucks and Surrey), compared with 278,000 if no runway were built. The 332,000 figure includes people living in areas that would be affected by air traffic using the third runway who would experience increased noise levels compared with today, as well as people in other areas affected by traffic using the existing runways (also within the 57dBA Leq noise contour) who would experience reduced noise levels. For comparison, the figure for the resident population living in the same noise contour in 2000 given in the consultation document was 307,000. This had fallen to 258,300 by 2002.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he expects new areas of Hammersmith and Fulham to be affected by the construction of a third runway at Heathrow airport. [124409]

  Mr. McNulty
  The modelling of noise impacts that is reported in the consultation document "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom—South East" suggests that noise generated by aircraft using the new runway would not exceed 57 dBA Leq in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. However, the purpose of the assessment was to allow comparison of different options at a variety of locations; it does not purport to be a precise prediction of the noise effects at specific locations.

  Pendle
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what policies(a) initiated and (b) managed by his Department since 2001 have had an impact on Pendle; and if he will make a statement. [124090]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport has carried forward the policies that were initiated by predecessor departments.

  Pendle benefits from policies managed by Lancashire county council. Lancashire received a total of £12.051 million in December 2002 for integrated transport measures as part of the 2003–04-transport settlement. This funding is being used by Lancashire to
  882W
  progress their Local Transport Plan, including a range of measures to tackle congestion, improve safety and enhance public transport provision throughout the county. It is for Lancashire to spend the allocation in accordance with local priorities.

  Ports Police
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the conclusions are of his review of the arrangements for ports police in England and Wales. [124630]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Officials are currently completing the draft report for approval by Ministers which we hope to be able to issue shortly. A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure that private contractors meet safety standards on rail maintenance. [124487]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail's Railway Safety Case, which is accepted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), includes Network Rail's Safety Management System to manage its contractors. This also requires Network Rail's contractors to demonstrate their ability to safely deliver the contract. Network Rail's Contractor Assurance System requires that each of its contractors have a Contractor Assurance Case that is monitored and reviewed by Network Rail. These cases are designed to ensure that contractors deliver a safe, effective and efficient railway.

  Network Rail is fundamentally changing the way it manages rail maintenance. Its New Maintenance Programme ensures that Network Rail decides what work is completed and when. Network Rail is also taking direct control of three maintenance contract areas. This will give Network Rail clearer control of the works being completed.

  Network Rail is also subject to regulation and enforcement by the HSE's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI). HMRI plans to monitor Network Rail's management of contractors, including its arrangement for managing maintenance contracts in-house.

  Railways
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve public transport links between London and Chesham and Amersham. [123924]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rail services between London, Chesham and Amersham are served by Chiltern Railways (M40 Trains Ltd.), for which an extended 20 year franchise was agreed in February last year. Contracted improvements include:Restoration of double track between Bicester North and Aynho Junction to be commissioned in August 2002, removing the last single track bottleneck between London Marylebone and Birmingham Snow Hill

  883W
  Full refurbishment of all existing Class 165s for completion during 2004 and the delivery of 15 additional vehicles between September 2002 and May 2005
  Construction of a new depot in the London area, and extension of the existing depot at Aylesbury—to achieve better train reliability

  Chiltern Rail will also be considering a project to reduce journey times and increase train frequency on the Metropolitan route between Marylebone and Aylesbury via Amersham will be developed and considered in March 2005—in the light of the SRA's priorities.

  Scottish Airports
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has(a) received from and (b) made to the Scottish Executive concerning the imposition of public service obligations at airports in Scotland, broken down by (i) subject, (ii) date and (iii) responsible Ministers. [122512]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department regularly communicate with Scottish Executive Ministers on matters of mutual interest. At official level, there is regular contact between officials in my Department and their Scottish Executive counterparts.

  Shipping
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the navigation costs imposed on shipping using the English Channel. [R] [124751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS) makes no specific charge for aids to navigation in the English Channel. All services provided by THLS are met by light dues levied on commercial shipping calling at UK and Republic of Ireland ports. The costs are not identified separately by area.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advantage West Midlands
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Objective Two and Three European funding Advantage West Midlands has(a) applied for and (b) received in each financial year since its inception; and how much was spent on projects in North Staffordshire in each year. [12261]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) AWM inherited a number of ERDF funded projects at its inception from previous organisations. These totalled £12.5 million.

  Since its inception, AWM has applied for objective 2 funding totalling £15.4 million. These projects are mainly regionwide projects, benefiting the whole of the West Midlands region.

  (b) AWM have received the following amounts of ERDF in each financial year.
  884W

  £ million

  1999–2000

  0.832

  2000–01

  2.057

  2001–02

  4.070

  2002–03

  0.548

  None of this has been spent on projects in North Staffordshire specifically, although a number of the ERDF funded projects benefit the West Midlands region.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the grant-in-aid spending by Advantage West Midlands was in each financial year since its inception; how much was spent on projects in North Staffordshire in each year; how much was spent under the(a) land and property regeneration, (b) skills development and rapid response, (c) rural regeneration, (d) regional innovation fund, (e) inward investment and (f) applied to purchase operations and assets headings in each year; and how much of each was spent in (i) Stoke-on-Trent, (ii) Newcastle-under-Lyme, (iii) Staffordshire Moorlands and (iv) Stafford. [122618]

  Jacqui Smith
  The tables highlight spend in the various categories and four geographical areas stated in the PQ.

  The first table gives a breakdown of expenditure in the four areas, Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire Moorlands and Stafford against five of the stated categories [Land and Property, Skills/RRF, Rural, Regional Innovation Fund and Inward Investment].

  The second table highlights the funds to "applied to purchase operations and asset headings" [i.e. capital and revenue expenditure] in the four areas. This table includes other expenditure such as SRB and RS A but excludes Regeneration Zone expenditure that cannot be clearly allocated to one of the four areas.

  £ millon

  Spend:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  (a) Stoke-on-Trent

  (a) L&P

  1.253

  0.906

  2.995

  2.494

  (b) Skills/RRF

  —

  —

  0.450

  0.250

  (c) Rural

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Regional Innovation Fund

  —

  0.690

  0.925

  0.002

  (e) Inward Investment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Newcastle-under-Lyme

  (a) L&P

  (0.108)

  (0.279)

  2.086

  0.124

  (b) Skills/RRF

  —

  —

  0.203

  —

  (c) Rural

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Regional Innovation Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Inward Investment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Staffordshire Moorlands

  (a) L&P

  0.004

  —

  0.703

  1.291

  (b) Skills/RRF

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Rural

  —

  —

  0.063

  0.078

  (d) Regional Innovation Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Inward Investment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Stafford

  (a) L&P

  0.096

  —

  0.009

  —

  (b) Skills/RRF

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c) Rural

  —

  —

  —

  0.014

  (d) Regional Innovation Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (e) Inward Investment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  885W

  (f) Purchase Operations & Asset Headings

  £ million

  Capital

  Revenue

  Total

  (a) Stoke-on-Trent

  1999–2000

  7.625

  3.573

  11.198

  2000–01

  6.823

  2.781

  9.604

  2001–02

  8.207

  5.902

  14.109

  2002–03

  8.457

  4.841

  13.298

  Total

  31.112

  17.097

  48.209

  (b) Newcastle-under-Lyme

  1999–2001

  1.15

  1.01

  2.16

  2000–02

  1.073

  1.073

  2.146

  2001–03

  1.067

  1.068

  2.135

  2002–04

  0.693

  0.693

  1.386

  Total

  3.983

  3.844

  7.827

  (c) Staffordshire Moorlands

  1999–2002

  0.145

  0.066

  0.211

  2000–03

  0.078

  0.3

  0.378

  2001–04

  1.142

  0.431

  1.573

  2002–05

  1.937

  0.472

  2.409

  Total

  3.302

  1.269

  4.571

  (d) Stafford

  1999–2003

  0.096

  0

  0.096

  2000–04

  0

  0.013

  0.013

  2001–05

  0.069

  0.355

  0.424

  2002–06

  0.426

  0.577

  1.003

  Total

  0.591

  0.945

  1.536

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the possible use of the Government's golden share in respect of a takeover bid being made for BAE Systems. [125379]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have received no formal approach related to the future of BAE Systems. If one is received, we would seek to protect the essential security interests in this country through the provisions of the "special share".

  BCCI
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the liquidators of BCCI envisage distributing the global fund balance; and how much the balance is. [123495]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  These are matters for the Liquidators of the company.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the weekly costs of the BCCI liquidation are; and what reduction in the level of weekly costs of the global liquidation is envisaged. [123496]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  These are matters for the Liquidators of the company.

  Business Incubation Fund
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Department's progress with implementing the Business Incubation Fund. [124895]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since the launch of the Small Business Service Businesses Incubation Fund on 1 October 2001 applications for loans totalling £6 million have been received.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional measures she intends to provide for consumer protection work. [123497]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The consumer provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 came fully into force on 20 June. Consumers will benefit as these new measures begin to bite from stronger enforcement of the law through the use of Stop Now Orders and sharing of information between enforcers. Consumers will also benefit from the Office of Fair Trading's new role in approving codes of practice. Codes of practice can help consumers to identify reputable traders and provide a swift means to redress on occasions when things go wrong.

  In summer 2002 DTI announced up to £30 million funding to implement a new national consumer helpline—Consumer Direct. The helpline will launch in pathfinder areas in 2004.

  Estate Agents
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures there are for the payment of compensation to victims of malpractice by estate agents. [119849]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Consumers who suffer a financial loss as a result of malpractice by estate agents may be able to make a claim for compensation in the civil courts. If the estate agent is a member of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents Scheme, consumers may also be able to make a claim for compensation to the ombudsman.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been made to the Director General of Fair Trading concerning the conduct of estate agents in each year since 1997; how many such complaints have been investigated by the Director General of Fair Trading in each year since 1997; how many estate agents have been banned as unfit to practise by the Director General of Fair Trading since 1997; and if she will publish the list of banned estate agents. [119850]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table contains details of complaints received by the Director General of Fair Trading alleging breaches of estate agent legislation and banning orders issued to estate agents since 1997.

  Number of complaints about estate agents receive by OFT

  Number of estate agents banned by OFT

  1997

  133

  3

  1998

  98

  3

  1999

  199

  6

  2000

  213

  4

  2001

  170

  0

  2002

  206

  6

  All complaints are initially reviewed to see if a potential breach of the Act has occurred. If there is a breach, then a full investigation will take place and, if the breach is proved, regulatory action is taken. Prior to the year 2000, the Office of Fair Trading did not record details of how many complaints were investigated. Since then, an average of 50 per cent. of complaints made to

  887W
  the Office of Fair Trading have resulted in a full investigation, which in turn has led to an average of 80 warning letters being sent each year.

  The Office of Fair Trading maintains a Public Register of banned estate agents and will provide a list of banned estate agents which will be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has undertaken a review of the provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979 since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [119851]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has not undertaken a review of the provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979 since 1997. However, the Office of Fair Trading is currently investigating the market for estate agents in England and Wales, including the effectiveness of the Act.

  I will consider carefully any recommendations the Director General of Fair Trading makes about future regulation of this market.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU advisory committee on the labelling of household appliances, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110500]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no committee that has the responsibility for all the labelling issues that might arise in connection with household appliances. There is however a committee which is concerned with "the indication by labelling and standard product information on the consumption of energy and other resources by household appliances". This Committee does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of EU member states.

  The Committee has met four times since January 2002 (on 18 March, 10 June and 25 September in 2002 and 1 April 2003). Agenda items relate to the implementation of the framework directive for the energy labelling of household appliances (92/5EEC) including proposals for new directives.

  Since January 2002, the Committee has voted formally in favour of proposals to amend the current directive on household refrigeration appliances and against proposals to amend the directive on washing machines. The Committee provides advice and comes to conclusions on a range of wider, related issues including, for example, the voluntary provision by manufacturers of energy consumption information on consumer electronic equipment such as TVs and video recorders.

  Together with member states, the Commission has been conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of Comitology Committees into line with Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on
  888W
  the Commission". The Working group on the Friends of Comitology is meeting later this month to discuss proposals for interim reform.

  As an obligation of this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the Working of the Committee. The second re[port was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2003 ref 5060/03, COM(03)733.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government has encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions to be accessible through its website.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on the operation of the law relating to flexible working hours, with special reference to claims against employers on procedural grounds where the flexible working hours contract has been granted. [123564]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has received no representations on the operation of the new flexible working law which came into effect on 6 April this year. We are committed to commence a review of the impact of the law in three years' time, and in collaboration with key stakeholders, we are currently putting in place a monitoring strategy for gathering ongoing evidence as to how the new law is working in practice.

  We understand that the Acas Arbitration Scheme conciliators have been approached for advice on two occasions, the first of which led to the withdrawal of the claim by the employee and the second identified that no breach of procedure had taken place. One claim for unfair dismissal relating to the flexible working legislation was registered with the Employment Tribunal Service in May and this is currently in the initial stage of the process.

  Help and advice is available to employers as well as employees. Those who want to speak to an adviser about any aspect of the law, including practical advice on how to apply the law can call the Acas helpline on 08457 47 47 47. Advisers have been specifically trained on the working parents laws. Detailed guidance, including forms based on best practice, is also available on our website at www.dti.gov.uk/workingparents and also in hard copy. This emphasises that it is in both parties' interests to seek to resolve disputes as far as possible within the workplace and that employment tribunals should be treated as a last resort.

  Heating Engineers
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures her Department is taking to ensure the training of heating engineers and gas fitters to facilitate a higher take-up of condensing boilers. [123673]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Learning and Skills Council is working with the Energy Efficiency Partnership and the Gas and Water Industry National Training Organisation (GWINTO)

  889W
  to develop a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) unit on Energy Efficiency and Condensing Boilers which can be incorporated into current qualifications. The unit is expected to be available generally from September 2004.

  In parallel with this activity, they are also taking steps to further develop their provider base to facilitate the delivery of the anticipated demand for the new unit.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she is seeking repayment of the Export Credit Guarantees Department unrecovered claims from Iraq; and whether she has notified the Coalition administration in Iraq of these unrecovered claims. [124242]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government would like to see a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems. We believe the best way to achieve that is through a full assessment by the IMF and the World Bank of Iraq's needs, resources, and obligations, leading to a shared agreement on debt by the Paris Club of official creditors, and comparable treatment by other creditors. The UK is not expecting any payments from Iraq in the near future. The states recognized as occupying powers under unified command are aware of these claims on Iraq.

  Landfill Directive
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what cost benefit analyses her Department has undertaken to identify the net effect on total(a) employment and (b) economic activity in the United Kingdom of compliance with the Landfill Directive; and what the main conclusions of such analyses were. [121212]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of the Landfill Directive in England and Wales was published with the Second Consultation Paper on Implementation of Council Directive (199/31/EC) on the Landfill of Waste. This is available on the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk). A base case was established and various policy mixes were costed against that base case. The additional costs of the policy mixes that reflect the levels of recycling, composting and recovery needed to meet the waste strategy targets amounted to a range of between £3.4 billion and £7.7 billion (net present value) over the 20 year period 2000–20.

  The RIA recognised that many of the potential benefits cannot be quantified but believes that a number will be of local significance where they result in a reduced impact of existing landfills. These benefits relate principally to reducing health and environmental risks and by promoting more sustainable options such as waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

  The RIA also draws attention to benefits from investment in treatment technologies and rising landfill standards that could result in new economic and employment opportunities.

  As was also recognised by the Strategy Unit Report "Waste Not, Want Not", there are economic opportunities to be realised from improving the way
  890W
  that waste streams are managed. For example, less wasteful product design and manufacturing processes will translate directly into cost savings for business. New waste technologies and services can also provide new markets for UK businesses and generate significant revenue. If local authorities are to meet their recycling and landfill targets, for example, investment will be needed in alternative recycling/treatment facilities.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans the Government has to increase the national minimum wage; [124459]

  (2) what plans the Government has to extend the national minimum wage to those aged 18–21. [124460]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government accepted the increases to the minimum wage rates recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission in their fourth report earlier this year. Regulations to increase the adult rate of the minimum wage from £4.20 to £4.50 and the youth rate (paid to workers aged 18 to 21 inclusive) from £3.60 to £3.80 in October 2003 were recently laid before Parliament and will be debated before the summer recess.

  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she estimates the financial cost to UK business would be if 16 and 17-year-olds received the same level of minimum wage as those 18 and above. [125183]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government have agreed that the Low Pay Commission should look at the possible advantages and disadvantages of a minimum wage rate for 16 to 17-year-old workers, and to report on this issue by the end of February 2004.

  The cost to business will be one of the many issues the Commission will want to consider. The Commission will be conducting their work in parallel with a wider Government review (led by the Treasury) which will be looking at education and training policy and the system of financial support for young people. The Commission will work closely with relevant Departments, so that the two pieces of work can inform each other and the Government will obviously be looking at this issue very carefully next spring.

  Post Boxes
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the proposed replacement of signs on post boxes with ones that do not indicate whether the last collection from each post box has happened; and if she will make it her policy to convey those representations to the Royal Mail. [124057]

  Mr. Timms
  A number of Members of Parliament have written to me about the changes to the information shown on collection plates on post boxes. These changes are an operational matter for Royal Mail Group plc. I have asked the Deputy Chairman of Royal Mail to reply direct to the hon. Member about these changes.
  891W
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she estimates the cost will be of the replacement by the Royal Mail of the information signs on post boxes brought about by the requirement of the Discrimination Disability Act 1995. [124058]

  Mr. Timms
  The changes to the information signs on post boxes to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is an operational matter for Royal Mail. I have, therefore, asked the Deputy Chairman of Royal Mail to reply to your question direct.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes the Post Office has made to the number of collections from post boxes each day in the past two years. [124191]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an operational matter for Royal Mail Group plc and I have therefore asked the Deputy Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Rail Network
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to business of the change in performance of the national railway network since 1999; and if she will make a statement. [124734]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have made no such estimate though the Department remains keenly interested in business views on all aspects of infrastructure.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to increase research and development in the manufacturing sector. [124462]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are helping to increase research and development (R&D) in the manufacturing sector through the introduction of a R&D tax credit for small and medium sized companies, and more recently a R&D tax credit for large companies. DTI, HM Treasury and the Inland Revenue will shortly be consulting on an improved definition of R&D, and further simplifications and improvements to the R&D tax credits.

  Solar/Clear Skies Funds
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of Stage for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the uptake of(a) the DTI solar fund and (b) the clear skies fund since their introduction. [124817]

  Mr. Timms
  The PV Major Demonstration Programme has, in Streams one and two, grants committed totalling £10.14 million.

  These breakdown as follow:

  Stream 1–298 grants offered with a committed value of £2.35 million, of which 108 installations have been completed at a total cost of £754,000.

  Stream 2–66 grants offered with a committed value of £7.8million.

  The Clear Skies initiative has just approved 22 Community grants with a committed value of £490,000.
  892W
  Individual householder approved grants total 237, with a committed value of £169,900.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to extend the scope of the(a) DTI solar fund and (b) the clear skies fund. [124818]

  Mr. Timms
  Both the PV Major Demonstration Programme and Clear Skies are schemes that have role to play in helping to breakdown barriers to public acceptability of renewable technologies, by providing local residents with a direct benefit from renewable developments.

  The extensive interest and take-up of both schemes indicate the great strides already achieved by both. Further consultation and evaluation will be taking place in the lifetime of each to inform any decision on the extension of either or both schemes.

  Trade Rules
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to secure(a) fairness, (b) transparency and (c) democracy in the application of trade rules. [124374]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Government is committed to ensuring that the multilateral rules-based international trading system, embodied in the World Trade Organisation (WTO),continues to work on a fair, transparent, and democratic basis.

  All decisions within the WTO are already taken on the basis of consensus. That means that if any one of the WTO's 146 members opposes any proposed change it cannot be implemented.

  The UK played a major part in pushing for changes to the way WTO negotiations were conducted after the Seattle Ministerial Conference in 1999. The UK also supports greater external transparency for the organisation, and important steps to achieving this have been taken through the earlier release of documents.

  We recognise that developing countries may need assistance in order to be able to participate more effectively in the WTO-based system. The UK has therefore committed £45 million for trade-related technical assistance and capacity building initiatives since 1998.

  The UK also recognises that not all WTO members can implement all WTO rules now. This is why we support an approach to the current round of trade negotiations which recognises that WTO members are at very different stages of development and have different capacities to implement WTO rules. To help countries to manage their commitments under the WTO, we are pressing for Special and Differential Treatment provisions within the WTO Agreements to be real and binding, and for any new WTO rules to reflect countries' implementation capacities.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the members of the World Trade Organisation are from developing countries; and how many developing countries are seeking to join the organisation. [124375]
  893W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The World Trade Organisation (WTO) currently has 146 Members. 106 of those countries can be defined as Developing Countries (based on the World Bank's definition—there is no single agreed definition of 'Developing Country' within the WTO Agreements). Least Developed Countries (LDCs) account for 30 of those 106 countries.

  On the same basis, 25 of the 27 countries currently negotiating to join the WTO can be defined as Developing Countries. 10 of these are LDCs.

  UK Online
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which wards and programmes within Sefton have benefited from UK Online; and if she will make a statement. [124382]

  Mr. Timms
  There are thirty UK online centres which have been set up in the borough of Sefton, to provide people within the borough with access to Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

  Thirteen of these centres are located in the Sefton ward of Litherland, five in Cambridge, four in Church, three in St Oswald, two in Harington and one in each of the wards of Sudell, Ainsdale and Birkdale.

  Eight of the centres located within Litherland and one within Church were set up to specifically target people from disadvantaged community groups. Capital funding was provided (administered through the Department for Education and Skills—DfES) from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF). In addition revenue funding was provided from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF). In total, within the Sefton area up to £226,000 from the CMF was provided to contribute to building and ICT equipment costs and £89,000 was provided by NOF to help with revenue and running costs.

  Additionally, UK Online for Business has established two e-business clubs run by British Chambers of Commerce and private partnerships, which serve the Sefton area. The Merseyside third sector technology centre (3TC) aims to make Information and Communication Technology accessible to voluntary and Community Organisations across Merseyside; the Merseyside eBusiness Club (MERIT NW Ltd) offers free impartial advice and information on how eBusiness and ICT can improve efficiency and profitability, and reduce costs to local businesses within the Sefton area.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and skills pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1067W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122989]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.
  894W
  The presence of asbestos is currently recorded in the following buildings occupied by the Department of Health, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies where it has responsibility for the building or building fabric:
  Department of Health (Wellington House, SE1; Eileen House, SE1; Hannibal House, SE1; Richmond House, SW1; Market Towers, SW8; Premier Buildings, Nelson).
  Agencies: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (Bristol Avenue, Blackpool).
  Non-departmental public bodies: National Radiological Protection Board (Chilton, Oxfordshire); National Biological Standards Board (Porton Down).

  As part of our preparations for the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, we continue to identify where in our buildings asbestos is present, to assess the risk and take appropriate action.

  Basic Educational Skills
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) men and (b) women in (i) the UK and (ii) Sefton lack basic (1) reading, (2) writing and (3) mathematics skills. [124137]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The International Adult Literacy Survey in 1996 suggested that in Great Britain' there are 3.8 million men (21 per cent.) and 4.1million women (22 per cent.) between the ages of 16 and 65 who performed at the lowest level in literacy and 3.2 million men (18 per cent.) and 5.2 million women (29 per cent.) who performed at the lowest level in numeracy. The Department does not have available regional or local level statistics on literacy and numeracy levels.

  The Department has commissioned a new representative sample survey of working age adults in England to provide an up-to-date assessment of the scale of literacy and numeracy need. These estimates will be mapped to the new national basic skills standards, will allow analysis by Government Office Region, and will be published in autumn 2003.

  IALS data are not available for the UK.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what responsibilities his Department undertakes in connection with British Overseas Territories. [123897]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department for Education and Skills does not have any direct responsibilities concerning the Overseas Territories. However, the Department has offered to provide them with general guidance on requests for specific information on education and training policies within the UK.

  Child Care
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has made to Ofsted about their instructions to inspectors o1 nurseries and childminders to keep to a quota of 10 per cent. categorised as good. [123750]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 9 July 2003]: No representations have been made to Ofsted on this matter. As this is a matter for Ofsted, Her Majesty's

  895W
  Chief Inspector of Schools, David Bell, will write to the hon. Gentleman and a copy of his letter will be placed it the Library.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU advisory committee on vocational training, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110281]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The Advisory Committee on Vocational Training (ACVT) does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states.

  (b) The Committee usually meets once every Presidency and has met three times since January 2002; on 23–24 May 2002, 30–31 October 2002 and 5–6 June 2003.

  (c) Since January 2002 the following agenda items have been considered:

  ACVT 23–24 May 2002

  Follow-up to the Barcelona European Council

  Establishment of the Guidance Forum

  Lifelong Learning: follow-up to the Commission Communication.

  Commission Communication on an Action Plan for Skills and Mobility COM(2002)72 Final

  Recognition and transparency: new approach; Transparency Forum; European Curriculum Vitae

  Forum on the quality of vocational training

  European portal on learning opportunities

  Implementation Report on the "Europass Training" Decision and evaluation plan 1999/51/EC

  ACVT 30–31 October 2002

  The working methods of the ACVT.

  An increased European cooperation in vocational education and training: an integrated approach (the "Bruges" initiative).

  Mandate of the transparency working group.

  15-year olds achieving five grades A*-C at GCSE or equivalent

  Percentage

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Excluding GNVQ

  43.5

  44.5

  45.0

  46.1

  47.7

  48.8

  49.4

  50.2

  Including GNVQ

  43.5

  44.5

  45.1

  46.3

  47.9

  49.2

  50.0

  51.6

  As we announced in Opportunity and Excellence we are committed to greater vocational learning for pupils and students during the 14–19 period.

  Key Stage 2 Tests
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Level 4 pass mark was for the Key Stage Two tests in(a) English and (b) Mathematics in each year from 1997 to 2002; and if he will make a statement. [123964]
  896W
  Mandate of the credit transfer working group.

  Priorities for future work on the quality of vocational training, including the mandate of the technical working group on quality.

  Preparation of the new generation of programmes in the field of education and training.

  Taking stock of five years of the European Employment Strategy.

  ACVT 5–6 June 2003
  The draft new Rules of the Advisory Committee on Vocational Training.
  Preliminary information on the future rules of procedure.
  Status report on the "objectives" process.
  Progress report on the mapping exercise of sectoral qualifications currently being prepared by Cedefop;
  Evaluation and development of the project "Professionalisation durable".
  New employment guidelines.
  Occupational Health and Safety and its mainstreaming into education and training.
  Proposed approach to support the development of sectoral qualifications, including the role of ACVT.
  Outline of a draft proposal for a decision setting up a European framework for the transparency of competences and qualifications ("Europass II").
  New generation of programmes: results of the consultation process and state of play on the preparation of proposals.

  (d/e) ACVT was set up to offer advice and submit opinions to the European Commission on vocational training policy. It does not have the power to make decisions. Its advice and opinions are addressed to the European Commission which provides the secretarial service to the Committee. The Commission publishes an annual report on the workings of its committees. The latest (second) report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2003 (Com (2003) 5060).

  Examination Results
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students gained five A*-C grades(a) excluding and (b) including GNVQ results in each year between 1995 and 2002; and if he will make a statement. [123963]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of 15 year olds achieving five grades A*-C at GCSE or equivalent from 1995 to 2002 are shown in the table below.

  Mr. Miliband
  The threshold mark for Level 4 at Key Stage Two in each year between 1997 and 2002 was as follows:

  Level 4 pass marks for Key Stage Two tests

  English

  Mathematics

  2002

  49

  49

  2001

  50

  49

  2000

  49

  50

  1999

  48

  52

  1998

  51

  52

  1997

  52

  40

  897W
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is responsible for the development and administration of the National Curriculum tests on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is a process in place, the level setting exercise, to ensure standards are maintained year on year. The level thresholds are the range of marks needed to achieve a particular level in the National Curriculum tests.

  The test development processes used by QCA include trials of written questions that are improved and finalised before administration. The pre-testing establishes comparability across key stages and across years. The technical information collected by these stages is considered alongside other evidence in order to set levels that are consistent from year to year.

  The confirmation of the final level thresholds takes the form of a meeting chaired by QCA and attended by representatives from the test development agencies, chief markers, QCA officers, researchers and statisticians, representatives from professional associations and independent academics and observers.

  The Government are satisfied that the quality control procedures in place for test development and level setting are thorough and rigorous. In July 1999, an Independent Scrutiny Panel, chaired by Jim Rose, considered QCA's arrangements for setting and maintaining the standards of the Key Stage Two English and mathematics tests. The Rose Review report validated the development procedures and confirmed that the test data from Key Stage Two was a reliable measure of pupil attainment.

  Key Stage 3 Tests
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Level 4 pass mark for Key Stage 3 tests in(a) English and (b) mathematics was in each year since 1997. [124156]

  Mr. Miliband
  The threshold mark for Level 4 in the Key Stage 3 tests in(a) English and (b) mathematics between 1997 and 2003 are as follows:

  English

  Mathematics Tier 3–5

  Mathematics Tier 4–6

  Mathematics Tier 5–7

  2003

  16

  68

  30

  26

  2002

  20

  66

  33

  31

  2001

  21

  67

  32

  31

  2000

  20

  69

  33

  32

  1999

  22

  69

  32

  30

  1998

  25

  72

  32

  31

  1997

  19

  54

  28

  24

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is responsible for the development and administration of the National Curriculum tests on behalf of the Secretary of State. There is a process in place, the level setting exercise, to ensure standards are maintained year on year. The level thresholds are the range of marks needed to achieve a particular level in the National Curriculum tests.

  The test development processes used by QCA include trials of written questions that are improved and finalised before administration. The pre-testing establishes comparability across key stages and across
  898W
  years. The technical information collected by these stages is considered alongside other evidence in order to set levels that are consistent from year to year.

  The confirmation of the final level thresholds takes the form of a meeting chaired by QCA and attended by representatives from the test development agencies, chief markers, QCA officers, researchers and statisticians, representatives from professional associations and independent academics and observers.

  The Government are satisfied that the quality control procedures in place for test development and level setting are thorough and rigorous. In July 1999, an Independent Scrutiny Panel, chaired by Jim Rose, considered QCA's arrangements for setting and maintaining the standards of the Key Stage 2 English and mathematics tests. The Rose Review report validated the development procedures and confirmed that the test data from Key Stage 2 were a reliable measure of pupil attainment.

  School Buildings (The Wrekin)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on(a) development and (b) repair of school buildings in The Wrekin in each year since 1997. [124612]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills does not collect this information but it should be available from the LEA.

  School Rolls
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reform the method of calculation for projected school rolls to include estimated migration as well as birth rate. [124326]

  Mr. Miliband
  National pupil projections, a summary of which is published in the Department for Education and Skills' Departmental Report each year, already take account of estimated migration.

  The projections take account of several factors, including the results of the schools census for pupil numbers, expected trends in participation for children outside statutory school ages, and the latest population projections produced by the Government Actuary's Department. These population projections take account of long-term trends in fertility, mortality, and net migration.

  Separate assessments are not available for the different factors affecting the national pupil projections.

  Statistics (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people resident in the London Borough of Wandsworth are(a) further and (b) higher education students. [123311]

  Alan Johnson
  The question asks about the London Borough of Wandsworth. Figures are available for Wandsworth Local Education Authority (LEA). However, for LEAs within Greater London, it is only possible to give the number of entrants to undergraduate courses rather than the total number of people attending higher education institutions.

  In 2000/01, 19,000 people resident in Wandsworth LEA attended further education (FE) sector colleges.

  In 2001/02, around 1,600 people resident In Wandsworth were accepted onto full time undergraduate courses.

  Student Recruitment
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 7 July, ref 122817, on recruitment of students, from which geographical areas funds will be distributed to higher education institutions. [125000]

  Alan Johnson
  This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. John Harwood, the Chief Executive of the Funding Council will reply to this and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Teenage Education
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what he is doing to improve the education and information available to teenagers in state funded schools with regard to(a) sexually transmitted diseases, (b) alcohol, (c) drugs and (d) smoking cigarettes. [123593]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Education about sexually transmitted infections (STIs), drugs, alcohol and tobacco is delivered through the framework for Personal

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

  programme and region

  Financial year of leavind/Outcome

  South East

  London

  East of England

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  North East

  England

  1997–98

  In a job

  (AMA)

  81

  79

  84

  82

  79

  82

  78

  77

  78

  80

  (FMA)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (OT)

  73

  57

  71

  68

  67

  68

  62

  63

  57

  65

  (WBLYP)

  74

  62

  73

  71

  70

  70

  65

  65

  60

  68

  1998–99

  In a job

  (AMA)

  84

  82

  85

  86

  82

  84

  80

  80

  78

  82

  (FMA)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (OT)

  70

  55

  74

  71

  66

  66

  59

  62

  55

  64

  (WBLYP)

  74

  62

  77

  75

  69

  70

  65

  67

  61

  69

  1999–2000

  In a job

  (AMA)

  87

  81

  87

  87

  84

  85

  83

  82

  81

  84

  (FMA)

  70

  66

  72

  69

  67

  71

  69

  64

  63

  68

  (OT)

  71

  49

  71

  70

  63

  66

  58

  61

  53

  62

  (WBLYP)

  77

  63

  77

  75

  70

  72

  67

  69

  62

  70

  900W
  Social and Health Education and compulsory Science lessons.

  We have taken a range of measures to improve the education and information about STIs and drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, in schools. We have made available £17.5 million this year to support drug, alcohol and tobacco education in schools. From April 2001, we have supported the appointment of Schools Drug Advisors to help schools deliver drug education tailored to the needs of pupils. We are supporting a range of continuing professional development opportunities to support teachers and other professionals who deliver effective drug education and education about STIs. We have commissioned practical guidance for teachers on HIV and STIs to support coverage of these issues. We, together with the Home Office and the Department of Health, are also supporting a national five-year research programme called "Blueprint" which will test the effectiveness of drug education initiatives in schools.

  Vocational Training
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire completing a vocational training course have obtained employment within three months in the last three years. [123915]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Because figures are estimated from surveys, information is only available for those leaving government supported work based learning for young people (WBLYP), by region (rather than by parliamentary constituency) and for those in a job six (not three) months after leaving learning. The percentages of learners on WBLYP in all regions (see specifically the South East), who were in a job six months after leaving are shown in the following table. The information in the table relates to all leavers and is taken from a postal survey sent to each learner six months after leaving the programme. The latest year for which figures are available is 2000–01. Percentages of survey respondents who were in a job six months after leaving a period of government supported training by financial year, programme and region.
  901W

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

  programme and region

  Financial year of leaving/Outcome

  South East

  London

  East England

  South West

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  North West

  North East

  England

  2000–01

  In a job

  (AMA)

  87

  83

  89

  90

  84

  87

  87

  85

  84

  86

  (FMA)

  75

  68

  73

  71

  66

  70

  68

  67

  60

  69

  (OT)

  73

  44

  66

  71

  56

  63

  58

  62

  51

  61

  (WBLYP)

  79

  67

  78

  79

  69

  73

  69

  73

  64

  72

  Key:

  AMA—Advanced Modern Apprenticeships

  FMA—Foundation Modern Apprenticeships

  OT—Other Training

  WBLYP—Work Based Learning for Young People

  Source:

  DfES Statistical First release 14/2002

  Young People Statistics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds were not in education, employment or training in each year since 1997. [124271]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: The numbers and percentages of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training (NEET) for 1997 to 2001 (as at end of calendar year) are set out in the table. The figures for end 2001 are provisional.

  16 to 18-year-olds NEET in England

  End

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  1997

  170

  9

  1998

  183

  10

  1999

  156

  9

  2000

  172

  9

  2001

  173

  9

  Source:

  These estimates are taken from the latest annual statistical first release, "SFR 16/2002: Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16 to 18 Year Olds in England: 2000 and 2001".

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Carbon Savings (Micro CHP)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role she expects micro CHP to play up to 2010 in achieving the planned carbon savings. [123489]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  New technologies such as micro-CHP which are not yet available commercially have the potential to deliver carbon savings but are not expected to make a significant contribution towards carbon emission reductions up to 2010, although the contribution could be much more significant in the longer term. The 2002 draft CHP Strategy anticipated that micro-CHP may provide 400MW towards achievement of the Government's target of 10,000 MW of installed Good Quality CHP by 2010, but the exact amount of installed capacity will depend on a wide range of variables.

  Emissions (Sellafield)
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures 902W
  the Government are taking to reduce emissions of radioactive waste from the Sellafield plant; what levels of technetium-99 are considered safe for human consumption; and what the scientific basis is for this assessment. [122192]

  Mr. Morley
  the nature and quantities of radioactive waste that may be discharged from any site are controlled by the Environment Agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. In November 1999, Ministers asked the Environment Agency to carry out a full-scale review of all radioactive discharges from the Sellafield site, and to report on technetium-99 in advance of the main review. The Agency's proposed decisions were published in August 2002 and are currently under consideration by the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Health. The Agency proposed no increases in discharge limits above the current limits and reductions to eight out of 10 of the aerial and half the liquid discharge limits.

  There are no statutory limits for technetium-99 in food. The Food Standards Agency estimates the radiation dose that a consumer would receive from consuming affected food and compares that estimate to the dose received from natural sources and the statutory dose limit of lmSv/year from all man-made sources of radioactivity other than medical exposure. Assessments carried out by both the Environment Agency and the Food Standards Agency for the EA's review of Tc-99 indicated that, at the current discharge limit, the annual radiation dose from Tc-99 to the group of people most exposed to liquid discharges from the Sellafield site (i.e. local seafood consumers) is of the order of 0.02–0.03 mSv/year. Concerns would be raised if the technetium-99 present in food added significantly to the background dose or caused doses to approach the dose limit.

  Agricultural Waste Regulations
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Agricultural Waste Regulations to come into operation. [124458]

  Mr. Morley
  We are preparing the Regulations necessary to apply the Waste Framework Directive's controls to those types of agricultural waste which are not excluded from the Directive's scope by Article 2.
  903W
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) is also being prepared. This work is being carried out in consultation with the Agricultural Waste Stakeholders' Forum whose terms of reference etc. are available on its website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/agforum/index.htm

  On completion, the draft Regulations and RIA will be issued for a 12 week public consultation period. A firm date for publication of the consultation paper has not yet been set but our aims are to publish it in the Autumn and for the Regulations to come into operation in early 2004.

  Animal Welfare
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are in place to enable consumers to identify food produced under high animal welfare standards. [122647]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Comprehensive legislation exists to protect the welfare of all farmed animals. There are also species-specific welfare codes. There are no legislative arrangements planned or in place specifically to identify on food products the welfare conditions under which animals have been reared and slaughtered, although voluntary schemes do exist.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 286W, on asbestos, if she will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122973]

  Alun Michael
  My response of 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 286W, set out the actions that Defra, its Agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002.

  A list of buildings occupied by staff of the Department, and which are known to contain asbestos, is listed as follows:
  Nac, Stoneleigh, Kenilworth, Warwickshire CV8 2LG
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Kendal Road, Harlescott, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY1 4HD
  VLA Regional Laboratory, The Elms, College Road, Sutton Bonnington, Loughborough, Notts LE12 5RB
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Barton Hall, Garstang Road, Garstang, Preston, Lancs PRI 3UP
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS18 7DX
  Staplake Mount, Starcross, Exeter, Devon EX6 8PE
  SVS Workshop, Truro Road, Polwhele, Truro, Cornwall TR4 9AD
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Truro Road, Polwhele, Truro, Cornwall TR4 9AD
  VLA Woodham Lane, New Haw, Addlestone, Surrey KT15 3NB
  Former Plant Pathology Laboratory, Hatching Green Drive, Harpenden, Herts AL5 2BD
  VLA Laboratory, West House, Station Road, Thirsk, North Yorks YO7 1PZ
  904W
  Cefas Radiobiological Laboratory, The Harbour West Pier, Whitehaven, Cumbria CA28 7LY
  Cefas Laboratory, Pakefiloed Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT
  Cefas Laboratory, Remembrance Avenue, Burnham-on-Crouch, Essex CHO 2BD
  Cefas Laboratory, Barrack Road, Weymouth. Dorset DT4 8UB
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Merrythought, Calthwaite, Penrith Cumbria CA11 9RR
  The Custom House, 1 Old Market Place, Whitby, North Yorks Y021 3BT
  Blocks 6 and 7, Government Buildings, Chalfont Drive, Nottingham, Notts NG8 3SN
  Government Buildings, Cop Lane, Penwortham, Preston, Lancs PR1 0SP
  Whitehall, Monkmoor Road, Shrewsbury, Shropshire SY2 5AJ
  Woodthorne, Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV6 8TQ
  Government Buildings, Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2LG
  Princess House, Queen Street, Barnstaple, Devon EX32 8HE
  Government Buildings, Burghill Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol BS10 6YW
  Government Offices, Prince of Wales Road, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1PY
  Quantock House, Paul Street, Taunton, Somerset TA1 3NX
  Martlett House, St. John's Street, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1UH
  Government Buildings, Uplands, 98 Epsom Road, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2LD
  Block A, Government Buildings, Coley Park, Reading, Berks RG1 6DT
  Government Buildings, 100 Southgate Street, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk IP33 2AF
  Government Offices, Beeches Road, Chelmsford, Essex CM1 2RU
  Chequers Court, St. Germaine Street, Huntingdon, Cambs PE18 6LT
  Vancouver House, County Court Road, Kings Lynn, Norfolk PE30 5EH
  Middlecott House, 24 Willington Road, Kirton, Boston, Lincs PE20 1EJ
  122A Thorpe Road, Norwich, Norfolk NR1 1RN
  Lion House, Willowburn Trading Estate, Alnwick, Northumberland NE66 2PF
  Edenbridge House, Lowther Street, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 8DX
  Government Buildings, Otley Road, Lawnswood, Leeds, West Yorks LS16 5PY
  Agricola House, Gilwilly Trading Estate, Penrith, Cumbria CA11 9BU
  3–8 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2HH
  55 Whitehall, Westminster, London SW1A 2EY
  Eastbury House, 30–34 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TL
  Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3HX
  Bradley Chambers, 26 London Street, Fleetwood, Lancs FY7 6JG
  SVS Wildlife Unit, Aston Down, Stroud, Gloucs GL6 8HT
  Longacre House, Frome Road, Trowbridge, Wilts BA14 0DQ
  Unit 1C, Western International Market, Hayes Road, Heston, Uxbridge, London UB2 5XJ

  905W
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Itchen Abbas, Winchester, Hants SO21 1BU
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Whitley Road, Longbenton, Tyne and Wear, Newcastle NE12 9SE
  Olantigh Road, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5EL
  3rd and 4th Floors, 19–29 Woburn Place, London WC1H 0LU
  Drayton EHF, Alcester Road, Stratford-on-Avon, Warwickshire CV37 9RQ
  Fish Market, Rock a Nore Road, Hastings, East Sussex TN34 3D
  Chorley West Business Park, Unit 6, Ackhurst Road, Chorley, Lancs
  Lumford Mill, Riverside Walk, Bakewell, Derbyshire DE45 1GS
  Neville House, Bell Street, Liddell Street, North Shields, Tyne and Wear NE30 1HN
  Hadrian House, 6 Wavell Drive, Rosehill Business Park, Carlisle, Cumbria CA1 2ST
  Copthall House, Station Square, Coventry, West Midlands CV1 2FA
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Jobs Well Lane, Carmarthen
  VLA Regional Laboratory, Buarth Road, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 1ND
  Liberty House, Bell Street, Reigate, Surrey RH2 7JB
  Government Buidings, Ty Glas, Llanishen, Cardiff
  Crown Buildings, Spa Road, Llandrindod Wells, Powys LD1 5HA
  Clyst House, Winslade Park, Clyst St. Mary, Exeter, Devon, EX5 1DY
  Chapel Bank Works, Curwen Road, Workington, Cumbria CA14
  Room 516, Trelawny House, The Dock, Felixstowe, Suffolk, IP11 8SB
  St. George's Business Centre, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO1 3EZ
  Coniston Buildings, 55 Adams Road, Workington, Cumbria CA14 3YS
  The Residence, 749 Beacon Road, Heathrow Airport, Heathrow, Middlesex TW6 3JF
  Unit 7, West Cumbria Business Park, Workington, Cumbria
  Thistledown Farm, Nympsfield Road, Nympsfield, Gloucs GL1O 3UL
  Cromwell House, Dean Stanley Street, London, Westminster SW1 4JN
  Unit 1, Saw Mills End, Corinium Avenue, Barnwood, Gloucs GL4 3DE
  9 Millbank, Westminster, London SW1P 3GE
  Beacon House, Unit G, University Court, Technology Park, Stafford, Staffs ST18 OGU
  Kings House, 33 Kings Road, Reading RG1 3BU
  40 Caversham Road, Reading, Berks RG1 7BT
  Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle NE4 7YE
  Unit 4d, Paddock Road Industrial Estate, Caversham, Reading RG4 5BY
  Pilots Watch House, Basin Road South, Shoreham, East Sussex
  64A The Strand, Newlyn, Cornwall
  Former Buffer Depot, Nant Alyn Road, Rhydymwyn, near Mold, Flintshire CH7 5HQ.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the Government meeting their target of 906W
  halting the decline in biodiversity by 2010; and what part she intends that the UK's system of local wildlife sites will play in helping to meet that target. [124249]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The targets we have set under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) help us to understand the progress we are making towards the global target of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The lead partners for the species and habitat action plans and the local partnerships reported on progress with their plans at the end of 2002 and the results have now been analysed. The emerging findings were reported to the first annual conference of the UK Biodiversity Partnership held in Perth on 21 May 2003.

  The analysis shows mixed progress. There are some very good signs of progress for some species and habitats including the otter, the dormouse, bittern, reedbeds and cereal field margins. Others, such as limestone pavements, and the natterjack toad are more disappointing, and one species of lichen appears to have disappeared from its last remaining site as a result of air pollution.

  Overall we believe that the targeted, partnership approach adopted by the UKBAP structure is working, albeit in some cases more slowly than we had hoped. Full details can be found on the UKBAP web site at http://ukbap.org.uk.

  'Working with the Grain of Nature—A biodiversity strategy for England' published in October 2002 sets out the measures we are taking in England to implement the UKBAP. The strategy aims to ensure that the implications for biodiversity are considered as an integral part of other key policies, such as agriculture, water, forestry, urban and marine, and as part of people's everyday lives. A set of biodiversity indicators for the strategy will be published later this year.

  The strategy also recognises the importance of partnership working for biodiversity at the local and regional level. Since 1995 around 100 local biodiversity partnerships have been established throughout England and are helping to deliver national and local biodiversity targets and objectives. Local wildlife sites provide important wildlife refuges, link different habitats and help to maintain biodiversity as a whole. They are an important mechanism available to local biodiversity partnerships.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what responsibilities her Department undertakes in connection with British Overseas Territories. [123901]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Overseas Territories Department in Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the lead Department for the Overseas Territories (OTs), but the Department works closely with other Departments, especially the FCO, to ensure that the interests of OTs are appropriately integrated into the UK position, for example, when negotiating Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and in making arrangements for UK ratification of MEAs. Defra will also provide advice on best practice when requested by local OT governments.

  Ceramics Industry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the ceramics industry concerning the Water Bill; and if she will make a statement. [124191]

  Mr. Morley
  I have not received any representations from the ceramics industry since the Water Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 February 2003.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government has for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [123686]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government will be consulting shortly on the options available for reforming the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy in the UK, following the agreement reached at the Agriculture Council on 26 June.

  The Government are keen to press ahead as well with reforms to the sugar, tobacco, olive oil and cotton regimes and with reviews of the wine and fruit and vegetable regimes of the CAP. We await the European Commission's proposals for these sectors, which it has indicated it will bring forward in the autumn.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she estimates the UK's contribution to the CAP will be affected by the accession of 10 new EU members. [123752]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The UK contributes to the EC budget as a whole and not to the CAP specifically. The costs of extending the CAP to the new member states have been limited by respect for the Berlin expenditure ceilings for enlargement-related expenditure for the period 2004 to 2006. The Copenhagen European Council agreed 40.85 billion euros (1999 prices) over 2004–06 for the 10 new member states, well within the enlargement-related ceiling set by the 1999 Berlin European Council for sixs potential members. Of this, a total of 9.8 billion euros was agreed for agriculture.

  For the period 2007–13, the Brussels European Council in October 2002 set ceilings for CAP market support and direct payments. The Commission estimate that for the new member states, direct payments and market support will cost 6.3 billion euros in 2013. However, such expenditure for the EU 25 has been limited in nominal terms to annual growth of 1 per cent. per year from 2006. This is an important constraint on market distorting subsidies. It means that, notwithstanding accession, the cost of CAP direct support should fall in real terms. Rural development ceilings have yet to be determined for the years 2007 onwards.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting. [117231]
  908W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department does not hold information in the form requested prior to 1999. The information is not held centrally nor electronically and could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  On four occasions since 1999, this Department and its predecessors abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal, which was then passed by qualified majority voting. A list of the regulations and the dates the UK abstained are as follows:

  April 1999:

  Council Regulation 6422/99—amending Regulation (EC) No. 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.

  December 1999:

  Council Regulation 13613/99 amending Regulation (EC) No. 1251/99 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops.

  Council Regulation 13255/99 (Corrigendum 1) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector.

  October 2001:

  Council Regulation 11978/01 amending Regulation (EC) No. 723/97 on the implementation of member states' action programmes on control of EAGGF Guarantee Section Expenditure.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if she will list the legislation by year. [117248]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department does not hold information in the form requested prior to 1999. This information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  On three occasions since 1999 this Department and its predecessors has been outvoted by qualified majority voting. A list of the relevant legislation by year is as follows:

  2000:

  Council Regulation 8942/00—fixing certain sugar prices and the standard quality of beet for the 2000–01 marketing year.

  Council Regulation 13657/00—amending Regulation (EC) No. 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, Regulation (EC) No. 2201/96 on the common organisation of the market in processed fruit and vegetables and Regulation (EC) No. 2202/96 introducing a community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits.

  2001:

  Council Regulation 14442/00—amending Regulation (EC) No. 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116078]
  909W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Membership of EU committees and working parties is not fixed and numbers will vary from meeting to meeting of the same committee depending on the subject matter and the need for particular expertise. This Department does not hold central records of the number of policy officials who attend EU committees and working parties. The information could be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee for the implementation of legislation on ambient air quality assessment and management, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110297]

  Alun Michael
  The committee for the implementation of legislation on ambient air assessment and management does not have a fixed membership, but consists of representatives from each of the European member states. I understand that meetings of the committee are called by the commission as and when required and that there have been no meetings of the committee since Defra came into being in June 2001. The nature of the Committee's decisions will determine the means by which they are communicated to the House.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department over the last five years. [120848]

  Alun Michael
  Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for implementation in national law.

  The total number of EC Council Regulations made in areas covered by this Department and its predecessors over each of the last five years is estimated to be:

  Number of EC Council Regulations

  Regulations

  1999

  42

  2000

  28

  2001

  41

  2002

  42

  2003 (up to and including June)

  19

  It should be noted that many of these are small or technical regulations to amend, implement or indeed repeal existing measures.

  Details of all Regulations adopted can be found on the Eur-Lex database available on the European Union's website.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit
  910W
  on the EU committee for the fisheries and aquaculture sector, (b) the number of times, and the dates, on which it has met since January 2002, (c) the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, (d) the decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110290]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture is the body in which the commission consults representatives of the EU fishery products and aquaculture industry, along with related interests such as consumers and environmentalists, and takes their views on the drafting and implementation of EU measures. It is not attended by officials of Her Majesty's Government, and it produces opinions rather than decisions or any other form of output which would need conveying to the House. Questions about the detailed work of the committee would be for the European Commission to answer.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what discussions she has had with biotech companies about liability in circumstances where genetically modified organisms are(a) proven and (b) suspected of being responsible for adverse human health or environmental outcomes; [122489]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the liability implications of the use of genetically modified organisms upon (a) Government Departments and (b) the biotech companies which produce GMUs. [122490]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra Ministers have not had any discussions with biotechnology companies specifically about liability for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). EU Member States have recently reached political agreement on an environmental liability directive that will cover the deliberate release of GMOs and contained use of microbiological GMOs in respect of damage to European protected species and natural habitat types. In this context, the relevant biotechnology company may be held liable for damage caused by one of its products. We will consider how the directive is to be implemented in the UK when the details have been finalised.

  The Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission is due to submit a report to Government this summer that explores the issue of liability in relation to GM crops. We will assess the implications of possible further action in this area in the light of that report, including any possible implications for Government Departments.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the antibiotics to which marker genes used in the production of genetically modified crops convey resistance, and the veterinary uses of antibiotics. [123450]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The following table lists antibiotic resistance marker genes (ARMs) present in genetically modified crops that have been released in the UK for research purposes. It also lists the antibiotics to which the marker genes convey resistance, and gives examples of how the antibiotics may be used in veterinary medicine.
  911W
  Of the antibiotics listed, kanamycin and hygromycin are not used in veterinary medicine in the UK. The remaining antibiotics—neomycin, ampicillin and amoxvcillin—are used in veterinary medicine in a range

  Gene

  Antibiotic

  Veterinary Use (examples)

  nptll or neo

  Kanamycin

  Not licensed in the UK

  Neomycin

  Treatment of bacterial skin infections, including dermatitis and eczema in cats and dogs.

  Treatment of enteritis in pigs and poultry.

  Bla

  Ampicillin

  Treatment of bacterial infections in cattle, pigs and sheep. Treatment of mastitis in cattle

  Amoxycillin

  Treatment of bacterial infections in cats and dogs. Treatment of respiratory and urogenital tract infection in cattle, pigs and sheep

  Hptll

  Hygromycin

  Not licensed in the UK

  The nptll gene is present in some GM crops already licensed for placing on the market in the EU.

  Applications to release or market genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the EU are subject to rigorous scrutiny and risk assessment under European Directive 2001/18. The Directive requires that GMOs containing ARMs are subject to a particularly high degree of scrutiny and if such a GMO was considered to have adverse effects on the environment it would not be authorised. This includes consideration of the implications for both human and veterinary medicines.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many completed feedback forms have been received from the GM Nation website. [124605]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2003]: As of 9 a.m. on 8 July 10,600 feedback forms had been completed via the GM Nation website.

  Graffiti
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [118089]

  Mr. Morley
  One option we included in the Defra-led consultation exercise "Living Places—Powers, Rights, Responsibilities" was to create a new duty on the owners of street furniture to keep their relevant property clear of graffiti and flyposting.

  We received a number of responses to the consultation exercise on this option from statutory undertakers, including British Telecom, NTL, Telewest Broadband and Adshel. All that responded were willing to discuss the issues with Government. Defra officials with Home Office colleagues are meeting British Telecom representatives shortly.

  Household Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on Government plans to investigate options for charging schemes for household waste with(a) the Local Government Association and (b) other stakeholders. [121980]
  912W
  of products (oral, injectables, ointments and drops) to treat conditions in a variety of animal species. Alternative products are also available.

  Mr. Morley
  In its response to the Strategy Unit report, the Government has undertaken to carry out further work before any decision is taken to enable local authorities to implement direct or variable charging for waste. This will look at the practicalities of operating schemes, how potential disadvantages could be overcome, and will analyse international experience of such schemes. The work will be carried out in co-operation with the Local Government Association and other stakeholders and will start this summer thus enabling Government to review its position on this in 2004.

  Issues to be addressed in the further work include

  (a) The potential concerns about the effects of pilot schemes:
  how to ensure that a local authority has facilities and services in place to help householders reduce or recycle waste (e.g. help with home composting, kerbside collection of separate materials for recycling) when they introduce a pilot scheme to ensure public support;
  how to make any charges equitable (e.g. reflect size of household and ability to pay);
  the enforcement issues to prevent waste tourism (householders using free/cheaper facilities in neighbouring authorities) and fly-tipping.

  (b) The practical and financial arrangements for schemes:
  what is the cost of introducing and administering schemes;
  how will any additional net revenue raised by pilot schemes be used;
  how will the financial arrangements for pilot schemes interact with other local authority funding for waste, council tax etc;
  what new legal powers are required.

  (c) The potential effectiveness of pilot schemes on reducing waste, increasing recycling etc.—drawing on international experience.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of barriers in terms of regulatory control to an increase in the composting of household waste. [122329]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal By-products Regulations 2003 came into force on 1 July and the previous ban on composting kitchen waste has been lifted and replaced by a registration/licensing system of facilities that wish to take part in this activity. The system is controlled by the state veterinary service and enforced by local
  913W
  authorities. The aim of the Regulations is to minimise the burdens on the composting industry while safeguarding animal and public health. Like all facilities involved with managing waste, large scale composting plants also require a waste management licence from the Environment Agency. Building new plants would require planning permission. These requirements do not in themselves create barriers, but allow facilities to be judged against environmental standards and local development plans.

  A large number of local authorities already compost garden waste and/or encourage home composting. We would expect the amount of waste that is composted or used in biogas production to increase once the ban on, composting kitchen waste is lifted.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the latest figures are for the proportion of organic household waste composted(a) in England and (b) in the North East; and what plans she has to increase the amount composted in the next five years. [122330]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001–02 the percentage of household waste composted in(a) England was 3.7 per cent. and in (b) the North East was 0.5 per cent.

  As part of the Government's response to the Strategy Unit's "Waste Not, Want Not" Report, the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) will take forward a number of waste minimisation schemes, including a home composting scheme to increase the number of households carrying out home composting and to promote the effectiveness of the composting carried out.

  WRAP will also set up a kerbside task force (the Recycling and Organics Technical Advisory Team—ROTATE) to work with local authorities to help maximise the potential of kerbside collection for all materials, particularly biodegradable organics. Alongside this, WRAP will implement an organics market development programme to provide material specific support and investment to the composting sector, to ensure sustainable and reliable markets are secured for the additional tonnage of organic material collected. Underpinning these activities, WRAP will implement an education and awareness programme. This will operate at both a national level, raising the general public's awareness of waste issues and the benefits of recycling, and at a local level, to support both local authority recycling (linked to ROTATE) and issue specific programmes relating to waste minimisation initiatives as outlined.

  In addition, the Animal By-products Regulations 2003 come into force on 1 July and the current ban on composting kitchen waste will then be lifted and replaced by a registration/licensing system of facilities that wish to take part in this activity. We would expect the amount of waste that is composted or used in biogas production to increase once the ban on composting kitchen waste is lifted.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports she 914W
  has received from the United Nations on the UK's performance in meeting its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. [124248]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK submits periodic national communications to the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These communications describe historical and projected greenhouse gas emissions, and are subject to review by international experts coordinated by the Secretariat to the Convention. These reviews are designed to provide the Conference of the Parties with a technical assessment of the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by individual Parties. The most recent UNFCCC review of the UK's Third National Communication took place in 2002. The report, published by the UNFCCC, concludes that the UK is likely to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

  The UNFCCC in depth review of the UK's Third National Communication is available online at: http:// unfccc.int/resource/docs/idr/gbr03.pdf

  Livestock Farms
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many livestock farms there are in England. [123319]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In June 2002, the Agricultural and Horticultural Census indicates there were nearly 67,000 agricultural holdings where the principal activity was livestock.

  Holdings in England 2002 by farm type

  Pigs and poultry

  6,991

  Dairy

  14,342

  Cattle and sheep in less favoured areas

  11,763

  Cattle and sheep lowland

  33,778

  Total

  66,874

  Note:

  There were 10,284 holdings classified as mixed farming which includes elements of livestock farming.

  The total number of holdings recording any livestock (pigs, cattle, sheep, poultry, farmed deer, goats or horses) in 2002 was nearly 108,000.

  Maritime Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what progress has been made towards reducing levels of radioactive discharges and of additional contamination in the marine environment by 2020; and if she will make a statement; [123744]

  (2) what the level was of radioactivity discharged into the marine environment by type and location in each year since 1998; [123745]

  (3) what progress the Government have made towards achieving reductions of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances as agreed during the 1998 meeting of environment Ministers at Sintra; [123746]

  (4) what the level of radioactive discharges from Sellafield has been in each of the last five years by type; and what the projected level is for the next five years. [123748]
  915W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: There have been large and sustained reductions in discharges of the most radiologically significant radionuclides in the last 25 years, particularly those resulting from reprocessing nuclear fuel, such that current discharges from that sector are currently just 1 per cent. of their peak levels in the 1970s. The Government are committed to achieving further reductions in discharges by 2020 in order to implement the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances, which was agreed by Ministers at Sintra in 1998. A UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges, 2001–20, was published in July 2002, which sets out how we shall achieve these further reductions and includes broad projections for future discharges from each sector of the nuclear industry. Key milestones are the cessation of Magnox fuel and uranium hexafluoride production at Springfields by 2006 and the end of Magnox fuel reprocessing at Sellafield by around 2012. The document is in the Library and is available on the Defra website at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ radioactivity/discharge/strategy/index.htm.

  Detailed information on radioactive discharges and environmental concentrations, by type of radionuclide and location, can be found in the annual publication, Radioactivity in Food and the Environment (RIFE), produced jointly by the Food Standards Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Copies are in the Library and the 2002 edition (containing data for 2001) is on the Food Standards Agency's website at: www.foodstandards.gov.uk/science/suveillance/radio/ 89684.

  The RIFE report for 2002 is due to be published shortly.

  Discharges of total alpha, total beta (excluding tritium) and tritium from Sellafield since 1998 were as follows (figures in TBq).

  Total alpha

  Total beta

  Tritium

  1998

  0.174

  85.9

  2,309

  1999

  0.133

  110

  2,520

  2000

  0.120

  77.0

  2,300

  2001

  0.202

  123

  2,600

  For Sellafield, projected discharges, as annualised five year averages, are as follows (figures in TBq per year).

  Period

  Total alpha

  Total beta

  Tritium

  2001–2005

  0.310

  165

  9,280

  2006–2010

  0.310

  104

  8,930

  2011–2015

  0.251

  75.1

  9,110

  2016–2020

  0.200

  53.7

  9,520

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111965]

  Alun Michael
  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 662W.
  916W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111986]

  Alun Michael
  Using a wide definition of mental health, including such issues as stress and alcoholism, 659 people out of the 10,568 staff employed in Defra took sick leave during 2002 due to mental health problems.

  The Department is committed to the effective support of staff and management of sickness absence as well as to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement for reducing sickness absence by the end of 2003. The Department is also committed to reducing the number of working days lost from work related injury and ill health, in response to the government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  The departmental response includes the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and Pesticides Safety Directorate Agencies. Responsibility for sickness absence within the Central Science Laboratory Agency, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Rural Payments Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency has been delegated to the Agency Chief Executives and I have asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from Professor Mike Roberts to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated May 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, with respect to the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning how many staff took sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year.
  In the calendar year 2002, a total of 26 CSL staff took sick leave for reasons that could justifiably be classified as 'mental health'.
  CSL has been successful in managing sickness absence through innovations such as recruiting a dedicated Occupational Health professional, running regular health awareness campaigns and carrying out all-staff health surveys. This has contributed to CSL achieving the Civil Service sickness absence target of 7.2 days per employee a year early.
  CSL remains closely aware of it's legal duty to provide a safe working environment for all it's employees and is committed both to operating best practice in this area and to meeting the targets set out in the 'Revitalising Health & Safety' initiative.

  Letter from Professor Steven Edwards to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated May 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many of her staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year.
  51 Staff in the VLA took sick leave during 2002 due to mental health problems.
  VLA is committed to the effective management of sickness absence and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement for reducing sickness absence by the end of 2003. We are also committed to reducing the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill health, in response to the government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sick days were lost over the last year by her Department through staff mental health problems. [112000]

  Alun Michael
  Out of a total of 2,324,960 potential calendar working days for staff in Defra 21,854 were lost during 2002 due to staff sickness with mental health problems. These figures include the Veterinary
  917W
  Medicines Directorate and Pesticides Safety Directorate Agencies. Responsibility for sickness absence within the Central Science Laboratory Agency, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, the Rural Payments Agency and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency has been delegated to the Agency Chief Executives and I have asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from Professor Mike Roberts to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated May 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, with respect to the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning how many sick days were lost by CSL due to staff mental health problems in the last year.
  In the calendar year 2002, CSL lost a total of 684 work days for reasons that could justifiably be classified as 'mental health'.
  CSL has been successful in managing sickness absence through innovations such as recruiting a dedicated Occupational Health professional, running regular health awareness campaigns and carrying out all-staff health surveys. This has contributed to CSL achieving the Civil Service sickness absence target of 7.2 days per employee a year early.
  CSL remains closely aware of it's legal duty to provide a safe working environment for all it's employees and is committed both to operating best practice in this area and to meeting the targets set out in the 'Revitalising Health & Safety' initiative.

  Letter from Professor Steven Edwards to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated May 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on how many sick days were lost over the last year by her department through staff mental health problems.
  3,002 calendar days were lost in the VLA during 2002 due to staff sickness with mental health problems.
  VLA is committed to the effective management of sickness absence and to meeting its Service Delivery Agreement for reducing sickness absence by the end of 2003. We are also committed to reducing the number of working days lost from work-related injury and ill health, in response to the government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  Letter from Peter Greig-Smith to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated May 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply to your questions regarding mental health problems. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).

  PQ 2872

  From the 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 28 members of staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems.

  PQ 2874

  From the 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 493 working days were lost through staff mental health problems.

  PQ 2875

  From the 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 Nil return for staff retiring on medical grounds due to mental health problems.

  CEFAS has successfully introduced a scheme for 'Return to Workplace' interviews and is fully committed to managing attendance effectively. We are on target for achieving the reduced levels of sickness absence we have set out for the Agency.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 26 March 2003:
  I have been asked to respond directly to your three recent Parliamentary Questions concerning mental health issues.
  I will address your first two questions together:
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year.
  918W
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems.
  Information on the number of staff who have taken sick leave due to mental health reasons and how many days were lost over the last year through staff mental health problems is not available for the Rural Payments Agency (RPA).
  RPA is a relatively new organisation formed in October 2001. As such we are still developing a computerised Personnel System to provide sickness absence data of the kind requested. Specific information on numbers of staff absent and days lost due to mental health problems over the last year could only be obtained at disproportionate administrative cost and time.
  Turning to your third question:
  Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year.
  Two members of staff from the RPA retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year.
  RPA is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to meeting internal performance targets for reducing sickness absence for 2003–04. We have developed a sickness absence management policy and procedures that includes a revised strategy for managing long term sickness absence, for implementation from May 2003.
  RPA also acts responsibly to the legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees and is committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally due to work related injuries and illness, arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative.

  Mercury
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to assess the health impacts of mercury emissions into the environment(a) generally and (b) from crematoria; and if she will make a statement. [124047]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) The UK has already taken steps to assess the impacts of mercury in a range of environmental compartments. We contributed to the production of WHO Air Quality Guidelines for Europe, and have adopted the same statutory limit for drinking water as the WHO drinking water guideline value. The WHO drinking water guideline is currently being revised and we will consider what, if any, reassessment would be required in light of changes made. An assessment of health impacts from mercury contaminated soils has been undertaken and two reports "Collation of toxicological data and intake values for humans—Mercury" and "Soil Guideline Values for inorganic mercury contamination" were published last year. Both are available on the Defra website at www.defraweb/environment/landliability/pubs.htm. Dietary exposure to mercury is mainly in the form of methylmercury in fish and is assessed against international guidelines for methylmercury. The Food Standards Agency issues advice to consumers to limit consumption of certain species offish, so that exposure is within these guidelines.

  (b) My Department issued a consultation on an assessment by the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit on mercury emissions from crematoria on 7 May with comments requested by 7 August. A copy is available on the Defra website at www.defraweb/corporate/consult/crematoria/consultation.pdf
  919W
  Work is continuing in this area. A global assessment of mercury was published by the United Nations Environment Programme earlier this year and an action plan is being developed. In addition, the European Commission propose to develop a Strategy on Mercury in 2004 to protect human health and the environment from the release of mercury. This work is expected to reassess the health impacts of mercury and the UK will contribute to the development of this Strategy.

  Mining
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Environment Agency's policy is towards(a) supporting open-cast coal planning applications and (b) supporting open-cast coal planning applications on green-belt land. [124068]

  Mr. Morley
  For any planning application for open cast mining, the Environment Agency's role is that of a statutory consultee. The Agency provides technical and scientific advice to the local planning authority on those potential impacts of the proposed development relevant to the Agency's environmental and flood risk management responsibilities.

  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Environment Agency's policy is towards supporting open-cast coal planning applications on land which they own that is designated as green-belt land. [124069]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency have no specific policy regarding open-cast mining on land which they own. The Agency will look to maximize opportunities for environmental enhancements on their land although each scheme must be looked at on its own merits.

  Title

  Project ID

  Funding Body

  Contractor

  Start date

  End date

  Status

  Survey of health complaints among sheep-dippers

  VMO299

  Defra Science Directorate

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  January 2001

  August 2003

  Work in progress

  Dose effect profiles for OP sheep dip on brainelectrical activity and covnitive performance

  VMO279

  Defra Science Directorate

  DSTL, Porton Down

  April 1998

  December 2002

  Completed

  Disabling neuropsychiatric disease in farmers exposed to organophosphates.

  VMO2115

  Defra Science Directorate/DH

  Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester

  January 2002 (FMD delay)

  June 2005

  Work in progress

  Characterisation of non-acetylcholinesterase actions of novel protein targets

  VMO2117

  Defra Science Directorate

  Neurotoxicology Section, MRC Applied Neuroscience Group, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.

  June 2001

  June 2003

  Work in progress

  Investigation of possible autoimmune responses induced by organophosphate exposure

  VMO2116

  Defra Science Directorate

  Health and Safety Laboratory, Sheffield

  April 2001

  December 2003

  Work in progress

  A case-controlled study of neuropsychological any psychiatric functioning in sheep farmers exposed organophosphate pesticides

  —

  Defra Science Directorate

  University College London

  —

  —

  Start imminent (three years expected duration

  Assessment of pattern and extent of autonomic abnormalities in a group of sheep farmers and dippers

  —

  Defra Science Directorate

  Imperial College

  —

  —

  Proposal

  920W

  Real Nappies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local authority posts of Real Nappy Project Development Officers there are. [123979]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: The Department does not collate information on the number of Real Nappy Development Officers in local authorities.

  Nappy projects generally form part of a council's activities on waste minimisation. It is up to local authorities to decide whether work on nappy projects requires the creation of dedicated posts and how they are described.

  Occidental Jetty, Canvey Island
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the owners of the Occidental Jetty on Canvey Island and (b) others on possible future uses of that jetty. [123414]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the last research sponsored by her Department into the toxicity of organophosphate sheep dips and their likely(a) environmental impact and (b) impact on human health was. [123408]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the earlier reply given to him by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Mr. Morley) on this issue, on 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 468W. The following table details the current position on each of the Defra sponsored research projects into the toxicity of organophosphate (OP) sheep dips and their impact on human health.
  921W
  The Environment Agency has and continues to undertake a number of studies into the environmental impact of OP (and synthetic pyrethroid) sheep dips. The Agency undertakes chemical and biological monitoring of rivers covering the main sheep rearing areas and reports the findings, including failures of Environmental Quality Standards, on its website, www.environmentagency.gov.uk. A study into the impact of sheep dip disposal on terrestrial invertebrate life and possible knock-on effects to insect-feeding birds has been completed recently and will be published shortly. In addition, there is on-going research into the environmental fate of disposed sheep dip and its potential impacts on surface and ground waters.

  Ospreys
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will investigate the reports she has received that ospreys have been shot and their nest site destroyed in the area surrounding the River Eden in North Cumbria; and if she will make a statement. [123561]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All wild birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which implements the EC Birds Directive in Great Britain. It is an offence under Section 1 to kill, injure or take any wild bird, take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is being built or destroy or take the eggs of any wild bird. In addition to this, birds listed on Schedule 1, such as the Osprey, are also protected from disturbance whilst it is building a nest or is in, on or near a nest containing eggs or young.

  Defra and English Nature takes very seriously the protection of all species of wild birds, especially those listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (as amended).

  Neither the Department, nor English Nature, have received any evidence of the persecution of osprey's in Cumbria. Any such evidence should be passed to the police immediately for investigation.

  Private Marinas
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the acquisition by British Waterways of privately owned marinas. [122773]

  Margaret Beckett
  British Waterways is a public corporation with statutory powers to acquire land and to provide services and facilities for the amenity or recreational use of its waterways. It wishes to see a diverse and competitive market for marinas and related businesses along its waterways in order to provide a range of services and facilities for both boaters and visitors.

  British Waterways is committed to operating its marinas in a fair and open way and will shortly be bringing forward proposals to increase transparency in its marina businesses. I welcome this move.

  Recycling
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent 922W
  assessment she has made of the number of local authorities that are meeting their targets for recycling; and if she will make a statement. [119700]

  Mr. Morley
  Local authority Statutory Performance Standards ('targets') for recycling and composting of household waste have been set for the years 2003–04 and 2005–06. Local authorities will submit performance data, against which the 2003–04 targets will be measured, to the Audit Commission in summer 2004 and audited performance figures will be available towards the end of 2004.

  Targets for individual authorities are published on Defra's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/10.htm.

  The most recent data on progress towards achieving targets are for 2001–02. Local authority figures are available through the Best Value Performance Indicator website at www.bvpi.gov.uk. These data show a wide range in performance with some authorities already achieving their individual targets and others, generally with the larger percentage increases, still with some way to go. Data for future years are more likely to show the impact of action being taken to achieve targets which were only set in 2001.

  The Audit Commission will make audited performance figures for the year 2002–03 available later this year.

  Scallop Fishing
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has(a) received from and (b) made to the Scottish Executive concerning bans on scallop fishing in Scotland since the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, broken down by (i) subject matter of representation, (ii) date and (iii) responsible minister. [122513]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I am not aware that any such representations have been received or made. Responsibilities for this matter lie with the Scottish Executive and the Food Standards Agency Scotland.

  Sharks
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU Ministers about the killing of sharks; what proposals there are to change EU policy; and if she will make a statement. [124033]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: A regulation restricting the practice of shark finning has been adopted at a recent Council of Ministers meeting. We were able to get the text of the measure before the council strengthened to include additional control clauses and a commitment to a complete review of the regulation.

  We have also been pressing the European Commission to bring forward action to fulfil the EU's commitment to implement the UN Food and Agriculture Organisations 1999 International Plan of Action for the conservation and management of sharks; I am pleased to report that work will begin shortly on the development and implementation of a Community

  923W
  Plan of Action. This work will also contribute to the review of the shark finning regulation. I will be working for agreement on a comprehensive management plan which will provide effective protection for sharks.

  Soil Improver
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with officers from the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority regarding their soil improver product; and what assessment she has made of whether the soil improver product will meet the requirements of the Animal By-products Order. [116025]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 25 March 2002, Official Report, column 712W. No further discussions have taken place. The Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 came into force on 1 July, and will permit the treatment of catering waste and low-risk animal by-products in composting/biogas premises. No assessment of such premises or their products could be made before 1 July, as the process was not legal before that date.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in examining whether there is a link between gas emissions from landfill and hazardous waste sites and birth defects. [122786]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: Following a 1998 European study (the first EUROHAZCON study—Dolk, H et al; www.lshtm.ac/eeu/research.hmtl) that reported a higher rate of non-chromosomal anomalies among people living near hazardous waste sites, the Government commissioned a programme of work on health effects of landfill sites including a much more extensive national study by the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (Elliott, P et al; www.imperial.ac.uk/p396.htm). This was published in the summer of 2001.

  The SAHSU study looked at the rates of all birth defects (chromosomal and non-chromosomal) and found only a slightly higher rate (1 per cent.) in populations living near landfill sites and a 7 per cent. higher rate near hazardous waste sites. The Government's expert advisory committee, the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, noted that this excess risk was small and could be accounted for by factors other than the landfill sites. The study has not shown, or, indeed, could show, a causal link between landfill sites and birth defects.

  However, the Government recognised that, in the light of the findings of these various studies, more research was needed on the health impacts of landfill sites. As a result, Defra, the Environment Agency and the Department of Health have a considerable amount of research either planned or already under way. Among the projects planned is one related specifically to emissions from hazardous waste sites.

  Also, the Government have commissioned a review of the environmental and health effects of all waste disposal, and management options. They aim to report on the findings of this review later in the year. The review will
  924W
  provide a rational side-by-side comparison of the impacts of different waste management options, which will inform Government policy, and assist local authorities and other relevant bodies in making waste management decisions.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Municipal Waste Management Statistics 2001–02 will be published. [123816]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 2 July 2003]: Summary results for the Municipal Waste Management Survey 2001–02 were published on 22 May 2003. The information can be found at the Defra website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/wastats/bulletin/index.htm.

  The bulletin with more detailed results is due to be published in August 2003, and will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government has taken to improve waste management. [124201]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have done a great deal to improve waste management. "Waste Strategy 2000: England and Wales"1 was published in May 2000. It describes the government's vision for managing waste and resources better, and sets out the changes needed to deliver more sustainable development.

  Progress against the targets set out in the Waste Strategy can be found in this year's Departmental Report2. Most recently, the Government have published its response3 to the Strategy Unit report on waste, this sets out a package of strategic measures that will help to boost the minimisation, re-use and recycling of municipal waste, and move waste management up the waste hierarchy.
  1Waste Strategy 2000: England and Wales' Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, May 2000 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/cm4693/index.htm
  2Defra Department Report 2003' Defra, May 2003. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/default.htm
  3'Government response to Strategy Unit' report 'Waste not, Want not' Defra, May 2003 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/review/index.htm

  Water Abstraction
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with the Environment Agency in respect of water abstraction guidance. [124195]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the introduction of the Water Bill to Parliament, the Department has discussed with the Environment Agency guidance on time limited licences, including presumption of renewal. We expect this guidance to be revised in light of any changes to the proposals during the course of the Water Bill.

  Waterways
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy
  925W
  is on the potential conflict of interest between British Waterways' responsibilities as a regulator and its role as a waterways business operator. [122774]

  Margaret Beckett
  It is clearly an advantage to have synergy within British Waterways in respect of navigation work and its work as an operator and on the field of regeneration. I am aware of the need to deal clearly with any potential conflicts of interest between British Waterways' statutory functions as a navigation authority and its role as a business operator. I am therefore pleased that British Waterways plans shortly to consult on its proposals to improve its wider accountability and consultation processes.

  Wildlife Sites
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to publish guidance on establishing a common approach to managing local wildlife sites; [124250]

  (2) what recent representations she has received from local authorities about the actions required to promote and protect local wildlife sites. [124352]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Officials in this Department and English Nature have been drawing up guidance on local wildlife sites taking into account the work of the Local Sites Review Group, which among others comprised representatives from the Local Government Association, Welsh Local Government Association and the Association of Local Government Ecologists. The aim is to provide a framework to help establish a consistent approach to the identification and management of these sites. During the course of this work, a number of representations have also been received from individual local authorities.

  We are in the process of finalising this guidance and we aim to publish it before the end of the year.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local wildlife sites are managed by the wildlife trusts; what funding her Department gives to the wildlife trusts for this purpose; and what information her Department receives from the wildlife trusts about their performance. [124251]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I understand from the Wildlife Trusts' publication "Status of UK Wildlife Site Systems 2002" that there are 76 local wildlife site systems in operation across England, which have selected 34,965 sites. The Wildlife Trusts lead or are a lead partner in 82 per cent. of these systems.

  The Department does not provide direct funding for the management of local wildlife sites. However English Nature has provided local Wildlife Trusts with 767,000 under its Wildspace grants scheme, for the management of many local nature reserves in order to help local communities enjoy, care for and improve their local wildlife resources.

  The Department does provide funding to the UK Office of the Wildlife Trusts towards the co-ordination of their conservation strategy and policy for the organisation. This includes work on planning, biodiversity and marine wildlife conservation. Last year we announced that funding totalling £675,000 would be provided over three years. The grant is paid on a
  926W
  quarterly basis and on the production of quarterly performance reports, based on targets agreed in a work programme at the beginning of the year.

  In addition between 2002 and 2004 some £637,020 will be provided to 10 County Wildlife Trusts to enable them to co-ordinate and contribute to the delivery of local and regional biodiversity action plans.

TREASURY

  Biofuels
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the financial incentives necessary to achieve(a) 2 per cent. take-up by the end of 2005 and (b) 5.75 per cent. take-up by the end of 2010 of biodiesel and bioethanol road fuel. [124657]

  John Healey
  My hon. Friend is referring to the European Commission's suggested indicative targets for the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels. Member states are required to set their own indicative targets to be met in the years 2005 and 2010, and we will be consulting key stakeholders in due course on what these targets might be and on the most appropriate ways of meeting them, so that our decisions are based on a proper assessment of the costs and benefits.

  We have already put in place a number of measures to give incentive to the production and use of biofuels in the UK. In his Budget statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that, from 1 January 2005, we would introduce a duty incentive for bioethanol, set at 20 pence per litre below the rate for sulphur-free petrol. Biodiesel already benefits from a duty incentive of 20 pence per litre below the rate for ultra-low sulphur diesel.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a consultative document outlining a range of different options for future income tax policies. [124658]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government sets out their policies on income tax rates and allowances in the Budget and pre-Budget reports.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the impact on the level of income tax of a transfer of all changes in the total level of taxation since 1997 to income tax. [124660]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of personal tax and benefit reforms since 1997, households will be, on average £775 a year better off in real terms by October 2003.

  Pensioner Living Standards
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to improve the living standards of pensioners. [124659]

  Mr. Boateng
  From October, the Government are introducing the Pension Credit at a cost of £2 billion in its first full year. Including Pension Credit and other measures, compared with the 1997 system, on average
  927W
  pensioner households will be £1,250 a year better off in real terms with the poorest third around £1,600 a year better off—over £30 a week.

  Small Business Taxation
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the impact of rises in taxation since 1997 on small businesses. [124661]

  John Healey
  The Government have taken a number of steps to reduce the impact of the tax system on small business and to reward entrepreneurship; including the introduction of a zero rate of corporation tax, tax credits for R&D, reductions in the rates of income tax and measures to reduce the administrative burden of VAT.

  Mortgages
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of an increase in the number of fixed rate mortgages on economic management. [124663]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has asked David Miles, Professor of Finance at Imperial College, to undertake a review of the UK's fixed rate mortgage market.

  This will involve an examination of whether there has been any market failure that has held back the market for fixed and long-term fixed rate mortgages and a consideration of associated opportunities, risks and potential costs.

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

  New Deal
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use of the windfall tax on privatised utilities to fund the New Deal. [124664]

  Mr. Boateng
  The New Deal for Young People and the New Deal for 25+ have both contributed significantly to cutting long-term youth and long-term unemployment by more than three-quarters since 1997.

  Almost 430,000 long-term unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds have found jobs through NDYP, while ND25+ had helped more than 145,000 older people back into work and over 193,000 people have found employment through the New Deal for Lone Parents.

  The Government have established a comprehensive program of independent and in-house evaluation for all the New Deals, and is fully committed to ensuring that the lessons learned contribute to continuous improvements in the performance of the New Deals in helping people into work.

  This evaluation program has demonstrated the success of the New Deal. In 2000, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found that, without NDYP, the level of long-term youth unemployment would have been twice as high as it actually was. Independent evaluation evidence also confirms the overwhelmingly positive impact of NDLP
  928W
  in helping lone parents into work and suggests that the programme more than doubles the employment chances of participants.

  Employment
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current employment levels and their impact on the economy. [124665]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 1360.

  Equitable Life
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the Penrose inquiry into Equitable Life. [124666]

  Mr. Boateng
  Lord Penrose's inquiry is independent of the Treasury. The conduct of the inquiry is entirely a matter for him.

  However, I understand that he is now in the process of drafting his report. He has said that he intends to report to Treasury Ministers later this summer.

  Council Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, columns 746–47W, on council tax, what the council tax was as a percentage of gross income for (a) female-headed households and (b) male-headed households in each income decile in England in the financial year 2001–02. [124370]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 10 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for a break down of council tax as a percentage of gross income in England in 2001–02 by (a) female-headed households and (b) male-headed households consistent with estimates given in my previous answer of 10th June for households in Great Britain. (124370)
  Estimates for council taxes and income are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" produced by the Office for National Statistics and published on the National Statistics website on April 11th 2003, and in Economic Trends in the May 2003 edition. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. Sample sizes are only sufficient to allow a breakdown to be given by quintiles of income distribution and not by decile.
  The Household Reference Person is identified during the interview and is defined as the member of the household who:
  a. owns the household accommodation, or
  b. is legally responsible for the rent of the accommodation, or

  929W
  c. has the household accommodation as an emolument or perquisite, or
  d. has the household accommodation by virtue of some relationship to the owner who is not a member of the household.

  Council tax as a percentage of gross
  income for female-headed and male-headed1 households,
  2001–02

  Percentage

  England

  Quintile groups of all households ranked
  by equivalised disposable income

  Households

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All households

  Quintile points2 disposable income, £ per
  year)

  Female-headed

  9,573

  12,766

  17,451

  25,709

  Male-headed

  11,466

  16,583

  22,412

  30,545

  Gross council tax

  Female-headed

  7.8

  5.3

  3.8

  2.7

  1.4

  2.8

  Male-headed

  6.5

  3.7

  2.7

  2.1

  1.3

  2.3

  Net council tax3

  Female-headed

  4.5

  3.1

  3.0

  2.5

  1.4

  2.2

  Male-headed

  4.7

  3.2

  2.6

  2.1

  1.3

  2.1

  1 Households where the household reference
  person is female or male.

  2 Equivalised disposable income at the boundary
  point between two quintile groups.

  3 Net council taxes after deducting benefits and
  discounts.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income", published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends No. 594 May 2003

  Euro
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library his analysis of the constitutional implications of replacing the pound sterling with the euro. [124885]

  Mr. Boateng
  As the Chancellor said in his statement to Parliament on 9 June 2003:

  "The Government's view is that if the economic case is clear and unambiguous issue, while a factor in the decision, should not be a barrier to entry."

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the total monthly cost to the UK of(a) civil and (b) military operations in Iraq. [123342]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury does not estimate such costs in the manner requested. In April 2003, the Department for International Development set aside £210 million for reconstruction and humanitarian work in Iraq. As of 26 June, £154 million of this has been allocated to UN agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs. A further £60 million was set aside by the Chancellor in the Budget to support the work of the UN on the reconstruction and development of Iraq.

  It would be premature to make an estimate of the total costs of the recent military campaign in Iraq. The Chancellor announced in the Budget a £3 billion special reserve.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which taxes were the main component elements of the(a) other indirect taxes and (b) other
  930W
  If there are joint householders, the Household Reference Person will be the householder with the highest income. If the income is the same, then the eldest householder is taken.

  intermediate taxes described in the document "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02"; and if he will make a statement. [124449]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 10 July 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking which taxes were the main component elements of (a) other indirect taxes and (b) other intermediate taxes, described in the document "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02". I am replying in his absence. (124449)
  The above document was produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on April 11th 2003 and in Economic Trends in the May 2003 edition. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. Indirect taxes paid by households are estimated approximately for this analysis.
  Indirect taxes paid by households on final goods and services are broken down in the tables into: VAT; duty on tobacco, alcohol and hydrocarbon oils; vehicle excise duty; television licences; stamp duties on house purchase; customs duties; betting taxes; insurance premium tax; air passenger duty; Camelot National Lottery Fund; and 'other indirect taxes'. The components of 'other indirect taxes' are: stamp duties on share dealings, legal and commercial documents; and taxi licenses.
  Total 'intermediate taxes' are that portion of 'indirect taxes' which are passed on by businesses to households. These are broken down in the tables into: commercial and industrial rates; employers' National Insurance contributions; duty on hydrocarbon oil; vehicle excise duty; and 'other intermediate taxes'. The main components of 'other intermediate taxes' are the estimates of VAT and stamp duty, which are passed on by businesses to households.

  Trade Union Representatives
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what protection is afforded to people among his staff who are trade union representatives, with particular regard to(a) pay and conditions and (b) promotion. [124833]

  John Healey
  A number of Treasury staff are allocated paid time off under the departmental facilities agreement to carry out industrial relations and trade union activities. All staff, regardless of duties, are assessed in the same way for pay purposes and promotion opportunities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitality (Tobacco Companies)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister what hospitality he has accepted from senior executive officers of tobacco companies and from major shareholders in those companies since January 2000. [118198]

  The Prime Minister
  Any hospitality that I receive is dealt with in line with the requirements set out in the Ministerial Code, and declared in the normal way.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on whether any of the provisions of the proposed new constitutional treaty presented to the Inter-Governmental Conference cannot be amended under the provisions of the existing treaty. [124823]

  The Prime Minister
  The provisions of the existing EU treaties, including those for amendment, will only be changed if all member states agree to a new Constitutional Treaty, replacing the existing treaties, and if that Treaty is ratified by all 25 member states. The provisions of a new Constitutional Treaty, once in force, would replace the existing treaties, including those provisions governing treaty amendment.

  Foreign Decorations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to paragraph 86 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct,(a) how many Ministers have accepted decorations from foreign countries since 1 May 1997; (b) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of this paragraph; and (c) whether he intends to refuse any such decoration offered to him. [119106]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: Paragraph 86 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct (July 2001) is about the acceptance of air miles. Guidance to Ministers on the acceptance of decorations from foreign countries is set out in paragraph 90 of the Ministerial Code.

  The Ministerial Code is a code of conduct and guidance on procedures for Ministers.

  Any offer of a decoration from a foreign state would be considered in the light of that guidance.
  932W
  As far as I am aware, there is a record of one occasion in 2002 where Angela Smith MP was awarded the Cuban medal of friendship as a member of Parliament in recognition of her work as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Cuba.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his discussions on the aircraft carrier contract with BAE Systems and Thales. [123481]

  Mr. Ingram
  Regular discussions occur between the future carrier (CVF) project team, BAE Systems and Thales United Kingdom as part of the routine business of the Assessment Phase. These cover and include issues relating to the contract for Stage 3 of the Assessment Phase.

  Armed Forces (Maintenance Payments)
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie the length of time taken between the deduction of maintenance payments from service personnel's wages and its subsequent payment to separated partners. [123934]

  Mr. Caplin
  When a Deduction from Earnings Request is received by Armed Forces Pay Authorities, a letter is sent to the individual with a copy of the request. This allows the individual six weeks from the date of the letter to contest the request. If no reply is received then the request is imposed, with the amounts deducted being paid to the Child Support Agency for subsequent payment to separated partners.

  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when each of the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces will be operational. [124496]

  Mr. Ingram
  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces will reach Full Operating Capability by 31 December 2003.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority; [117212]

  on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting; [117235]

  on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year; [117239]
  933W
  on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117259]

  Mr. Caplin
  Although Defence Ministers meet regularly to discuss defence issues as part of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, they are not involved in legislation. Decisions on the common strategies, common positions and joint actions which the European Council may adopt in support of its Common Foreign and Security Policy require unanimity.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 510W, on defence procurement, what assessment he has made of the ability of his Department to forecast the in service dates (ISD) and costs of major procurement projects; what plans he has for ensuring that projects are delivered (a) on their forecast ISD and (b) on their original budget; and if he will make a statement. [122315]

  Mr. Ingram
  An important element of the defence "Smart Acquisition" process is the reduction of risk during the early phases of a programme so that at the main approval point ("Main Gate") there is a high level of confidence that project targets, including ISD and budgets, will be achieved. In support of this risk reduction process the use of a Three Point Estimating methodology for both time and cost has been approved.

  To ensure the quality of our estimating the Department provides guidance, training and computer tools to support the process. In addition specialist support for both the production of estimates and the risk management process is available.

  The Defence Procurement Agency this year created two teams to support project offices across the Defence Acquisition community in using a systematic methodology for risk management and estimating. A key element of this initiative is the use of a Risk Maturity Model to assess major projects against a number of perspectives, including whether risks have been fully identified and analysed, whether risk mitigation controls are being managed as planned, and whether the projects are positioned to provide robust and reliable estimates of both time and cost to completion.

  The Model assessment gives an indication of how well risk and estimating are being managed within a project through the provision of a Level score from 1, naive through to 4, natural. From March 2004, all of our high value projects seeking Main Gate approval will be expected to have achieved a score of Level 3 or better, which will mean that projects have built the management of risk into their routine business processes and are implementing risk management throughout the project.

  The Department continues to monitor closely its performance in forecasting and continually seeks examples of good practice which may be adopted to enhance and improve our existing processes and performance.

  Eurofighter/Typhoon Programme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimated additional cost to the Euro fighter/Typhoon programme is attributable to the delays to that programme. [123062]

  Mr. Ingram
  The estimated additional cost to the Euro fighter Typhoon programme attributable to the two delays since the production contracts were placed in 1998 is approximately £610 million. Some 25 per cent. of this represents additional cash expenditure incurred by the Department because of inflation. The remaining 75 per cent. represents 'non-cash' cost of capital charges incurred by the Defence Procurement Agency as a result of the delayed transfer of asset balances to the RAF. This element does not represent a net increase in costs to the Department or the exchequer.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Typhoon aircraft will be procured; when they will all have come into service; what their combat role will be; and how this has changed since they were first designed. [124050]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has given an undertaking, as a signatory to a 4-nation memorandum of understanding, to acquire 232 Typhoon aircraft out of a total production of 620. Our commitment to the programme remains unchanged, although—in common with all other elements of the defence programme—Typhoon is kept under constant review. The delivery of aircraft to the Royal Air Force has now begun and will continue through to the middle of the next decade. The aircraft was designed, to be multi-role; this has not changed. When it becomes available for operational deployment in the second half of this decade, it will be configured primarily to conduct air defence missions but will also have a limited ground attack capability. Typhoon's ground attack capability will be augmented through an incremental enhancement programme.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Typhoon fighter aircraft will be adaptable for use in the Future Aircraft Carriers. [124468]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20 May 2003,Official Report, column 678W.

  Food Supplies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where apples consumed by the armed forces are produced. [124467]

  Mr. Ingram
  The source of fresh produce supplied to the armed forces is dictated by growing seasons and varies during the year. At the present time apples are sourced from the United Kingdom. United States and Chile.

  Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether under the proposed Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft PFI(a) the contractor and (b) his Department will be responsible for war damage. [123551]

  Mr. Ingram
  Under the terms of a PFI contract, liability for damage, including war damage, to the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft assets would be
  935W
  covered either through commercial insurance arranged by the contractor or by means of an indemnity provided to the contractor by the Ministry of Defence, depending on the circumstances involved. The detailed arrangements will be subject to final negotiation with industry.

  FV430 Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many FV430 series armoured vehicles are operational with the Army; and what the(a) oldest and (b) youngest FV430 vehicle in service is. [123654]

  Mr. Ingram
  The FV430 fleet consists of 1,720 vehicles, some 1,400 of which are currently active within Army Units. Other vehicles are held either in Depot, undergoing Base Overhaul, or are employed with trials Units or Contractors. The fleet is planned to reduce to a total of 1,490 by mid-2004.

  Of the vehicles remaining in service, the oldest entered service on 1 May 1965 and the youngest on 1 February 1975.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the accuracy was of bombs dropped in the Gulf War. [115595]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the UK is making towards the reestablishment of the Iraqi armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [124358]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 July 2003,Official Report, columns 448–49W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray).

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether additional troops will be sent to Iraq for peacekeeping operations. [124463]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are currently engaged in a process of roulement of forces which is due to be complete by 1 August. In addition, we anticipate the arrival of around 5,500 military personnel from a number of other nations.

  The United Kingdom military will continue to maintain an appropriate presence in the Gulf region for as long as necessary, and will remain a key player in multinational stabilisation operations in Iraq. Our aim remains to leave an Iraq that is confident, secure and fully integrated with the international community.

  Less-than-lethal Weapons
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) political control provisions and (b) ethical
  936W
  guidelines are in place for public sector bodies and their subcontractors who are testing and evaluating less-than-lethal weapons. [123026]

  Mr. Ingram
  All weapons procured by the Ministry of Defence are subject to legal review in accordance with Article 36 of the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and all new weapons and means and methods of warfare are reviewed to confirm their acceptability relative to the United Kingdom's obligations under the law of armed conflict. There are no exemptions for legal review for non-lethal or less-lethal weapons.

  The main ethical consideration in evaluating such weapons derives from the potential effects on personnel taking part in testing. All evaluations involving human volunteers are subject to ethical constraints, specified in the Guidelines of the Royal College of Physicians. All MOD trials need to be approved by a MOD ethics committee following these guidelines. Trials involving sub-contractors are approved by a committee formed by that sub-contractor.

  Medical Personnel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of bombs dropped on Iraq by British forces during the recent conflict which hit their intended target; and if he will make a statement. [113261]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on the MRAV programme; and what variants of the type he intends to procure. [123547]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are reviewing the mix of armoured vehicles in the light of emerging expeditionary doctrine and the need for lighter, more deployable forces; the MRAV programme is being considered as part of this study. The review is nearing completion and we hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Nimrod
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the proposed job losses due to the halting of the production phase of the Nimrod and the impact on the retention of skills, experience and product knowledge; and if he will make a statement; [118075]

  if he will convene a meeting with BAe Systems, the trade unions, and the MoD procurement arm on the proposed job losses that are to occur in June due to the decision to halt the production phase of the Nimrod; if he will urge BAe Systems to defer the redundancies while talks take place; and if he will make a statement. [118109]
  937W
  Mr. Ingram
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 13 June 2003,Official Report, column 1113W,

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of nuclear deterrence policy, with special reference to Rolls Royce Marine Power Operations Ltd.'s decommissioning from 2013. [123488]

  Mr. Caplin
  Our policy on nuclear deterrence was set out in the Strategic Defence Review. Its implementation takes account of relevant industrial issues.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the question 119684;and if he will state the reasons for the delay. [124911]

  Mr. Caplin
  I hope to be in a position to write to my hon. Friend before the summer recess. The delay in responding has been caused by the need to conduct a trawl of the Department's archives in order to locate papers.

  Procurement
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 878W, on procurement, which ships are to be fitted with the ordered ship systems; what plans he has for those which are not; and if he will make a statement. [123095]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 878W, concerning planned numbers of Hunt and Sandown class vessels and the procurement of 19 ship systems to improve minehunting and minesweeping capability.

  The current plans are that the purchased systems will be fitted to all Hunt and Sandown class Mine Counter Measure Vessels (MCMVs). There is no requirement to fit the ship systems to the three former Hunt class vessels now configured for use solely as patrol craft, forming the Northern Ireland Squadron (HMS Brecon, HMS Cottismore and HMS Dulverton). There are currently no plans for changes to this Squadron.

  Radioactive Materials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of radioactive material he has held in each year from 1997, broken down by(a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) low level material. [123817]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 46W.

  RAF Fairford
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the lease arrangements between the British and US Governments over the use of RAF Fairford. [124832]
  938W
  Mr. Ingram
  There are no such lease arrangements. The presence of the United States Visiting Forces at RAF Fairford is, as with all bases made available to them in the United Kingdom, governed by the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951, and other additional confidential arrangements.

  RAF Halton
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to apply to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for a licence to develop the Princess Mary hospital building, RAF Halton. [124244]

  Mr. Caplin
  A bat survey report, by WSP Environmental (licensed bat ecologists), will provide a comprehensive mitigation strategy to ensure the protection of bats at the Princess Mary hospital site. This information is expected to be made available to Aylesbury Vale district council and English Nature in August 2003. A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs licence, will be applied for where appropriate.

  RAF Lyneham
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the maintenance budget for RAF Lyneham was in each year since 1993; and by how much that differed from the spending bid received for the base; [124831]

  (2) when the C130J fleet will be moved from RAF Lyneham to Brize Norton; at what date each of the C130K fleet will be decommissioned; how many C130K Hercules will be in service in 2011; and at what stage during the run-down of the C130K fleet RAF Lyneham will cease to be a viable unit. [124830]

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

  Resettlement Training Centre (Aldershot)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of running the Resettlement Training Centre at Aldershot in 2002–03; what the value was of the contract awarded to(a) Couts and (b) Career Transition Partnership (CTP) in that year; and what percentage of training courses are provided by (a) CTP and (b) preferred suppliers. [123862]

  Mr. Caplin
  The cost of running the Resettlement Training Centre (RTC) at Aldershot in 2002–03 was in the order of £233,000, which includes utility, accommodation, property management and Government Owned, Contractors Operated costs. Payments made to Right Management Consultants to run contracted courses at the RTC are not included.

  The Contract for the Tri-Service provision of an Armed Forces Resettlement Service though originally placed with the Courts Consulting Group plc in July 1998 was novated to Right Management Consultants Ltd. in September 2002.

  I am withholding the value of the contract in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Career

  939W
  Transition Partnership (CTP) is a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and Right Management Consultants. No other contract for resettlement services has been placed.

  Information on the percentage of training courses provided internally by the CTP at the RTC and by Preferred Suppliers is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. During 2002–03 however, the RTC ran 203 courses and 2,156 places were taken up by Services leavers. 4,691 Service leavers are known to have attended courses run by preferred suppliers. These figures exclude courses attended by Service leavers run by non-preferred suppliers, for which no records are held centrally.

  Royal Anglian Regiment
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 535W, on regiment vacancies, if he will reinstate the Third Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment. [124221]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Strategic Defence Review, and the New Chapter that we published last year, remain the foundation for the shape, size and capabilities of our Armed Forces. There are, therefore, no plans to reinstate the Third Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment. The Government intend to publish a Defence White Paper in the autumn which will provide an updated statement of defence policy and explain our plans for the delivery of enhanced defence capability.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Naval vessels have been brought into service since 2000; how many of them have engaged in active deployments; and what capability they brought to the operation. [124060]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following vessels have been brought into service with the Royal Navy since 2000:

  HMS Albion;

  HMS Portland;

  HMS St. Albans;

  HMS Kent;

  HMS Shoreham;

  HMS Ramsey;

  HMS Blyth and

  HMS Tyne.

  'Active deployment' has been taken to mean deployment away from the UK on standing military tasks or operations.

  Units of the Royal Navy have been on patrol in the Gulf since October 1980, after the Iran/Iraq conflict of that year. The Royal Navy permanent contribution consists of an escort supported by a tanker of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, within the operational area (which includes the Gulf, Gulf of Oman and Northern Arabian Sea) at all times. HMS Portland and HMS Kent have both undertaken that deployment.
  940W
  HMS Shoreham, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blyth carried out mine clearance activities as part of Operation Telic.

  For completeness, Royal Fleet Auxiliary fleet tankers, RFA Wave Knight and RFA Wave Ruler have also entered service since 2000. To date neither have undertaken an operational deployment.

  RN assets bring a range of capabilities which, while allowing them to fulfil specific tasks are inherently flexible. While on deployment on specific tasks RN assets also undertake a range of additional activities, including Defence diplomacy tasks.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a)the role of the Royal Navy since 2000 and how it has changed since 1997 and (b) the progress made in achieving the aims of the Strategic Defence Review. [124063]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 2000 the Royal Navy has continued to perform the role recognised in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review by contributing to the security of the United Kingdom, her overseas territories and citizens world-wide; by helping to maintain international peace and security and supporting the Government's foreign policy aims and UK overseas trade; and by assisting the UK in discharging her international responsibilities as a leading member of the UN, the Commonwealth, NATO, and EU.

  This requires a powerful and well-balanced maritime force, capable of rapid deployment and sustained joint and/or combined operations of an expeditionary nature wherever the UK's national and international interests demand. Since the SDR, the emphasis is moving from large-scale open-ocean warfare to expeditionary power projection operations in conjunction with the other two services, with a premium placed on versatility and deployability.

  Significant progress is being made in the Royal Navy to achieve the aims of the SDR. This includes the ongoing programme to replace the Invincible class aircraft carriers with two larger, more capable vessels. In addition, support to amphibious forces has been strengthened by the delivery of six RoRo vessels, and by the introduction into service over the next three years of the two landing platforms dock (replacement) ships, and four landing ships dock (auxiliary)—the latter offering greatly improved capability and lift capacity. The type 45 destroyers will begin to replace the capability currently provided by the type 42 class from late 2007 onwards and, with the principal anti-air missile system (PAAMS), will provide an enhanced specialist anti-air warfare capability. The first three new astute class nuclear powered submarines are on order and will succeed the Swiftsure and Trafalgar classes to provide a greatly enhanced capability to the Royal Navy.

  Service Accommodation (Colchester)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the timetable to upgrade dwellings at Colchester Garrison is on schedule; and if he will make a statement. [124930]
  941W
  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Housing Executive is pressing ahead with its programme of projects for upgrade and refurbishment of Service Family Accommodation as quickly as its funding allows, and in line with the priorities laid down by the armed forces to meet their strategic requirements for accommodation and location of forces. Upgrade projects for Colchester were completed in 2000 and 2001, two more are due to start in 2004–05, and a further four will commence as soon as they can be funded.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the remaining stock of dwellings at Colchester Garrison is sufficient to meet the housing demand for military personnel; [124932]

  (2) what plans he has to provide additional dwellings at Colchester Garrison for the families of military personnel. [124929]

  Mr. Caplin
  On the basis of known unit movements and occupancy trends there is more than sufficient housing stock in the Colchester Garrison area to meet future housing demand. There are no plans at present to provide additional housing.

  Table 1

  Civilians employed in Ministry of Defence

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Number

  109,2061

  104,1632

  104,879

  100,398

  94,399

  Not yet available

  Cost (£000)

  —

  —

  2,415,838

  2,324,517

  2,441,977

  Not yet available

  1 Number of full time equivalent civilians employed as at 1 April 1997.

  2 Number of full time equivalent civilians employed as at 1 April 1998.

  Note:

  Includes the figures in table 3.

  Table 2

  Staff Employed by MOD non-departmental public bodies 1997–2002 (figures for 2000–03 not yet available)

  Body

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  48

  Fleet Air museum

  (plus 15 temp staff)

  61

  65

  65

  65

  National Army museum

  82

  84.5

  92

  85

  85

  Oil and Pipelines agency

  17

  17

  17

  17

  21

  122

  Royal Air Force museum

  (includes 9 temp staff)

  136

  136

  145

  132

  Royal Marines museum

  21

  20.5

  20.5

  20

  21

  Royal Naval museum

  34

  36.5

  40.5

  41

  40

  Royal Navy Submarine museum

  20

  20

  18

  14

  18

  Note:

  Information relating to MOD non-departmental public bodies is included in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of these reports can be found at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agencies-publicbodies/publicbodies. Only Executive NDPBs employ staff. While the Cabinet Office publication gives total gross expenditure for each NDPB it does not break this figure down between staff costs and running costs, the expenditure figures have not therefore been included in the table.

  Table 3

  Ministry of Defence agency manpower 1997–2000 (figures for 2002–03 not yet available

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Armed forces personnel administration agency

  850

  110

  100

  120

  120

  230

  Army base repair organisation

  2,950

  2,730

  2,490

  2,500

  2,600

  2,020

  Army personnel centre

  1,270

  1,060

  1,120

  1,190

  1,240

  750

  Army training and recruitment agency

  4,410

  4,490

  4,250

  4,310

  4,310

  4,250

  British forces post office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  350

  340

  Defence analytical services agency

  120

  120

  100

  120

  130

  150

  Defence aviation repair agency

  —

  —

  3,500

  4,770

  4,420

  4,340

  Defence bills agency

  650

  680

  640

  600

  590

  580

  Defence communications service agency

  —

  120

  650

  1,440

  3,000

  3,050

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [122259]

  Mr. Caplin
  Whilst it is possible to provide the overall civilian manpower numbers and associated costs for the Department for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, as this information is included in the Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts, the figures for 2002–03 will not be available until the autumn of this year. In addition, the cost figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99, i.e. prior to the introduction of Resource Accounting, are not available. The Appropriation Accounts published at the time did not break expenditure down to this level. Those figures available are included at Table 1.

  The staff numbers for non-departmental public bodies and defence agencies are attached at Tables 2 and 3 respectively. However, the associated costs are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  943W

  Ministry of Defence agency manpower 1997–2000 (figures for 2002–03 not yet available

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Defence dental agency

  110

  140

  150

  170

  —

  160

  Defence estates

  1,170

  1,110

  1,190

  1,210

  1,330

  1,360

  Defence science and technology laboratories

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,830

  Defence geographical and imagery intelligence agency

  —

  —

  —

  840

  750

  690

  Defence housing executive

  —

  —

  980

  950

  970

  940

  Defence intelligence and security centre

  100

  140

  140

  140

  130

  140

  Defence medical training organisation

  —

  —

  160

  160

  170

  170

  Defence procurement agency

  —

  —

  4,940

  3,930

  3,760

  3,730

  Defence secondary care agency

  590

  690

  770

  720

  710

  590

  Defence storage and distribution agency

  —

  —

  3,070

  3,260

  3,040

  2,750

  Defence transport and movements agency

  140

  150

  170

  210

  310

  310

  Defence vetting agency

  50

  340

  340

  360

  340

  260

  Disposal sales agency

  60

  60

  60

  80

  80

  80

  Duke of Yorks royal military school

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  110

  Medical supply agency

  220

  230

  240

  250

  —

  —

  Meteorological office

  2,090

  2,140

  2,000

  2,240

  2,090

  2,090

  Ministry of defence police

  3,730

  3,590

  3,510

  3,450

  3,330

  3,260

  Naval manning agency

  90

  100

  90

  100

  110

  110

  Naval bases and supplies agency

  9,170

  7,820

  7,790

  7,620

  5,840

  —

  Naval recruiting and training agency

  1,580

  1500

  1,190

  1,190

  1,080

  1,000

  Pay and personnel agency

  900

  850

  680

  630

  650

  660

  Queen Victoria school

  70

  70

  70

  70

  70

  70

  RAF personnel management agency

  210

  220

  230

  220

  240

  240

  RAF training group defence agency

  2,130

  2,160

  2,090

  2,070

  2,030

  2,050

  Service children's education

  750

  710

  720

  710

  710

  730

  UK hydrographic office

  —

  750

  760

  830

  840

  880

  Veteran's agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  840

  880

  Warship support agency

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,430

  7,680

  Total

  33,510

  32,180

  44,290

  46,560

  48,710

  49,480

  Notes:

  Excludes Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and locally engaged personnel.

  Figures for the Defence dental agency not available for 2001, and Medical Supply agency not available for 2001, 2002.

  Source:

  DASA Civilian

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the(a) type and (b) number of vehicles necessary to transport (i) 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agents, (ii) 3,000 tonnes of provision chemicals, (iii) growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 litres of anthrax spores and (iv) 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents, as set out in the Prime Minister's statement to the House on Iraq on 24 September 2002. [122533]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: No such estimate has been made.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in her Department in each year since 1997. [123099]

  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 3 April 2003 to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow),Official Report, column 812W.

  The running costs information relating to the Ministers' private offices since 1998 are listed in the table. The information for 1997 is not available. Figures for departmental running costs for 2002–03 will be published later in the year in the Departmental Resource Accounts 2002–03.
  944W

  Cost (£)

  2002–03

  1,840,045.10

  2001–02

  1,667,182.44

  2000–01

  1,387,142.33

  1999–2000

  1,307,106.16

  1998–99

  1,561,546.86

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124809]

  Mr. Caborn
  There have been no planning applications to site telecommunications masts received by DCMS.

  UK Sports Institute
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the Department has spent on the UK Sports Institute in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion of that funding has been allocated for grassroots sporting activity. [122837]

  Mr. Caborn
  The decision to establish the United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) was taken in 1996.

  The UKSI is the name given to a network of centres and a central team of experts that helps the country's top sportsmen and women to win medals in major tournaments like the Olympics and the World Athletics Championships. It provides much needed world class

  945W
  facilities and a higher standard of co-ordinated support services to high performance athletes than the UK has ever had before.

  The Institute is made up of four Home Country Sports Institutes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with a central services team, which is part of UK Sport, based in London. The funding provided to the Home Country Institutes is a matter for the Devolved Administrations.

  Funding by DCMS to support the UKSI is found from both the exchequer and the lottery. UK Sport expends exchequer funding, while Sport England use their Lottery funds. The level of expenditure is for these organisations to determine. Details of their expenditure on the UKSI is shown in the following table:

  £

  UK Sport

  Sport England

  1996–97

  210,000

  —

  1997–98

  164,000

  —

  1998–99

  339,000

  —

  1999–2000

  414,000

  900,000

  2000–01

  11,404,000

  3,100,000

  2001–02

  3,046,000

  14,700,000

  2002–03

  3,142,000

  39,100,000

  1 For this financial year only, UK Sport spent Lottery funding on the UKSI.

  While the primary focus and purpose of the UKSI is to assist our top sportsmen and women, all the facilities in the network can also be enjoyed by the local community, when not being used for elite training.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the consultation

  Cultural Diversity Grants 2001–02

  £

  Group

  Project

  Total Funding

  Apprentice Boys of Derry

  Maiden City Festival 2001

  50,000

  Football in the Community

  Football course with underachievers

  35,000

  Young at Art

  Family friendly day

  5,000

  East Tyrone

  Marshalling training

  5,000

  Tinderbox

  No place like home

  38,162

  Cineversity

  Cinema and the city

  6,000

  The Gathering

  Literary festival

  13,000

  Lisburn Development Organisation

  Chinese New Year festival

  9,000

  Down Community Arts

  Neighbours

  830

  Queen's Film Theatre

  'Crossing barriers through the moving image'

  3,820

  Old Museum Arts

  'I'm not a racist but.'

  5,000

  Cultural Diversity Grants 2002–03

  £

  Group

  Project

  Total Funding

  Armagh City and District Council

  Music of the world

  7,350

  BDS Community Association

  Ballynahinch youth together

  19,300

  Best Cellars Music Collective

  East meets west

  2,910

  Oi-Kwan Womens Group

  Chinese cultural awareness weeks

  1,500

  Replay Productions

  The Millies

  13,347

  Spamount and District Cross Community

  Spamount community festival

  1,500

  Travellers Movement

  Anti-discrimination and cultural awareness

  934

  946W
  documents issued by his Department in each of the last four years; what the cost was of producing each of these; how many documents were issued in each consultation; and how many responses were received in each consultation. [124570]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Cultural Diversity Branch
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) programmes and (b) projects have been supported by the Cultural Diversity Branch in each year since it was set up. [123801]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in pursuing its vision of "a confident, creative, informed and prosperous society" is committed both to promoting a greater respect and understanding of the richness of our cultural and linguistic diversity and to celebrating this diversity. In progressing this objective the Department supported Diversity 21 as a means of examining cultural diversity with a view to promoting deeper understanding and to represent this diversity as a sign of strength in our society. Diversity 21 provided the means of promoting cultural diversity work already happening; identifying and delivery of new projects aimed at stimulating the imagination and exploring diversity in an open, creative and accessible way; and providing a cultural diversity grant funding scheme. Since April 2001 the Department has supported a schedule of exhibitions on language, faith and history in Northern Ireland and the wider Commonwealth, to a number of organisations and community groups throughout the Province; a programme of workshops on the different drums of Northern Ireland; and Intercom 21—a contemporary music project which used music as a means of exploring diversity. In addition the Department under the Diversity 21 funding programme supported a range of community based projects. These included:
  947W

  Cultural Diversity Grants 2002–03

  £

  Group

  Project

  Total Funding

  The Cathedral Quarter Arts

  Cathedral Quarter Arts festival

  4,500

  The Nerve Centre

  Diversity in the digital age

  9,000

  Apprentice Boys

  Maiden City festival 2002

  50,000

  Football in the Community

  Football course with underachievers

  4,300

  Tinderbox

  Caught red handed

  37,702

  Young at Art

  Musical garden and festival

  20,020

  Ballynafeigh Community Development Association

  Peace boat project

  6,107

  Housing Construction (Belfast)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when work will start on construction of housing on the site of the former Somerdale School in Belfast. [124477]

  Mr. Spellar
  In response to community representations that the scheme would infringe their human rights, the PSNI, which has a responsibility to advise on new proposals such as this, undertook to review its original advice that the scheme could proceed. That undertaking was given at a public meeting on 4 June 2003 and the PSNI report is still awaited. The scheme is therefore delayed meantime.

  However, subject to a positive response from PSNI, my Department and the Housing Executive, which is taking the lead in trying to resolve the community issues at local level, are firmly committed to seeing this much needed scheme start on site at the earliest possible date. We have given commitments to local residents that they will be fully consulted beforehand.

  Provided the outstanding difficulties are resolved, it is hoped that the scheme can start in 2004–05.

  MOT Tests
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 98W, on MOT tests, what proportion of vehicle test failures were due to brake defects in each year since 2000–01. [124555]

  Angela Smith
  This information is not currently available.

  Until recently the records of the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency of the Department of the Environment were largely manual and it was not practicable to collate information on the causes of test failures.

  However, when the programme to re-equip the Agency's test centres with new computerised test equipment is completed, it will be possible to develop management information systems which will provide analyses of test results. The re-equipment programme is scheduled to be completed in September 2003.

  There is anecdotal evidence that customers and the motor trade are having difficulty in preparing vehicles for the brake imbalance test. It should be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the imbalance in braking efficiency between two wheels on the same axle that would cause the test to be failed would render the vehicle unroadworthy and constitute a road safety risk.

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contractors had money withheld by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each year since 1997 because of poor or sub-standard work. [123807]

  Mr. Spellar
  Because of the considerable number of contracts let annually by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the information for each year dating back to 1997 could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, all contractors have money withheld, pending the making good of defects. In any given year, this amounts to an average of £1.2 million.

  The Housing Executive is currently withholding some £1.3 million, pending the satisfactory completion of 221 contracts. The gross value of these contracts is around £89 million. The Housing Executive is also currently involved in six legal disputes, to a gross value of some £480,000, with contractors who have disputed, among other things, that their work is substandard.

  Presidential Visit
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which agencies and Departments bore the costs associated with President Bush's visit to Northern Ireland. [120364]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The costs associated with President Bush's visit to Northern Ireland, which included visits by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, were borne by the NIO, PSNI, and the MOD.

  River Pollution
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of pollution there were in each river in Northern Ireland in(a) 2002, (b) 2001 and (c) 2000, broken down by (i) industrial, (ii) farming and (iii) sewage incidents. [125327]

  Angela Smith
  In the time available it has not been possible to provide the information to the level requested. However, I have asked the Chief Executive of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) of the Department of the Environment to extract the information in respect of Northern Ireland's major rivers and tributaries and to write to the hon. Member.

  In the meantime the following table details the number of pollution incidents in each of the nine areas used by EHS for water pollution management purposes. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the attached map, which will be placed in the Library.

  949W

  Areas/year

  Industry

  Farming

  Sewage

  2000

  1

  142

  123

  111

  2

  26

  61

  23

  3

  59

  51

  37

  4

  51

  28

  46

  5

  50

  33

  97

  6

  41

  57

  83

  7

  18

  43

  19

  8

  12

  32

  15

  9

  53

  96

  47

  Total

  452

  524

  478

  2001

  1

  103

  83

  89

  2

  26

  47

  22

  3

  29

  43

  47

  4

  47

  29

  51

  5

  56

  42

  100

  6

  28

  66

  70

  7

  27

  33

  23

  8

  11

  46

  14

  9

  36

  98

  56

  Total

  363

  484

  472

  2002

  1

  105

  125

  119

  2

  34

  46

  18

  3

  30

  37

  27

  4

  32

  20

  40

  5

  35

  39

  92

  6

  21

  38

  48

  7

  33

  24

  10

  8

  12

  14

  21

  9

  47

  117

  54

  Total

  349

  460

  429

  Road Tax
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vehicles on the roads of Northern Ireland are estimated not to have road tax paid on them; and what assessment he has made of how this figure compares on a pro-rata basis with the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom. [124185]

  Angela Smith
  A UK wide roadside survey on Vehicle Excise Duty evasion in 2002 estimated that there were 76,900 unlicensed vehicles in Northern Ireland, 74,700 in the Private and Light goods tax class (cars and small vans) and 2,200 in the Goods vehicles class. These represent evasion rates respectively of 7.3 per cent. and 8.2 per cent.

  The evasion rates for cars and small vans in traffic in other parts of the UK were:

  Percentage

  East of England

  3.1

  East Midlands

  2.2

  Greater London

  4.5

  North East

  2.4

  North West

  2.8

  Scotland

  1.6

  South East

  2.8

  South West

  2.6

  Wales

  2.8

  West Midlands

  2.3

  Yorkshire and Humber

  2.4

  All Great Britain

  2.7

  950W
  A regional breakdown of Great Britain evasion rates is not available for the Goods vehicle class. The overall figure for Great Britain in the 2002 survey was 2.1 per cent.

  School Accommodation
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the physical condition of accommodation of schools in North Belfast. [123957]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Executive of the Belfast Education and Library Board has advised that physical condition surveys of all controlled and maintained schools in the Belfast Board area, including those located in North Belfast, have been completed in the previous four years. These surveys detail the condition of the schools throughout the estate and provide the basis for the Board's annual maintenance programme. Each year the Board carries out re-surveys of 25 per cent. of the schools' estate.

  In addition, under the Department's annual capital allocation process, school authorities are responsible for identifying schools requiring major capital investment. The Department is currently in the process of updating the list of schools that it has accepted as requiring such major works with the aim of publishing the list on its website at the end of July 2003. There are currently six major works schemes underway at schools in the North Belfast area.

  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the level of capital expenditure on schools was in the last two financial years. [123793]

  Jane Kennedy
  Capital expenditure on schools in each of the last two financial years is set out in the table.

  £ million

  2001–02

  104.4

  2002–03

  125.2

  South Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps(a) to ensure that the South Eastern Education and Library Board carries out a suitable scheme of upgrading and securing the Movilla High School recreation area in Newtownards and (b) to encourage a partnership approach with Ards borough council in developing the site. [123467]

  Jane Kennedy
  I understand from the Chief Executive of the South Eastern Education and Library Board that meetings have taken place between the school, the Board, Ards borough council officials and local representatives about the sports/recreation area at Movilla High School.

  Steps have been taken in the past to improve the fencing of the site in order to deter vandalism, but these have proved ineffective. The Board has, therefore, commissioned a study to examine the feasibility of moving the fencing back from the existing perimeter

  951W
  and, in partnership with the council, to provide some facilities for public use around the perimeter of the area. These proposals will be considered as part of the Board's minor works programme for the next financial year.

  Student Support
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to ensure increased levels of financial support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [123967]

  Jane Kennedy
  Following the review of student support in Northern Ireland, means-tested bursaries were introduced for higher and further education students from low-income families. From September 2003, I will increase the maxima of these bursaries from £1,500 to £2,000, while also increasing the income threshold from £15,000 to £20,000. I will also increase the threshold used for assessing a contribution to tuition fees from £20,480 to £20,970 from 1 September 2003.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many telecommunication masts have been erected within Northern Ireland in the last 10 years, broken down by council area; and how many acts of vandalism upon masts have been perpetrated during that period. [123712]

  Angela Smith
  The number of planning approvals granted for telecommunication masts, broken down by council area, is as follows:

  District council area

  Total applications approved 1994—to date

  Antrim

  62

  Ards

  60

  Armagh

  57

  Ballymena

  71

  Ballymoney

  15

  Banbridge

  31

  Belfast

  196

  Carrickfergus

  22

  Castlereagh

  39

  Coleraine

  48

  Cookstown

  28

  Craigavon

  64

  Derry

  53

  Down

  43

  Dungannon

  80

  Fermanagh

  106

  Larne

  37

  Limavady

  46

  Lisburn

  71

  Magherafelt

  27

  Moyle

  30

  Newry and Mourne

  53

  Newtownabbey

  39

  North Down

  79

  Omagh

  55

  Strabane

  26

  Total

  1,438

  Information on the number of approvals for telecommunication masts in 1993 is not available.
  952W
  Planning Service does not hold information on the number of telecommunication masts erected following receipt of approval.

  The Police Service of Northern Ireland has advised that it is not possible from the statistics available to identify the number of offences relating to criminal/malicious damage caused to telecommunication masts.

  Under Planning Policy Statement 10—Telecommunications—Planning Service requires service providers to show that site sharing of an existing mast has been investigated and that new mast proposals will only be acceptable to the Department where it is proven it is not possible to share. This is in order to limit the visual intrusion of phone masts across Northern Ireland. The process usually involves placing additional equipment to an existing mast, and, unless de minimus, would require planning permission. As a result of this, it is possible that more than one planning approval could pertain to a single mast.

SCOTLAND

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the administrative costs were of the Scotland Office as a percentage of total spending since 1999. [103809]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The information is provided in the following table:

  Net admin costs (£000)

  Total SO net resource (£000)

  Column 1 as a pecentage of column 2

  1999–20001

  3,743

  13,409,565

  0.03

  2000–01

  6,563

  14,103,787

  0.05

  2001–02

  6,598

  14,996.479

  0.04

  2002–03(estimated)

  6,807

  17,992,739

  0.04

  11 July 1999 to 31 March 2000: the Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114433]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The total expenditure by the Scotland Office on advertising in 2001–02 was £186,564, most of which related to electoral registration information. Expenditure for 2002–03 is estimated at £10,390 and for 2003–04 and 2004–05 expenditure is expected to be minimal.

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115201]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Details of the number and cost of agency workers employed by the Scotland Office are given in the table.
  953W

  £

  Number of temporary /agency staff

  Total spend on temporary/agency staff

  2001–02

  19

  75,392

  2002–03

  15

  78,539

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what actions her Department is taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether she has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if she will make a statement. [118852]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office, together with the Scottish Executive, has been complying with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 for buildings occupied jointly. In other buildings work will be undertaken to identify whether asbestos is present, to assess any risk and to take appropriate action. The cost of compliance has not yet been assessed.

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the actions she(a) has taken and (b) is taking to ensure that the websites of her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if she will make a statement. [118838]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office seeks to comply with the e-Envoy's "Guidelines for UK Government websites" and other UK wide guidelines and technical standards to ensure that its website is accessible to as wide an audience as possible. This includes compliance with the World Wide Web Accessibility Initiative's guidelines.

  Dunblane Tragedy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of the Cullen inquiry into the Dunblane tragedy; how long it lasted; and how many days it sat in public. [124331]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The direct cost of the Cullen inquiry, including staffing, accommodation and legal representation, was £1.05 million. The inquiry opened on 29 May 1996 and its report was published on 16 October 1996. It sat in public for 26 days.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116087]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No Scotland Office officials serve on EU committees or working parties.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what his Department's(a) total managed expenditure (b) total spending on information technology and
  954W
  (c) spending on information technology as a proportion of its total managed expenditure was in each financial year since 1978–98. [107185]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999. The figures for total departmental expenditure and spending on information technology are as follows:

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total expenditure1 (£000)

  3,836

  6,271

  6,469

  IT expenditure (£000)

  89

  58

  50

  IT expenditure (as percentage)

  2.32

  0.92

  0.77

  1 Excluding the grants paid to the Scottish Executive and the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107763]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office did not undertake any market testing programmes during 2002–03. Departments are no longer required to undertake a programme of market testing. They are, however, required to ensure that high quality public services are delivered on the basis of value for money in line with the better quality services ethos.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123124]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Since that date the Department has incurred no expenditure on media or voice training for Ministers or officials.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110440]

  Mrs. McGuire
  In the current financial year, the lowest salary level in the Scotland Office is £10,300, which equates to an hourly rate of £4.71. The effect of a minimum wage of £4.50 would therefore be nil.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make it her policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from her office use the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118859]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I can confirm it is the Department's policy to use the English spelling of words in preference to the US version and to write all correspondence in
  955W
  plain English. Departmental publications are prepared in line with Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

  Property Portfolio
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated value is of the property portfolio held by his Department. [108372]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The estimated value of the Scotland Office's property portfolio is £2.1 million.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in her Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000; and if she will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117471]

  Mrs. McGuire
  On 30 November 2002, the Scotland Office came together with the Scottish Executive, its agencies and other Government organisations in Scotland to publish a Statement of Intent on how they would comply with the employment duties of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000). It set out how they will fulfil their duty to monitor by ethnicity, including a Collective Employment Monitoring Scheme. The Scheme will publish the initial results of race equality employment monitoring in November 2003.

  Scotland Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated(a) administrative costs and (b) budget for the Scotland Office are for 2003–04; and how these have changed following the changes set out in the Prime Minister's statement of 18 June. [121480]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2003–04 is £20.344 billion, within which the administration costs of the Scotland Office amount to £6.977 million.

  These figures have not changed since the Prime Minister's statement on 18 June 2003.

  Speech Writers
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scotland Office has spent on external speech writers for the Secretary of State in the last 12 months. [115846]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No expenditure on external speech writers was incurred during the last 12 months.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the 956W
  Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122261]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office was established on 1 July 1999.

  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service are collected from Departments and 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 on he world wide web at: www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics Copies of these documents are also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. 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.

  The Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication, "Public Bodies". The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. "Public Bodies 2002" was published in January 2003. Copies of "Public Bodies" published each year since 1997 are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Details of staff costs are published in the annual Scotland Office Resource Accounts.

CABINET OFFICE

  Command Paper Cm 5511
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will update Box 26 of Cm 5511 to include 2002. [124824]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on location of permanent civil servants in the English regions will be included in the 'Civil Service Statistics 2002' publication, which also gives other figures on staffing in the civil service. This will be available shortly, published in the usual way.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116085]

  Mr. Alexander
  There is no fixed number of Cabinet Office officials attending EU Committees, Working Parties and Working Groups, as their membership is flexible. Policy officials attend as appropriate to ensure that the UK is always represented in those groups covering UK interests.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was sufficient and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117221]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers do not attend meetings of the Council of Ministers and therefore have not voted on behalf of the United Kingdom since May 1997 because the Law Officers do not have the policy lead on any matters debated there.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department (1) abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting;

  (2) has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if she will list the legislation by year; [117249]

  (3) indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117269]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers do not attend meetings of the Council of Ministers as the Law Officers do not have the policy lead on any matters debated there. Therefore, the Law Officers have not been involved in any vote in the Council of Ministers since May 1997.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was to her Department for(a) ministerial cars and

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  12002

  (b) Taxis

  19,903

  9,466

  10,945

  15,537

  20,920

  17,655

  (c) Trains

  50,961

  46,681

  62,089

  74,168

  100,051

  99,402

  (e) Airline tickets

  68,692

  37,062

  83,625

  152,990

  139,904

  86,713

  1provisional

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate does not keep separate accounts in these areas and costs are included in the figures provided by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Treasury Solicitor's DepartmentߞCrown Prosecution Service as a part of their overall accounts for 1997 to 2001 and Treasury Solicitor's Department from 2002 onwards.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The accounting system operated by the Treasury Solicitor's Department does not hold the information at the detailed level requested.
  958W
  drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123089]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The cost to the Crown Prosecution Service of train travel and airline tickets in each year since 1997 was as follows:

  £000

  Train travel

  Airline tickets

  1997–98

  483

  29

  1998–99

  583

  25

  1999–2000

  770

  39

  2000–01

  742

  77

  2001–02

  1,153

  151

  2002–03

  1,517

  166

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not separately record expenditure on taxis which could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The costs of taxis are, however, included with other miscellaneous travel expenditure and the aggregate cost of such expenditure is given as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  68

  1998–99

  70

  1999–2000

  72

  2000–01

  90

  2001–02

  148

  2002–03

  189

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has not incurred any expenditure providing transport for Ministers and has not used Ministerial cars, helicopters or chartered planes.

  Expenditure on the other items is detailed below for each financial year since 1997:

  The Department allocates its travel costs between costs incurred in the United Kingdom and abroad, and separately records the cost of Ministerial cars. So far as the Department's records show, the Department has not made use of helicopters or chartered planes since 1997.

  The Department's transport costs for each year since 1997 were:

  Year ending 31 March

  (a) Ministerial cars and drivers

  Transport in the United Kingdom

  Foreign travel

  1997

  123,600

  8,000

  5,800

  1998

  234,600

  18,500

  21,400

  1999

  118,500

  47,200

  29,200

  2000

  70,000

  55,000

  15,000

  959W

  Year ending 31 March

  (a) Ministerial cars and drivers

  Transport in the United Kingdom

  Foreign travel

  2001

  59,300

  61,800

  26,000

  2002

  109,800

  154,800

  28,200

  2003

  122,500

  134,700

  62,300

  The budget for my own department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, is administered by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the figures given by the Treasury-Solicitor's Department include costs incurred by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.

  Guantanamo Bay (UK Detainees)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Solicitor-General what role the Attorney-General has in ensuring that the UK nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay receive a fair trial; and if he will exercise extradition rights in relation to the UK nationals held at Guantanamo Bay. [124822]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General has been involved in discussions within Government about the position of UK nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay. He has also raised the matter with those responsible in the United States Administration, to express the Government's profound concern that if the UK detainees are to be tried they should have a fair trial with all proper safeguards, and to make plain the Government's opposition to the imposition of the death penalty.

  Requests for the extradition of persons from other jurisdictions are made under the Crown prerogative, where a person stands accused or convicted of an extradition crime, and it would be in the public interest to do so. It is not the practice or policy of the Government to comment on whether an extradition request may be made in any individual case.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost was to her Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each of the years since 1997, broken down by(a) price of apparatus and (b) cost of usage. [123071]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers does not keep separate figures for the cost of apparatus from that of usage. Costs since 1997 are as follows:

  Year ending 31 March

  1997

  1,724

  1998

  2,270

  1999

  2,739

  2000

  2,454

  2001

  2,223

  2002

  3,295

  2003

  4,405

  The Crown Prosecution Service cannot provide a separate breakdown of costs for purchasing contract mobile phones. The cost is included in the overall contract charge. The CPS also uses a few "Pay As You Go" mobile phones. These, together with the associated
  960W
  costs, are paid for individually by CPS Areas. In respect of the cost of usage, information is only available from October 1998 when the CPS established a national contract for telephony services. The overall contract charge for mobile phones is:

  £

  1998 (from October)

  11.95

  1999

  5,445.72

  2000

  28,621.79

  2001

  77,356.20

  2002

  138,086.75

  2003 (to end June)

  76,881.38

  The cost to the Serious Fraud Office for providing mobile phones to officials does not include the costs of personal calls. The full cost per year since 1997, is detailed.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  12002

  Network and call charges

  11,554

  4,205

  5,680

  5,981

  6,437

  7,536

  Purchases

  316

  274

  970

  1,261

  1,587

  823

  Total cost

  11,870

  4,479

  6,650

  7,242

  8,024

  8,359

  1 provisional

  As part of the Protocol between HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and Crown Prosecution Service, it was agreed the Crown Prosecution Service would pay for all mobile phones supplied to inspectors. Costs since 2000 are broken down as follows:
  a total of 11 mobile phones within HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate
  monthly rental of £11.14 each (overall annual cost £1,470.48)
  an approximate cost of calls per annum is £750.00. This works out to an average cost of £5.68 per phone, per month.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has not purchased any apparatus. Since 1997, the annual cost of mobile telephone usage, including equipment rental, for the Department for the years ending 31 March was:

  Year ending 31 March

  Total

  1997

  4,766

  1998

  4,809

  1999

  6,182

  2000

  8,981

  2001

  10,122

  2002

  7,869

  2003

  12,735

  Performance Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the performance targets that(a) her Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if she will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [120869]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 24 June 2003]: Key performance targets are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–06 (Cm 5571). Targets are monitored with HM Treasury and progress is reported regularly.
  961W
  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service, along with other criminal justice agencies, is subject to a Public Service Agreement for which the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General are jointly responsible. The Public Service Agreement prescribes three targets for the criminal justice system: to narrow the justice gap by bringing more offences to justice and reducing ineffective trials; to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system; and to increase value for money. These are overarching targets applying to the police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service. Day to day delivery is the responsibility of all of these agencies, working together in partnership through Local Criminal Justice Boards established across each of the 42 operational areas of the criminal justice system.

  Underlying these targets are a number of measures specific to the Crown Prosecution Service, which demonstrate the contribution of the service to the criminal justice system as a whole and govern the performance of its 42 areas. The targets for 2003–06 are as follows:

  Narrowing the justice gap
  To reduce by 5 per cent. in 2003–04 the proportion of unsuccessful outcomes in defendant cases in both the magistrates courts and the Crown court. Further targets are to be agreed for 2004–06;
  To increase the number of recorded offences brought to justice for which the offender was a persistent offender at the point of charge;
  To reduce by 27 per cent. the proportion of ineffective trials in the magistrates courts and in the Crown court; and
  To introduce an agreed shadow charging scheme in partnership with the police in all areas between March 2003 and December 2003.

  Improving Public Confidence
  To ensure, year on year, that at least 95 per cent. of initial and continuing review decisions comply with the Code for Crown Prosecutors;
  To increase by five percentage points current CPS compliance with its primary and secondary disclosure responsibilities;
  To maintain year on year the average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders at or below seventy one days; and
  To increase year on year the number of areas that have regular engagement with groups that support victims of domestic violence and with minority ethnic communities.

  Value for money
  Specific measures in support of this target are under development.

  Other measures

  In addition, the service has a number of targets which are not directly related to the Public Service Agreement, as follows:
  The Crown Prosecution Service is committed, along with its criminal justice partners, to delivery of agreed timeliness targets from charge or laying of information to completion for a range of cases in both the magistrates courts and the Crown court;
  962W
  Subject to the successful rollout of the Compass case tracking system, all Crown Prosecution Service areas to input data providing the capacity to report on the progress and outcome of cases involving allegations of domestic violence, racially and religiously motivated offences, homophobic crime, rape and child abuse;
  To reply to 95 per cent. of complaints within 10 days of receipt and to 95 per cent. of inquiries from Members of Parliament within 15 days; and
  Additional measures are under development related to the timeliness and quality of direct communication with victims.

  Targets are determined by the Crown Prosecution Service Board, which comprises the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Executive, Chief Crown Prosecutors representing the 42 areas, Headquarters Directors and non-executive Directors.

  Performance is reported on a quarterly basis to the newly created Business Development Directorate, which has responsibility for monitoring progress towards targets both at local and national level, and for raising with the 42 areas both matters of concern and aspects of good practice which emerge from the resulting record of delivery.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office does not have any agencies or non-departmental bodies. Current performance targets are as follows:
  a caseload of 110 active cases (including appeals) within allocated resources;
  a long-run average investigation time of 16.5 months;
  a long-run average prosecution stage length of 14.5 months.

  Performance targets are agreed by Ministers and officials, and subject to monitoring by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Ministers and officials.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has clear objectives set out in its Strategic and Business Plan 2003–06 which is available on their website at www.hmcpsi.gov.uk. The objectives of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate support the Government's overarching objectives for the criminal justice system and the linked Public Service targets.

  However, no separate performance targets have been developed for HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.

  The Plan is approved by the Attorney-General and progress is monitored by the Attorney-General's Advisory Board.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department is required to meet the following performance targets:
  (a) to introduce a professionally informed client survey methodology for all the Agency's legal work by September 2003;
  (b) to meet client satisfaction levels as measured by survey results of:
  at least 95 per cent. For Advisory Divisions
  at least 90 per cent. For Litigation Division and ECCG;

  963W
  (c) to recover from clients the full operating costs for chargeable services;
  (d) to maintain corporate staff overheads costs at no more than 15 per cent. of total staff costs;
  (e) to reduce sick absence per staff year by 30 per cent. by 2003–04 (base year 1998–99);
  (f) to achieve a level of ill-health retirements by 2005 consistent with or better than the best quartile target of 3.72 retirements per 1,000 employees;
  (g) to pay all undisputed invoices in accordance with terms or within 30 days.

  Targets (a) to (d) were agreed between the Department, the Attorney-General and HM Treasury as part of the Department's Spending Review 2002 settlement. Targets (e) to (g) were set centrally by Ministers for all Government Departments.

  Achievement against all targets is monitored by the Department's Board and the Attorney-General; and reported to Parliament and the Public in the Law Officer's spring Departmental Report and the Treasury Solicitor's Department's Annual Report.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anti-Social Behaviour Orders have been issued since their introduction. [124145]

  Ms Blears
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. The provisional number of notifications received by the Home Office of ASBOs granted within England and Wales, up to 31 March 2003 (latest available), is 1,096.

  We are aware that the numbers of ASBOs made nationally have been consistently under-reported in returns made by magistrates courts. A recent reconciliation exercise with the police identified a further 125 ASBOs, for the period 1 October 2001 to 31 December 2002, which had not been reported by the courts. The figure quoted above includes these orders.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department has taken to widen the NIA grants available to destitute asylum seekers in order to ease removal procedures. [124056]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) is available to all nationalities throughout the asylum process including those who have received a negative decision on their asylum claim and are awaiting appeal. It is also open to those who have been granted time limited leave to enter or remain.

  VARRP aims to secure the dignified, safe and sustainable return of those who wish to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily. The International Organization for Migration, which runs this programme on behalf of the Home Office, will assist the returnee prior to departure with counselling and independent advice. They will also help with travel arrangements, tickets etc.
  964W
  On arrival to the returnees' country of origin they will receive reintegration assistance worth approximately £500 (not cash). This assistance includes help with initial housing and access to employment, training, education and health facilities.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reinstate embarkation controls at UK borders in order to facilitate the assessment of members of failed asylum seekers who remain in the country. [124064]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are keeping the option for embarkation controls under review, taking into account cost, the move towards capturing details of arriving and embarking passengers electronically and our current capability to conduct random, short-term embarkation controls if necessary. Targeted embarkation exercises have already been undertaken and, subject to operational priorities, we plan to undertake further special exercises to help estimate the number of failed asylum seekers leaving the United Kingdom voluntarily.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what enquiries he has made of local estate agents at Lee-on-the-Solent concerning the impact on house prices of the announcement that the Daedalus site was being considered as a possible location for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers. [124079]

  Beverley Hughes
  None.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the impact of the implementation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on his policy of dispersing asylum seekers throughout the UK; how many asylum seekers have been dispersed since section 55 was implemented; when he will publish his revised guidelines on the implementation of section 55; and if he will make a statement. [124116]

  Beverley Hughes
  The impact of section 55 on the dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the United Kingdom has been monitored since its implementation on 8 January 2003.

  The number of dispersals per month/quarter is not available. However, the assumption can be made that the majority of cases applying for accommodation support will be dispersed. The number of applications for National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation during the first quarter of 2003 was 7,990 and the corresponding number for the fourth quarter of 2002 was 10,410.

  Information on applications for NASS support is published in the quarterly asylum statistics available from the Library, and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  The next publication will be available at the end of August 2003.

  The guidance for NASS caseworkers on section 55 was revised and reissued on 11 April 2003 following the Court of Appeal judgment on 18 March 2003 and is being kept under review.

  CCTV
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on CCTV programmes administered by the Government Office for the North West. [124390]

  Ms Blears
  A potential £170 million will be spent funding 684 CCTV schemes across England and Wales under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative.

  The Government Office for the North West received funding of £22,800,000 for 95 CCTV schemes. All schemes are now operational, apart from the Liverpool Citysafe scheme which is due for completion in late summer 2003. A full list of these schemes is available on the crime reduction website at: http://www. crimereduction.gov.uk/cctvminisitel.htm.

  Funding for a range of crime reduction interventions, including CCTV, is currently available to local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships under the Building Safer Communities fund.

  Domestic Violence
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the money being invested in new refuge accommodation over the next three years will be made available in Northern Ireland for those fleeing domestic violence. [123457]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  The money announced by the Home Secretary for investment in new refuge accommodation over the next three years is to be used to provide units of accommodation in all regions of England. None of this money will be allocated to Northern Ireland.

  However, as indicated in the Northern Ireland Office press release of 19 June 2003, welcoming the Home Office consultation paper, "Safety and Justice: The Government's Proposals on Domestic Violence", a parallel Northern Ireland consultation paper on domestic violence has been commissioned and the issue of refuge accommodation in Northern Ireland will be considered in that context.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116095]

  Caroline Flint
  Membership of EU committees, working parties and working groups is not fixed. The number of officials who attend such meetings on behalf of the Department will therefore vary at any given time, with the most appropriate policy officials attending depending on the subject matter under consideration. On average, however, the Department will not send more than two officials to such meetings.

  Firearms
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were killed by a firearm in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton in each of the past 10 years. [124109]
  966W
  Ms Blears
  The number of homicides committed using firearms in England and Wales in the last 10 years are given in the table.

  Number of firearm homicides1

  1992

  56

  1993

  74

  1994

  66

  1995

  70

  1996

  49

  1997

  59

  1997–98

  54

  1998–99

  49

  1999–2000

  62

  2000–01

  73

  2001–02

  97

  1 Figures are on a calendar year basis from 1992 to 1997, and thereafter on a financial year basis (12 months to March).

  Numbers of other firearm deaths are not collected by the Home Office.

  Numbers of firearm offences are not available centrally by local authority area.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Fireworks
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fixed penalty notices were issued in each police authority area for offences in connection with fireworks in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [124113]

  Ms Blears
  Penalty notices for 11 disorder offences, including that of throwing fireworks in the street, are being piloted in four police areas: West Midlands, Essex, North Wales and the Croydon division of the Metropolitan police. In the light of early findings, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 14 May 2003 that the penalty notice for disorder scheme will be rolled out nationally. Detailed data on the numbers of penalty notices issued will be included in the evaluation report on the pilots, which will be published.

  Gun Crime
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to reduce the incidence of gun crime across the UK. [124413]

  Caroline Flint
  The recent increases in the number of gun crime offences are unacceptable and the Government are therefore taking a wide range of action to reduce this.
  967W
  This includes:
  Proposing a mandatory, minimum 5-year sentence for those convicted, on indictment, of possessing prohibited firearms;
  Proposing to ban the carrying of replicas or air weapons in a public place without reasonable excuse;
  Proposing to raise the age limit for owning an air weapon from 14 to 17 and restricting their use without adult supervision as 77 per cent. of airgun crimes are criminal damage;
  Proposing a ban on the sale, manufacture and import of tandem air cartridge systems, and the licensing of those already held as they can be readily converted into lethal firearms;
  Publishing a new strategy for witnesses to increase the numbers of people who come forward when they witness a crime;
  The national firearms amnesty, held during April, in which over 43,000 weapons and 1 million rounds of ammunition were handed in.

  Legislation and law enforcement alone cannot solve the problem and it is vital that community groups, local authorities and those involved in service provision, including education, engage with us in taking action to deal with this problem. Community groups have therefore been involved in the two national meetings my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has chaired and we will maintain this dialogue and support community involvement in tackling gun crime.

  We look forward, among other things, to working with the Disarm Trust which will support the victims of, and communities working against, gun crime. We will be looking to support community groups in other ways.

  The police have established dedicated teams, such as Operation Trident in London and Operation Stealth in Nottingham, working against particular groups of criminals involved in armed violence. Many of these Operations have forged good links with the communities they serve by establishing Independent Advisory Groups, made up of members of the local community.

  Knife Attacks
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many knife attacks were reported in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton in each of the past 10 years; and how many of these attacks were fatal. [124108]

  Ms Blears
  Details of homicides held centrally relate to England and Wales only and are not collected by local authority area. The number of homicides committed using a sharp instrument, in each of the past 10 years, are given in the table.

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide involving a sharp instrument2, England and Wales

  1992

  218

  1993

  182

  1994

  231

  1995

  244

  1996

  197

  1997

  200

  1997–98

  202

  1998–99

  202

  968W

  Offences currently1 recorded as homicide involving a sharp instrument2, England and Wales

  1999–2000

  213

  2000–01

  215

  2001–02

  265

  1 As at 8 October 2002; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  2 Figures are on a calendar year basis from 1992 to 1997, and thereafter on a financial year basis (12 months to March).

  Numbers of other knife attacks are not collected separately by the Home Office.

  Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Passports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent estimate is of the number of days on average it takes to(a) process a new passport application by post and (b) renew a passport by post; and if he will make a statement. [123580]

  Beverley Hughes
  In the week ending 6 July the average processing time for a single straightforward, properly completed application made by post was five days for a new passport and four days for a renewal. It is not possible to state the average time for processing non-straightforward applications as this depends on the time it takes to resolve queries on these applications.

  Police
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers per head of population were employed in Cornwall in each of the last 10 years. [124447]

  Ms Blears
  Information for the last 10 years is only available at force level and is provided on the basis of the number of police officers per 100,000 population.

  As at 31 March

  Number of police officers per 100,000 population1

  1993

  191.4

  1994

  190.9

  1995

  187.7

  1996

  188.1

  1997

  185.7

  1998

  192.0

  1999

  186.1

  2000

  182.3

  2001

  186.9

  2002

  192.4

  1 Population figures are provided by the Office for National Statistics. Comparisons for number of police officers to 100,000 populations can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletins, Police Strength for England and Wales, covering each year 1998 to 2002

  By 30 September 2002 Devon and Cornwall police had 3,145 offices, a record number. The latest figure for civilian staff is 1,639 at 31 March 2002.

  Policing
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he has made to the structure of policing to improve responsiveness in the event of a serious terrorist incident; and if he will make a statement. [121966]

  Ms Blears
  In consultation with the police service and other agencies local, regional and national structures have, and are being, developed and strengthened in the light of the developing terrorist threat. A particularly important example of our strengthening these arrangements is the regional and national co-ordination of Special Branch work.

  Each police force in England and Wales has at least one Counter Terrorism Security Advisor (CTSA), to advise in such matters.

  Sefton
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which wards and programmes within Sefton have benefited from(a) CCTV programmes, (b) the target policing initiative and (c) violence against women. [124389]

  Ms Blears
  The following four CCTV schemes in the Sefton constituency received funding under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative:Crosby town centre (£108,6710), South Road, Waterloo (£185,487), Bootle town centre (£132,623) and Southport town centre (£169,525).

  No targeted policing initiative or violence against women projects were funded in Sefton.

WALES

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) his Department. [105993]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave him on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 750W.

  The Wales Office Report 2003 was published in May 2003 as Cm 5928 and is available in the Library.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the running costs of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123107]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 April 2002,Official Report, column 750W.

  The most recent Wales Office Departmental Report was published in May 2003 as Cm 5928 and is available in the Library.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss student funding. [124656]

  Mr. Hain
  I am in close and regular contact with the Assembly First Minister, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and Cabinet colleagues about the possibility of transferring a range of functions in respect of student funding to the Assembly. The matter is still under active consideration at both ministerial and official level, and it is important to ensure that all the options, costs, implications and risks are fully considered.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Dioceses (Financial Performance)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 585W, on the financial performance of dioceses, whether the information received by the Archbishops' Council is published for comparative purposes. [124801]

  Mr. Bell
  The Archbishops' Council from time to time publishes documents containing some comparative data for all dioceses and I am sending the hon. Gentleman copies of two recent publications.

  Dioceses' Income
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what proportion of each diocese's income is represented by payments made by the Church Commissioners. [124800]

  Mr. Bell
  In 2001, the most recent year for which figures for total Church expenditure are available, the commissioners paid 19 per cent. of the Church's overall running costs. This included full responsibility for meeting the cost of clergy pensions arising from service up to the end of 1997. Such expenditure is paid direct to pensioners, not through dioceses, and we do not keep a record of the proportion of each diocese's total income which comes from the commissioners.

  However, details of how the commissioners' funds are used to support the Church's ministry around the country can be found in the General Synod document which I made available to the hon. Gentleman.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much attendance allowance has been withheld from pensioners in self-funded care homes in Scotland since the introduction of free personal care in Scotland. [122293]

  Maria Eagle
  Since 1 July 2002, 1,793 care home residents in Scotland have lost their entitlement to attendance allowance because their personal care costs
  971W
  are met by their local authority under the "free personal care" arrangements made by the Scottish Executive. The loss of entitlement to attendance allowance in these circumstances follows the normal social security benefit rules to prevent duplicate provision from public funds for the same purpose (following the same principle, receipt of free nursing care, irrespective of the setting in which it is provided, does not affect the payment of attendance allowance). Information is not routinely collected about the precise period covered by the loss of entitlement to payments in individual cases, or about the weekly amount paid before that loss of entitlement, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what responsibilities his Department undertakes in connection with British overseas territories. [123898]

  Mr. Pond
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not have any direct responsibilities concerning the overseas territories. However, the Department is responsible for managing two EU Structural Fund programmes designed to strengthen economic and social cohesion. Organisations from Gibraltar are eligible to participate in the two programmes.

  British Sign Language Initiatives
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much of the funding for British Sign Language initiatives has been allocated to Northern Ireland. [121914]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  As language policy was devolved to Northern Ireland's local administration, none of the funding allocated by the Department for Work and Pensions to British Sign Language will be allocated to Northern Ireland.

  My officials in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure are considering options for supporting British and Irish sign languages in Northern Ireland.

  Carers Allowance
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people over the state retirement age have(a) applied for and (b) received the full carer's allowance since October 2002; [124349]

  (2) how many people over the state retirement age, living in Devon, have (a) applied for and (b) received the carers' allowance since October 2002. [124353]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: The information is in the following tables and relates to the period October 2002 to February 2003. The majority of carers over state pension age who qualify for carer's allowance also receive a state pension of an equal or higher amount. In these circumstances, the overlapping benefits rules preclude the payment of carer's allowance. However, people affected in this way can, if they are on a low income, qualify for the carer premium payable with income related benefits.
  972W

  Number of people over state pension age in Great Britain who have (a) claimed carer's allowance and (b) received the full rate of the allowance

  Number

  (a) Claims

  25,630

  (b) In payment in full

  560

  Number of people over state pension age in Devon who have (a) claimed carer's allowance and (b) received the allowance

  Number

  (a) Claims

  290

  (b) In payment

  20

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  The "claims" figures refer to the number of people over state pension age making a claim. Each person may have made more than one claim.

  The "in payment in full" figure relates to any over state pension age person in Great Britain receiving the full amount of the allowance at the end of any month from October 2002 to February 2003.

  The "in payment" figure relates to any over state pension age person, in Devon receiving payment of the allowance at the end of any month from October 2002 to February 2002.

  The figures for Devon exclude Unitary Authorities within the ceremonial boundary.

  State Pension age is 60 for women and 65 for men.

  Source:

  100 per cent. data from the Carer's Allowance Computer System (CACS) supplied by Information and Analysis Directorate. Figures are at 28 February 2003

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what review and evaluation strategies his Department uses to monitor the work of the Child Support Agency in ensuring that those who refuse to pay maintenance for their children are made to do so. [124026]

  Mr. Pond
  The Child Support Agency, as part of the Department for Work and Pensions, is regularly monitored in its progress towards a range of targets including those on collection of maintenance liabilities. The Secretary of State's targets for 2003–04 are published in the Agency's business plan, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority. [117213]

  Mr. Pond
  Information for the period before 1999 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, as far as we have been able to verify, the Department has not voted against any legislative proposals at any Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council.
  973W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting. [117236]

  Mr. Pond
  Information for the period before 1999 is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, there have been no occasions where the Department has abstained on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers broken down by legislation and year. [117240]

  Mr. Pond
  Information for the period before 1999 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, there have been no occasions where the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117255]

  Mr. Pond
  The information for the period before 1999 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Since January 1999, there have been no occasions where the Department has indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his Department in each of the last five years. [120747]

  Mr. Pond
  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation in national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. Some Regulations enact small or technical amendments. The number of Regulations implemented by the Department for Work and Pensions in each of the last five years is as follows:

  2003 (to date): 2

  Council Regulation (EEC) 304/2003 of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of certain dangerous chemicals.

  Series Reference

  Title

  Publication date

  INDG

  347

  Basic advice on first aid at work

  4 February 2002

  INDG

  178

  (Rev1)

  Written schemes of examination: Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000

  5 February 2002

  INDG

  348

  Mark a parcel, save a back

  12 February, 2002

  INDG

  268

  Rev

  Working together: Guidance on health and safety for Contractors and suppliers

  22 February 2002

  974W
  Council Regulation (EC) 859/2003 of 14 May 2003 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) 574/72 to cover nationals of third countries who are not already covered by those provisions solely on the ground of their nationality.

  2002: 1

  Commission Regulation (EC) 1687/2002 of 25 September 2002 on an additional period for notification of certain active substances already on the market for biocidal use as established in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2000.

  2001: 1

  Council Regulation (EC) 1386/2001 of 5 June 2001—Miscellaneous Amendments to Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) 574/72.

  2000: 2

  Council Regulation (EC) 00/1896 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products.

  Council Regulation (EC) 00/2364 of 25 October 2000 concerning the fourth list of priority substances as foreseen under Council Regulation (EEC) No. 793/93.

  1999: 4

  Council Regulation (EC) 307/1999 of 8 February 1999 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) 574/72 to cover students.

  Council Regulation (EC) 1399/1999 of 29 April 1999—Miscellaneous Amendments to Regulation (EEC)1408/71 and Regulation(EEC) 574/72.

  Council Regulation 1260/1999 of 21 June laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

  Council and European Parliament Regulation 1784/1999 of 12 July 1999 on the European Social Fund.

  1998: 2

  Council Regulation (EC) 1223/1998 of 4 June 1998—Miscellaneous Amendments to Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) 1408/71.

  Council Regulation (EC) 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 extending the provisions of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) 574/72 to cover special schemes for civil servants.

  Health and Safety
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the titles of the guidance books produced by the Health and Safety Executive since February 2002; and if he will make a statement. [122822]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: Since 1 February 2002 66 guidance publications have been produced by HSE. They are listed in the following table:

  975W

  Series Reference

  Title

  Publication date

  INDG

  335

  Is it explosive? Dangers of explosives in metal recycling

  26 February 2002

  HSG

  60

  Upper limb disorders in the workplace

  28 February 2002

  HSG

  225

  Handling home care: Achieving safe, efficient and positive outcomes for care workers and clients

  5 March 2002

  HSG

  197

  Developing and maintaining staff competence: Railway safety principles and guidance Part 3 Section A

  19 March 2002

  INDG

  355

  Reduce risks—cut costs: The real costs of accidents and ill health at work

  22 April 2002

  INDG

  354

  Safety in electrical testing at work: General guidance

  10 May 2002

  INDG

  355

  W

  Reduce risks—cut costs: The real cost of accidents and ill health at work (Welsh)

  10 May 2002

  INDG

  349

  Safe working with vehicle air conditioning systems: Guidance for employers, self- employed people and supervisors

  14 May 2002

  INDG

  308

  rev1

  The safe use of gas cylinders

  30 May 2002

  INDG

  356

  Reducing accidents and ill health in motor vehicle repair

  16 June 2002

  INDG

  357

  Contained use of genetically modified organisms: Excluding information from the Public Register

  18 June 2002

  INDG

  359

  Waste industry safety and health—reducing the risks

  18 June 2002

  HSG

  229

  Work-related violence case studies: managing the risk in smaller businesses

  9 July 2002

  INDG

  229

  (rev1)

  Using work equipment safely

  11 July 2002

  INDG

  350

  The idiot's guide to CHIP 3

  24 July 2002

  INDG

  352

  Read the label: How to find out if chemicals are dangerous

  24 July 2002

  INDG

  353

  Why do I need a safety data sheet? CHIP3

  24 July 2002

  L

  129

  Approved supply list (seventh edition)

  24 July 2002

  L

  130

  The compilation of safety data sheets (third edition). Approved code of practice

  24 July 2002

  L

  131

  Approved classification and labelling guide (fifth edition). Guidance on regulations

  24 July 2002

  INDG

  361

  Regulating health and safety in the UK offshore oil and gas fields: Who does what?

  29 July 2002

  INDG

  358

  Guidance on the provision of equipment and arrangements for evacuation and escape from trains in an emergency: Guidance for the railway industry

  2 August 2002

  HSG

  228

  CHIP for everyone

  7 August 2002

  INDG

  362

  Noise at work—advice for employers

  10 September 2002

  INDG

  363

  Protect your hearing or lose it!

  10 September 2002

  HSG

  177

  Managing health and safety in dockwork

  17 September 2002

  INDG

  368

  Use of contractors—a joint responsibility

  18 September 2002

  INDG

  364

  The right start work experience for young people: Health and safety basics for employers

  19 September 2002

  INDG

  367

  Inspecting fall arrest equipment made from webbing or rope

  30 September 2002

  L

  70

  A guide to the Offshore Installations and Pipeline Works (Management and Administration) Regulations 1995. Guidance regulations. Revised

  4 October 2002

  HSG

  231

  Working safely with metalworking fluids: Good practice manual

  15 October 2002

  INDG

  365

  Working safely with metalworking fluids: A guide for employees

  15 October 2002

  INDG

  300

  Workplace Transport—CD ROM—booklet

  16 October 2002

  INDG

  360

  Health and safety in audio-visual production: Your legal duties

  16 October 2002

  INDG

  238

  (rev2)

  Gas appliances: Get them checked—keep them safe

  22 October 2002

  INDG

  285

  (rev1)

  A guide to landlords' duties: Gas Safety Installation and Use) Regulations 1998

  22 October 2002

  HSG

  232

  Sound solutions for the food and drink industries: Reducing noise in food and drink manufacturing

  28 October 2002

  HSG

  230

  Keeping electrical switchgear safe

  4 November 2002

  INDG

  369

  Why fall for it? Preventing falls in agriculture

  25 November 2002

  HSG

  227

  A comprehensive guide to managing asbestos in premises

  6 December 2002

  INDG

  223

  rev3

  A short guide to managing asbestos in premises

  6 December 2002

  L

  127

  The management of asbestos in non-domestic premises. The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. Approved code of pracetice and guidance

  6 December 2002

  L

  132

  Control of lead at work. Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002. Approved code of pracetice and guidance

  6 December 2002

  L

  27

  Work with asbestos which does not normally require a licence (fourth edition). Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. Approved code of practice and guidance

  6 December 2002

  L

  28

  Work with asbestos insulation, asbestos coating and asbestos insulating board (fourth edition). Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. Approved code of practice and guidance

  6 December 2002

  L

  5

  Control of substances hazardous to health. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Approved code of practice and guidance

  6 December 2002

  HSG

  122

  New and expectant mothers at work: A guide for employers

  9 December 2002

  INDG

  370

  Fire and explosion—How safe is your workplace? A short guide to the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations.

  9 December 2002

  INDG

  371

  Health and safety in ski slope operations

  13 January 2003

  INDG

  90

  (rev2)

  Understanding ergonomics at work: Reduce accidents and ill health and increase productivity by fitting the task to the worker

  31 January 2003

  HSG

  90

  The law on VDUs: An easy guide: Making sure your office complies with the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (as amended in 2002)

  28 February 2003

  INDG

  171

  (rev1)

  Aching arms (or RSI) in small businesses: Is ill health due to upper limb disorders a problem in your workplace?

  28 February 2003

  L

  26

  Work with display screen equipment: Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 as amended by the Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002: Guidance on regulations

  28 February 2003

  976W 977W

  Series Reference

  Title

  Publication date

  HSG

  85

  Electricity at work: Safe working practices

  20 March 2003

  INDG

  373

  A guide for new and expectant mothers who work

  24 March 2003

  INDG

  372

  Electrical switchgear and safety: A concise guide for users

  16 April 2003

  INDG

  136

  rev2

  COSHH: A brief guide to the regulations. What you need to know about the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH)

  22 April 2003

  INDG

  259

  rev1

  An introduction to health and safety

  28 April 2003

  L

  133

  Unloading petrol from road tankers. Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002. Approved code of practice and guidance.

  6 May 2003

  HSG

  235

  Bulk storage of acids. Guidance on the storage of hydrochloric acid and nitric acid in tanks

  12 May 2003

  HSG

  234

  Caring for cleaners. Guidance and case studies on how to prevent musculoskeletal disorder

  21 May 2003

  INDG

  376

  Legionnaires' disease: Essential informatioa for providers of residential accommodation

  23 May 2003

  L

  52

  Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 2000 including 2001 and 2003 amendments. Guidance on regulations

  30 May 2003

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effect of amendments agreed in the European Parliament on occupational pensions; and whether these amendments impose(a) obligations and (b) restrictions on the use of tax-free lump sum payments. [123649]

  Mr. Pond
  The finely balanced package of amendments to the Directive on Occupational Pensions, agreed in the European Parliament on 12 March 2003, contributed to a Directive that is an important first step towards a single market for occupational retirement provision. At the same time, the Directive acknowledges that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, member states retain full responsibility for the organisation of their pension systems. The amendments will not affect the use of tax-free lump sum payments.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will reply to the written questions tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West on 16 June 2003, refs: 270, 273 and 274, and on 18 June 2003, ref: 258. [124554]

  Mr. Pond
  Answers were given to the hon. Member on 25 June and 4 July 2003.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his oral answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, columns 735–36, on pension credit reassessments, what will constitute a significant change in circumstances which will have to be reported to the Pensions Service by a recipient of the pension credit. [124825]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Significant changes that must be reported to the Pension Service by a pension credit recipient are: marriage or cohabitation; death, divorce or separation of a partner; change of name, address or payment location details; changes to any paid work; going into or coming out of hospital, a care home or prison; going abroad; changes in household composition, changes to certain housing costs, joining a religious order and changes to caring responsibilities.
  978W
  Customers whose pension credit entitlement is fixed for five years do not have to report any changes to their occupational or private pensions and annuities or capital.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter dated 22 May 2003 from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, Home Office ref PO 9133/3. [123585]

  Mr. Mullin
  A reply was sent from UK visas as the department responsible for entry clearance matters on 2 July 2003.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letters of 19 June 2003 from the hon. Member for Bradford, North regarding M. B. Dhaka, refs:(a) FV331/2003 and (b) K1636. [124961]

  Mr. Mullin
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend has not yet received a substantive reply to his letter of 19 June 2003. I will write to him in the next few days about this case.

  Burundi
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for an all-inclusive ceasefire in Burundi. [124005]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are working closely with the Government of Burundi, countries in the region and international partners to help Burundi complete peacefully the period of transition laid down in the 2000 Arusha Accord.

  The UK is supporting efforts by the regional initiative on Burundi and the African Mission to ensure effective implementation of an all-inclusive ceasefire. Two of the four rebel factions not included in the Arusha Accord have signed and are implementing ceasefire agreements. We continue to call on the FDD (Nkurunziza) to implement the 2 December ceasefire and the FNL (Rwasa) to enter the peace process without delay.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the six provinces of Afghanistan for which the UK has responsibility for provincial reconstruction. [123965]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are five provinces that will be covered by the UK Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) based in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif. These are Balkh, Faryab, Jowzjan, Samangan and Sar-ePol.

  The PRT will not be directly responsible for provincial reconstruction, but will aim to help the Afghan effort to improve the security environment as well as facilitating Security Sector Reform (SSR) and reconstruction efforts.

  Botswana
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the Government of Botswana on the forced removal of tribal peoples from their homelands in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve; and if he will make a statement. [123809]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our high commission in Gaborone discusses issues relating to the Basarwa regularly with the Government of Botswana. The subject was raised during my Noble Friend, Baroness Amos, the then Minister for Africa's visit to Botswana on 1 April.

  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the proposals from the executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on partnerships for global peace and prosperity. [123758]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has determined that the central theme of its conference in Bangladesh in October will be "Partnerships for Global Peace and Prosperity". The agenda for the conference includes the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, human rights, free trade, anti-terrorism measures and the needs of small states. These are all issues in which the British Government take an active interest. The Commonwealth accepts that sustained action on all these fronts is vital. The UK will continue to play a significant part in the global effort needed.

  Croatia
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the accession of Croatia to the EU. [124748]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government support Croatia's EU aspirations. The Treaty of European Union establishes the procedure for processing a membership application. The relevant provisions state that any European state that respects the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law may submit a membership application to the Council. The Council then forwards 980W
  the application to the Commission for an Opinion on the applicant's readiness to begin accession negotiations, measured against the criteria set out at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. Croatia's application for EU membership should be treated in accordance with these provisions.

  Croatia applied for membership on 21 February 2003. The Council forwarded the application to the Commission on 14 April 2003. Croatia's application will be assessed on its merits. Croatia's economic performance has been strong. However, there is still progress to be made in a number of areas, in particular co-operation with the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia, judicial reform, minority rights and refugee returns.

  Cuba
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Cuba regarding the cases of(a) Dr. Biscet and (b) J. C. G. Leiva. [124749]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK, along with EU Partners, is deeply concerned by the arrest and detention of peaceful opposition figures in Cuba, including Oscar Elias Biscet and Juan Carlos Leiva. We have repeatedly expressed our concerns to the Cuban Government. The EU has in recent months issued three statements calling for the release of all those imprisoned in Cuba on political grounds and the UK has made clear our strong support for this stance direct to the Cuban authorities.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the likely effect on Turkey's application for status as an EU candidate member of(a) non-compliance with the ECHR judgment in the Loizidou case, (b) the extent to which the elections in occupied Cyprus later this year are fairly conducted and (c) the extent to which the Copenhagen criteria relating to human rights are implemented in occupied Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [R][123180]

  Mr. MacShane
  Turkey was granted EU candidate status at the Helsinki summit of 1999.

  We remain strong supporters of Turkey's EU candidacy. We encourage the Turks to continue their process of legislative reforms in order to meet the Copenhagen political criteria, and particularly the priorities set out in the revised Accession Partnership. We will continue to find practical ways to help Turkey implement these reforms.

  We welcome Turkey's recent commitment to pay the compensation awarded by the European Court of Human Rights to Ms Loizidou, by October.

  The promotion and protection of human rights in the north of Cyprus would be best achieved through a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan. Turkey has repeatedly committed herself to supporting that process.
  981W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on seeking the extradition of British citizens in occupied Cyprus who are wanted by the British police. [R][123413]

  Mr. MacShane
  As the international community, apart from Turkey, does not recognise the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", there is no applicable extradition agreement and therefore no legal basis for the British authorities to seek the extradition of British citizens from the north of Cyprus.

  Diplomatic Posts (UK Products)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the policy is of his Department regarding the use of goods and products manufactured in the UK by overseas embassies and consulates. [121097]

  Mr. Rammell
  All goods and products used by overseas embassies and consulates are purchased in line with FCO purchasing policy.

  FCO purchasing policy is in accordance with the Government's Public Purchasing Consolidated Guidelines, which require the procurement of goods and services to be based on value for money and that they should be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary.

  Dates

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  Interlocutors

  Cost of Public funds (if yet available)

  Gifts received (if any)

  2003

  2 to 3 April

  Berlin and Brussels

  Bilateral to Berlin and visit to NATO Brussels

  Berlin: German Foreign Minister NATO Secretary General. US Secretary of State

  £8,095.71

  8 to 9 April

  Paris and Madrid

  Bilateral

  Paris: French Foreign Minister Madrid: Spanish Foreign Minister

  £8,688.75

  13 to 16 April

  Bahrain, Kuwait, Doha and Riyadh

  Bilateral

  Bahrain: King, Foreign Minister, Crown Prince Kuwait: Amir, Foreign Minister, British/US Military and NGOs Doha: Amir, Foreign Minister and and British/US Military Riyadh: King, Crown Prince, Foreign Minister

  Not yet available

  Bahrain: Porcelain vase and rug Qatar: Arabian Oryx statue

  16 April

  Athens

  Informal European Council and Signature of the Accession

  Heads of State/Government and Foreign Ministers

  Not yet available

  Silver and plate given by the Greek Foreign Minister

  17 April

  Athens

  European Conference

  Heads of State/Government and Foreign Ministers

  Not yet available

  24 April

  Brussels

  Bilateral

  French and German Foreign Ministers, EU Secretary-General and High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy

  £2549.42

  2 to 3 May

  Rhodes, Greece

  Gymnich (informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers)

  EU Foreign Ministers

  £15,953.50

  Three jars of olives and two CDs given by the Greek Foreign Minister.

  12 to 14 May

  Pretoria, Johannesburg and Cape Town

  Bilateral and attendance at the Walter Sisulu memorial service

  President, Sports Minister, Foreign Minister, opposition leader.

  Not yet available

  Shirt and writing pad given on behalf of Nelson Mandela

  19 May

  Brussels

  GAERC

  EU Foreign Ministers

  £3,305.33

  22 to 23 May

  Paris

  G8 Foreign Ministers meeting

  G8 Foreign Ministers

  £2,820.49

  3 June

  Madrid

  NATO Foreign Ministers meeting

  NATO Foreign Ministers

  Not yet available

  16 June

  Luxembourg

  GAERC

  EU Foreign Ministers

  Not yet available

  19 to 21 June

  Porto Carras, Greece

  European Council and EU/Western Balkans Summit

  Heads of State/Government and Foreign Ministers

  Not yet available

  European Constitution
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the incorporation of the Fundamental Charter for Human Rights into the European Constitution. [123857]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have always supported the idea of a clear statement of fundamental rights, freedoms and principles applicable at Union level. Equally, we have always made it clear that incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the constitutional Treaty would have to provide legal clarity and not extend EU competences.

  The Government will reach a final decision about incorporation of the Charter in the context of the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference.

  Foreign Visits
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the foreign visits he has made since 1 April 2003; what the dates were; whom he met; what the cost to public funds was of each; and what gifts were received on each. [124356]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: The table lists my overseas visits since 1 April 2003, including details of the main people I met, gifts and cost to public funds (where they are known). Full financial details will be available at the end of the financial year.

  983W

  Dates

  Destination

  Purpose of trip

  Interlocutors

  Cost of public funds (if yet available)

  Gifts received (if any)

  29 June to 2 July

  Tehran, Kabul, Kandahar, Kuwait, Basra and Baghdad

  Bilateral tour of the region

  Iran: President, Foreign Minister and Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Afghanistan: President, Foreign Minister. Interior Minister, Gov. of Kandahar and Tribal Elders Kuwait: First Deputy PM and Minister, of Foreign Affairs Iraq, Basra: British Troops Iraq, Baghda: Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, UN Special Rep for Iraq and Iraqi political representatives

  Not yet available

  Rug given by the President Afghanistan. Rug given by the Interim Administration of Afghanistan

  Gripen Jets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department first received allegations of corrupt practice by BAE Systems regarding the supply of a package of Hawk and Gripen jets to the Government of South Africa. [123016]

  Mr. Mullin
  The FCO first received allegations against BAE Systems in January 2000. These, and earlier allegations to other Government Departments, were passed to the MOD Police and Metropolitan Police. The latter confirmed that they found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations. In 1999, routine examinations by the South African Auditor General resulted in allegations of irregularities in the procurement process. Subsequent investigations by South Africa's Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and by a specially-convened Joint Investigating Team drawn from three expert bodies, concluded that the primary contracts—including those involving BAE Systems—were sound. The investigations did conclude that there were irregularities inherent in some of the subcontracting procedures, but not those involving BAE Systems.

  Guantanamo Bay Detainees
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay were classed as juveniles at the time of detention. [123940]

  Mr. Mullin
  None of the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay was classed as juveniles at the time of detention.

  Human Rights
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government are taking to ensure that those responsible for human rights abuses under the previous regime in Iraq will be brought to justice. [124111]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have always believed that those who have been responsible for crimes against humanity should be brought to justice. It is for the Iraqi people to decide how to do this, with suitable international help.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority is establishing an Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice, one of whose responsibilities will be to provide advice to Iraqis on the handling of these issues.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the support being given to aid the process of reform that the Indonesian Government is undertaking. [124168]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government aim to assist Indonesia in making a success of its democratic reform. A stable, democratic, peaceful Indonesia is important. We support the work of the Governance Partnership, which is undertaking research to help develop a constituency for governance reform, and which is supporting the rule of law, police reform and anti-corruption initiatives. Through the United Nations we will be making a major contribution to the 2004 National and Presidential Elections. We are developing, with the Indonesian Government and the World Bank, a programme to support the establishment of effective local government. The UK has supported the training of judges (we provided human rights training for five Supreme Court Judges in March this year). From our Global Conflict Prevention Pool (GCPP) we have supported a free and independent media by holding workshops on security and peace journalism for journalists and editors in Jakarta. We also work through multilateral channels including the EU, Asian Development Bank and International Monetary Fund for various aspects of reform, including economic reform, democracy building, human rights and conflict prevention.

  Iran
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Iran. [123684]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Tehran on 29–30 June. He had positive discussions on a wide range of bilateral, regional and international issues with President Khatami, Foreign Minister Kharrazi, and Dr. Rouhani, the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council. The Foreign Secretary also urged Iran to sign and implement immediately and unconditionally an Additional Protocol to the IAEA Safeguards Agreement as a significant first step in creating the necessary confidence in Iran's stated peaceful intentions with regard to its nuclear programme.

  Iraq
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many personnel have been deployed by(a) the UK and (b) coalition partners since 9 April 2003 to secure sites identified by the coalition as vital to the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. [115515]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  No United Kingdom personnel have been deployed to Iraq specifically to secure sites which may be related to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. UK Commanders in Iraq have been instructed to secure possible chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear hazards, with the aim of making their areas of operations safe for military forces and civilians, and to provide support, as appropriate, to efforts to investigate sites which may be related to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Details of deployments of other coalition personnel are a matter for their respective Governments.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on information gathered by the Department's forensic team in Iraq about Iraqi citizens who have disappeared; and what assistance his Department is seeking from human rights organisations in uncovering the fate of such people. [123690]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are currently studying the recommendations of the team of forensic experts that we sent to Iraq. Their proposals include establishing an identification programme for bodies found in mass graves. We are in regular contact with human rights organisations on these issues. The Coalition Provisional Authority are setting up an Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice in Iraq, whose tasks will include liaison with non-governmental organisations on human rights issues.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Government will provide for the families of Iraqi citizens who disappeared in Iraq seeking a return of their confiscated property and assets in Iraq. [123691]

  Mr. Rammell
  We recognise the past suffering of the Iraqi people, and the grief they have experienced. However, it will be for the Iraqi people to take decisions regarding possible compensation for confiscated property and assets of those who disappeared. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is setting up an Office of Human Rights and Transitional Justice, which will include the issue of the disappeared in its remit. The CPA is working with NGOs and international organisations on proposals to assist in this area, including counselling and advocacy, which might benefit surviving family members.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the Committee for the Release of Hostages and Detainees in Iraq to discuss the fate of the disappeared in Iraq. [123692]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition Provisional Authority is leading efforts to identify missing persons throughout Iraq, stemming from the brutal policies of imprisonment and execution under Saddam Hussein.986W
  We have already conducted an assessment with the International Commission on Missing Persons, and are working to facilitate the efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross and local organisations to create an overall comprehensive database and approach to missing persons. This will include strengthening the capacity of local organisations to feed into this process and provide counselling and community support.

  I would suggest that the Committee for the Release of Hostages and Detainees in Iraq write to my officials in the Iraq Policy Unit in the first instance.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the reliability of the information contained in the UNMOVIC working document, Unresolved Disarmament Issues, Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programme, issued on 6 March. [123759]

  Mr. MacShane
  The working document issued on 6 March was read carefully by Ministers and officials.

  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his speech to the UN Security Council on 7 March
  "I have read … all 167 pages of that report in every particular. It's a very painstaking piece of work … But it's also a chilling read about the failure of Iraq to comply with successive resolutions of this Council over each day of the past 12 years …"

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on delivering peace in Iraq. [124428]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Iraq and the evolving role of the EU, in helping to rebuild Iraq's future, with EU colleagues at the General Affairs and External Relations Council in Luxembourg on 16 June and in the margins of the European Council in Thessaloniki on 19/20 June. At Thessaloniki the EU made a commitment to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq within the framework of UNSCR 1483 and to the development of a prosperous and stable Iraq.

  Kenya (Security Risk)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the security and political situation in Kenya and (b) the implications of that situation for UK visitors to Kenya. [124138]

  Mr. Mullin
  Kenya is a democratic country and enjoys political stability. In recent months we have been concerned about terrorist activity in Kenya, especially following attacks in Mombasa on 28 November 2002. We last updated our Travel Advice for Kenya on 26 June and are currently advising British nationals to exercise vigilance when visiting the country. The Advice remains under constant review.

  British airlines have resumed flights to Nairobi, but not to Mombasa.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many ethnic
  987W
  Albanians have been (a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted for the destruction of Orthodox churches in Kosovo since 20 March. [124423]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 20 March 2003,Official Report, column 879W. There have been no further developments since this time.

  Mexico
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which British registered companies have been awarded contracts to work on the Plan Puebla-Panama development in Mexico. [124001]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are not aware of any British registered companies having been awarded contracts under this initiative.

  Nicaragua
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons he has proposed the closure of the British Embassy in Nicaragua. [123560]

  Mr. Rammell
  Changing strategic priorities require the Foreign and Commonwealth Office constantly to adapt and amend its pattern of representation overseas. In order to free up resources to strengthen the UK's diplomatic network in other parts of the world now more critical for UK interests, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has agreed that over the next three years the FCO should restructure its global diplomatic representation.

  In the Americas, this will be achieved through a small number of post closures, chiefly in Central America. The Foreign Secretary made a written ministerial statement on 21 March 2003, Official Report, column 57WS, announcing the changes. Early next year, our ambassador and his staff in Managua will be withdrawn. We propose to appoint the senior representative from tile Department for International Development in Managua as Chargé d' Affaires together with an honorary consul. Our ambassador in San Jose will be accredited to Managua.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigation he has made of the conditions in which British prisoners in Pakistan are being held. [123464]

  Mr. Mullin
  At present there are nine British prisoners in Pakistan. Our consular staff in Islamabad and Karachi aim to visit British prisoners in Pakistan quarterly to check on their welfare. We do all that we properly can to ensure that detained British nationals are treated in accordance with agreed international human rights standards.

  Palestine
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the 988W
  Government are taking to ensure that humanitarian organisations have access to the Occupied Territories of Palestine. [123637]

  Mr. Rammell
  There have been acute access difficulties in recent months. Our Missions in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv work closely with humanitarian agencies on resolving these. We hope that recent positive developments, including the transfer of security responsibilities to the Palestinian Authority in parts of Gaza and in Bethlehem, will ease access for humanitarian organisations. But we continue to press Israel to take steps to ensure unfettered access for humanitarian aid. Israel has clear obligations, as an occupying power under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to facilitate access to the Occupied Territories for organisations providing aid to those in need.

  Uganda
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to initiate and assist international peacekeeping efforts in North East Uganda. [123855]

  Mr. Mullin
  We deplore the violence perpetrated against innocent civilians by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in the north of Uganda. We sympathise with the Ugandan government's aim of combating the LRA militarily, but we have, through our High Commission in Kampala, encouraged them to consider all alternative methods of bringing the conflict to an end. We are providing humanitarian aid to the people of the north and support to a number of civil society groups engaged on peace issues, including Acholi traditional and religious leaders. We do not believe that the conditions are right for external mediation at this stage.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123105]

  Mr. Straw
  The cost in cash terms of running the Ministerial Private Offices (Five prior to FY 2001–02 and six since) are laid out in the following table:

  Financial year

  Costs (£)

  1997–98

  1,920,246

  1998–99

  1,791,783

  1999–2000

  2,360,535

  2000–01

  2,341,747

  2001–02

  2,268,543

  2002–03

  2,333,481

  2003–04

  1438,096

  1 As of 7 July

  Sierra Leone
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many nurses from Sierra Leone have been granted visas to take up NHS posts in the UK(a) in 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [124606]
  989W
  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 9 July 2003]: The visa section at the British High Commission in Freetown received no applications from Sierra Leoneans seeking to take up employment with the national health service in the United Kingdom in either 2001–02 or 2002–03.

  In the year 2002–03, one student nurse was issued with entry clearance out of a total of two applications received.

  Small Arms
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues will be raised by the UK delegation to the UN First Biennial Meeting of States on the Implementation of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons; who will be representing the UK; and if he will make a statement. [123811]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Mike O'Brien) on 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1188W and on 11 June 2003, Official Report, column 864W.

  The UK delegation will be led by Edward Oakden, Director of International Security at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and David Broucher, UK Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmanent: Geneva.

  Solomon Islands
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the United Kingdom is taking to support the implementation of the Townsville Peace Agreement in the Solomon Islands. [124265]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK continues to work closely with the Commonwealth, EU partners and other governments in the region to support reconciliation and reconstruction in the Solomon Islands. We have contributed to the International Peace Monitoring Team, monitoring of the elections in 2001, and the law and order sector. We have supported external appointments to strengthen the judiciary and, at the request of the Solomon Islands Prime Minister, the secondment of a Police Commissioner and support staff from Britain to the Royal Solomon Islands Police.

  We remain concerned by the chronic lawlessness which continues to obstruct all efforts towards economic recovery and development. We welcome the proposal for a major new regional initiative, comprising a police contingent with military support, led by Australia and New Zealand, to assist recovery of the Solomon Islands. This initiative has the support of regional governments and has been welcomed by the UN. The Solomon Islands parliament is now considering the proposals. We are considering what further assistance we could provide as part of a coordinated donor effort.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement 990W
  on the Sudanese Government's adherence to civil and human rights, with special reference to the recent confiscation of the Al Sahafa newspaper. [124750]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about many aspects of human rights in Sudan and monitor the situation closely. Our embassy regularly lobbies the Government of Sudan on human rights, including on press freedom. Most recently, the embassy raised press freedom, including seizures and censorship, with the Director for Human Rights at the Ministry of Justice on 8 July 2003. Press freedom was also raised at the last EU/Sudan dialogue meeting on 19 June 2003.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to European Union Governments about links between terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland and terrorist organisations in other EU countries. [124476]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK regularly exchanges information on terrorist groups with EU partners, both bilaterally and in EU fora, and there is frequent operational co-ordination between security agencies within the EU. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in regular contact with his colleagues in the Government of Ireland.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the situation in Zimbabwe on the rest of southern Africa. [123687]

  Mr. Mullin
  The crisis in Zimbabwe is increasingly damaging regional economies. It has adversely impacted on inflation and interest rates in neighbouring countries. Negative perceptions of Zimbabwe have deterred foreign direct investment and tourism to the region. Zimbabwe's neighbours are also suffering from an influx of cheap Zimbabwean goods and largely unskilled Zimbabwean migrants; and from an increase in the cross border spread of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with President Mbeki about measures to restore democracy and prosperity to Zimbabwe. [123688]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki and Foreign Minister Zuma during his trip to South Africa on 13 May. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also discussed Zimbabwe with President Mbeki at the G8 Summit at Evian on 1 June. President Mbeki will be in London for the Progressive Governance Summit on 13–14 July.

  We support South Africa's continuing efforts to bring about dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling party and the opposition.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department's vote in the Council of Ministers against a legislative proposal(a) was and (b) was not sufficient to achieve with other member states a blocking minority; [117209]

  (2) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department abstained in the Council of Ministers on a legislative proposal which was passed by qualified majority voting; [117230]

  (3) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department has been outvoted by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers; and if he will list the legislation by year; [117242]

  (4) on how many occasions since May 1997 the Department indicated dissent from a proposal in the Council of Ministers but did not register a vote or abstention. [117257]

  Mr. Lammy
  On no occasion in the period in question has a measure in the area of responsibility of the former Lord Chancellor's Department been adopted against the wishes of the United Kingdom delegation, nor has it been necessary to participate in a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers.

  Sexual Activity (Criminalisation)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action the Lord Chancellor will take on the compliance of(a) the Isle of Man, (b) Guernsey and (c) Jersey with the recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on criminalisation of sexual activity between men. [123499]

  Mr. Lammy
  We have drawn to the attention of the Insular Authorities in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man the relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on these matters and these will be receiving consideration by them.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Disabled People (Cornwall)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of buildings owned by Cornwall county council are accessible by people with physical disabilities. [124446]

  Keith Hill
  It is the responsibility of all local authorities to ensure their public buildings are readily accessible to disabled people.

  The percentage of buildings open to the public and owned by Cornwall county council in which all the public areas are suitable for and accessible to disabled people was 7 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Fire and Rescue Service (Isle of Wight)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what he has estimated the minimum level is of provision on the Isle of Wight appropriate to the maintenance of an adequate fire and rescue service. [124533]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no such estimate. Under integrated risk management it will be for fire authorities to set local standards for fire and rescue cover in the light of a full assessment of the risks faced by their communities.

  Government Office (North-West)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which projects in Warrington have been assisted by the Government Office for the North West in the past year; and what assistance was provided in each case. [123988]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government Office for the North West has provided a range of assistance to projects in Warrington over the past year including:

  Crime reduction partnership projects
  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas—£14,743
  Safer Communities initiative—£49,559
  Communities Against Drugs—£152,600
  Partnership Development Fund—£16,078
  (This funding is for 2002/3. Government Office North West's role had been to appraise, and monitor the progress of the plans).

  Transport projects
  Bridgefoot Environmental Enhancement Scheme—£980,000
  Warrington Interchange—£1,900,000
  (Funding for these projects did not commence until 2003–04. GONW role was an advisory one in respect of these two major schemes).

  Community Champions Fund
  Older Peoples Forum (Warrington)—£500
  Tourney Green Jubilee Day—£75
  Dallam Senior Youth Club—£1,450
  Westy Parents Forum—£2,326
  Raleigh International (Ghana)—£250
  St. Lewis School Project Croft—£2,000
  Padgate Youth Group—£1,350
  Blackbrook Residents—£1,200
  Hawthorn Harlequins—£2,000
  Cinnamon Brow Garden Project—£500
  Outrington Community Project —£1,000
  Grasmere and Greenwood Residents Association—£476
  Warrington Blues Festival—1,000
  GLR Productions—£800
  Warrington Media Vol Sect Network—£1,500
  (This funding was from June 2002 to June 2003. Government Office for the North West has responsibility for managing the development and successful delivery of the Community Champions Fund)

  Children's Fund

  Warrington Children's Fund Partnership which commenced in 2003–04 has been allocated £500,000. Government Office for the North West has responsibility for managing the development and successful delivery of the Children's fund.
  993W
  Sure Start

  The Sure Start Westy Round 3 scheme, which commenced in 2001 received funding of £500,000 in 2002–03. Government Office for the North West has supported and appraised the development of this project.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on trends in homelessness among young people(a) in the South West, (b) in Wiltshire and (c) in West Wiltshire. [121330]

  Applicants accepted as homeless, and priority need category

  South West region

  UA/DCs in former County of Wiltshire

  West Wiltshire DC

  Total in priority need

  of which: Vulnerable Young Person

  Total in priority need

  of which: Vulnerable Young Person

  Total in priority need

  of which: Vulnerable Young Person

  2000–01

  11,360

  550

  1,366

  47

  332

  13

  2001–02

  11,270

  640

  1,237

  46

  231

  15

  August-December 2002

  6,520

  1380

  627

  132

  104

  121

  1 16/17-year-olds and ex-Care 18 to 20-year-olds identified from August 2002.

  Note:

  Local authorities only record applicants against the priority need category which was deemed most relevant. Young people may also have been accepted, but not identifiable, within other categories for example "household member pregnant" or "other special reasons".

  Source:

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister P1 (E) quarterly housing returns.

  In 2002–03 West Wiltshire received £28,000 from the Homelessness Directorate to help them implement the priority needs order. It also received £50,000 in 2003–04 in support of the Government's action to end the use of B&B hotels for homeless families, except in short- term (less than 6 weeks) emergencies by March 2004, and a further £28,000 this year to support it's homelessness prevention services which include debt counselling/mediation and extending the use of rent deposit schemes.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what agreements have been reached with Castle Point borough council over the last two years on the reduction of homelessness in the borough; and what(a) targets have been set and (b) funds have been made available. [120930]

  Yvette Cooper
  In accordance with the Homelessness Act 2002, Castle Point borough council have produced a Homelessness Strategy which addresses the needs of the borough. The Strategy also addresses service and performance improvements that the council will need to implement. I am advised that this Strategy will be put to the full council and is expected to be adopted this summer.

  As part of its strategy, the council has entered into an agreement with a local estate agent who procures properties for the council to assist in the accommodation of homeless families. In addition, the council has expanded its housing stock to provide for homeless families: 32 properties are now in use for this purpose. The council proposes to end the use of B&B accommodation for the homeless by the end of 2003–04. I am advised that the council is confident that these measures will result in no homeless families using Bed and Breakfast accommodation, well before March 2004.

  Castle Point borough council has been allocated £25,000 in 2003–04 specifically to help it reduce the number of homeless families with children in Bed and Breakfast hotels. This is in addition to £20,000 to deliver the new Homelessness Need Priority Order and £20,000 from the Homelessness Directorate, to assist in delivering an effective homelessness service.
  994W
  Yvette Cooper
  Information reported by local authorities to end March 2002 included the number of applicants accepted as homeless and in priority need by virtue of being 'vulnerable young people'. The priority needs order which came into force in July 2002 extended the categories of homeless groups who have a priority need for housing, and separately identified 16 and 17year-olds, and young people aged 18 to 20 previously "in care". A summary of available information is presented in the table.

  The measures and funding detailed above are to assist the authority in meeting the national commitment of ensuring that by March 2004, no homeless family with children is placed in B&B other than in an emergency and even then for no more than six weeks.

  Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the number of special needs houses in England; and if he will make a statement. [121817]

  Keith Hill
  Local housing authorities have a responsibility to produce a housing strategy which sets out plans to address the range of housing needs in their area. This includes all groups with special needs where the strategy must link into the provision of associated support services. Decisions on how these should be addressed are taken locally on the basis of the assessment of the nature and scale of the different housing needs.

  The Housing Corporation through the Approved Development Programme (ADP) provides specially adapted housing and support for the disabled. The Housing Corporation through its National Investment Strategy sets out the priorities against which registered social landlords should bid for resources for the ADP. Included in these priorities are supported housing for people with disabilities. Funding for the ADP has risen to £1.5 billion in 2003–04, £500 million more than in 2002–03.

  Local housing authorities have a statutory duty to offer Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs) to all eligible applicants who require adaptations to help them live independently in their own homes. The grant is available

  995W
  to disabled homeowners and tenants in both the private and social rented sector, and is subject to a means test. The Government meet 60 per cent. of the total local authority expenditure incurred on DFGs through tile payment of specified capital grant. The budget for this grant for English authorities in 2003–04 is £99 million compared with £56 million in 1997–98, an increase of more than 75 per cent.

  In addition, the Supporting People programme provides a strategic framework for commissioning and funding the support services that people need to help them to live independently in their accommodation. Local authorities (county councils in the case of two tier administrations) will be developing Supporting People strategies setting out how they will meet the needs of people in their areas for housing-related support over the next five years. These will consider the needs of all client groups, including people with physical and sensory disabilities, and learning disabilities.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate how much extra grant would be gained by Cambridgeshire if an additional 1,000 pensioners in the county were in receipt of income support. [124616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 2003–04 Cambridgeshire county council was one of the authorities who received the maximum increase possible under the 2003–04 floor and ceiling damping scheme i.e. they were a ceiling authority. For this reason if there had been an additional 1,000 pensioners in receipt of income support in the county, although Cambridgeshire's Formula Spending Share would have increased by £524,494, they would have continued to receive the same level of grant. In 2003–04, Cambridgeshire received an increase in formula grant of 8.5 per cent. on a like-for-like basis with 2002–03.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) estimated and (b) outturn costs were of each reorganisation of the local government structure since 1980. [124067]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For the reviews in the 1990's supplementary credit approvals (SCAs)—totalling some £492 million—were given to authorities affected by reorganisation to enable them to borrow money to meet the one off indirect costs of reorganisation.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to be incurred in the re-organisation of local government in(a) the North East, (b) the North West and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber if the region approves the creation of a regional assembly. [125045]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The costs of such local government reorganisation will depend on what boundary and structural changes are involved and on future decisions by the local authorities concerned.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what sanctions can be imposed on a network operator who erects a transmitter in breach of the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Development to which they are a signatory. [124910]

  Keith Hill
  The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Network Developments was produced jointly by representatives of central and local Government and the mobile phone industry and built on Government guidance and the operators' commitments. The Code of Best Practice is non-statutory and does not purport to give definitive interpretation of the legal planning requirements, which is ultimately a matter for the courts. Therefore, there are no sanctions that can be imposed on a network operator who erects a transmitter in breach of the Code.

  The Mobile Operators Association have commissioned Deloitte and Touche to carry out an independent review of the implementation of the Operators Ten Commitments. The results of the review will be made publicly available in due course.

  Poverty (London)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to reduce the levels of poverty in London; and if he will make a statement. [121781]

  Yvette Cooper
  Increasing opportunity and improving the delivery of public services to our most deprived communities is the cornerstone to our approach for tackling poverty wherever it occurs. The Local Strategic Partnerships in the 20 most deprived London boroughs will receive almost £350 million between April 2001 and March 2006 from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to improve services to tackle poverty and deprivation in London.

  London will also receive over £500 million over 10 years through the New Deal for Communities (NDC) programme. 10 of England's 39 NDC areas are in London—West Ham & Plaistow, Shoreditch, and Ocean in Tower Hamlets, New Cross Gate in Lewisham, EC1 in Islington, Aylesbury, Clapham Park, North Fulham, Seven Sisters and South Kilburn. European Structural Funds have made £570 million available over seven years in support of disadvantaged groups and areas in London.

  These are just three examples of Government action to tackle poverty and social exclusion in the capital.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the availability of social housing. [123824]

  Keith Hill
  The number of social housing dwellings provided by local authorities and registered social landlords for rent in England in 2002 was 4.2 million out of a total dwelling stock of 21.3 million.

  New social housing dwellings are provided through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme with grants to registered social landlords. Funding for the programme is increasing by

  997W
  £500 million this year to around £1.5 billion. The programme is expected to deliver at least 21,000 dwellings in 2003–04 for both rent and low cost home ownership.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria of bids made for (i) grants and (ii) contracts awarded by his Department; who makes such assessments; and whether these assessments are published. [116847]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister gives grants to a variety of bodies for a variety of activities. Bids are made and assessed by officials against published criteria, which are drawn up to be compatible with the aims of sustainable development, and would include, where necessary, an environmental impact assessment. Assessments of grant bids by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are not published.

  Similarly, contracts awarded by this Office are compatible with the aims of sustainable development and in accordance with the Government's Sustainable Development Framework. Contracts let refer to our Greening Operations statement and seek evidence from suppliers concerning their environmental credentials. Assessments are made by officials in this Office and are not published on a project by project basis. However, our Greening Operations statement is published on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Street Children
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many street children there are in South America; in which South American countries they are located; and how many street children there are in each country. [123726]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government fully share the hon. Member's concern about the plight of street children in South America. The rights of children worldwide are a central part of our human rights policy. We monitor the situation of street children throughout South America carefully in dialogue with regional governments and NGOs; as does the EU. However the nature of the problem is such that it is very difficult to know precisely how many street children there are in individual South American countries.

HEALTH

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to improve the level of care in old people's homes; and what measures have been taken since 2001. [124055]
  998W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Under the Care Standards Act 2000, since April 2002 all care homes in England have been regulated by the National Care Standards Commission in accordance with statutory regulations and national minimum standards.

  Our regulatory reforms provide, for the first time, an independent coherent, consistent and even-handed regulatory system for care homes. The reforms will help to prevent abuse and promote better quality care.

  Anti-depressants
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton are taking anti-depressant drugs. [124369]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of people taking anti-depressant drugs is not available. However, information is provided on the number of prescription items of anti-depressant drugs dispensed in the community.

  In 2002, 26.3 million prescription items of anti-depressant drugs were dispensed in the community in England and 186,500 prescription items of anti-depressant drugs were dispensed in the community in Sefton.

  Information relating to Wales and Scotland is a matter for the revolved Administrations to respond to. While the institution for Northern Ireland is dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Attendance Allowances
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid in attendance allowances to members of(a) health authorities, (b) hospital trusts and (c) primary care trusts in England in each of the last 10 financial years; and how much he estimates will be allocated in the current financial year. [118743]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on remuneration paid by national health service bodies to chairs and non-executive directors is not collected by the Department. Based on the number of chairs and non-executives now in post, chairs and non-executives will be entitled to receive the following annual remuneration in the current financial year:

  Annual remuneration

  £ millions

  Chairs

  Non-executives

  Total

  Primary care trusts

  5.44

  8.86

  14.3

  NHS trusts

  4.66

  6.90

  11.56

  Strategic health authorities

  0.59

  0.97

  1.56

  Total

  10.69

  16.73

  27.42

  Prescribing
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research to assess the financial costs and benefits in areas of responsibility of relevant Government Departments of a more liberal prescribing regime for anti-impotence drugs. [123436]
  999W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have no current plans to commission such research. The policy on provision of anti-impotence treatments was reviewed in 2001.

  Birthrate Survey
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Birthrate Plus survey. [123473]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We welcome the development of Birthrate Plus, which provides a demand led framework for assessing midwife staffing requirements. It is for individual units and trusts to decide whether it is appropriate for them to use it.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Birthrate Plus system for computing staffing requirements for maternity units. [R][121868]

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to prevent discrimination in the treatment of older people with breast cancer. [124372]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Standard One of the older people's national service framework (NSF) sets out the general commitment to address age discrimination in access to health and social care. The requirement to provide treatment and care on the basis of clinical need, and not age alone, applies equally to the treatment of breast cancer. Since the publication of the NSF in March 2001, significant progress has been made in starting to tackle age discrimination and there is a now a wider appreciation and awareness across health and social care of age discrimination as an issue.

  In November last year, we released a computerised information tool to enable those implementing the NSF at local level to compare their treatment rates in 10 different hospital procedures, in relation to different age groups. This included information on the local age related intervention rates of breast cancer treatment.

  Cancer Nursing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the costs of NHS trusts employing agency cancer nurses relative to cancer nurses in permanent NHS posts in the last 12 months. [123253]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to improve(a) the recruitment and (b) the retention of cancer nurses at (i) NHS trust and (ii) primary care trust level. [123254]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of all staff, including cancer nurses. These include an increase in pay, encouraging the national health service to become a better employer through the Improving Working Lives and Positively Diverse programmes, increasing training commissions, reducing student 1000W
  attrition, running national and local recruitment and return to practice campaigns and supporting international recruitment where appropriate.

  Since 1997, the qualified nursing workforce has grown by nearly 50,000. Between September 2001 and September 2002, there was a net increase in nurses working in the NHS of 17,100 (headcount). The NHS Plan target for nurses has been reached two years early. In addition, over 13,000 qualified nurses have returned to practice in the NHS since 1999.

  Chemical Attacks (Preparations)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts do not have the stocks of chemical, biological and radiological protective equipment recommended by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [104159]

  Mr. Hutton
  All acute national health service acute and ambulance trusts have been issued with personal protective equipment with the exception of Staffordshire Ambulance NHS trust.

  Staffordshire Ambulance NHS trust has not been issued with new personal protective equipment as it has shown it can operate effectively with adapted military techniques with its existing equipment.

  Clinical Diagnostics
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the part that clinical diagnostics play in(a) improving health care, (b) improving treatment outcomes and (c) reducing overall health care costs to the NHS; and if he will make it his policy to raise awareness of the role of diagnostics in health care delivery. [122341]

  Mr. Hutton
  Clinical diagnostics is a key component of health maintenance and disease management. Accurate clinical diagnoses enable early intervention and appropriate choice of treatments helping to manage national health service costs. Clinical diagnostics underpins key principles in the NHS Plan and work is under way nationally to support improvement in this area.

  Commission for Public Patient Involvement in Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff will be employed by the Commission for Public Patient Involvement in Health at(a) national head office, (b) regional offices and (c) primary care trust level; and what their cost will be. [124308]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health intends to employ around 50 staff at its head office and up to 17 staff in each of its nine regional offices. It will not be directly employing staff at primary care trust level—rather it will be contracting with third party providers to support patients' forums locally. The total estimated cost for staff in the current financial year will be in the region of £5 million.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will define the term 'reasonable fee' under clause 84(2) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and if he will set a maximum fee that can be charged under clause 84(3). [122951]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It will be the responsibility of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) to determine what is a reasonable fee under clause 84(2) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill (as introduced, now clause 81(2) as amended by committee). The CSCI will be free to decide which of its reports should be issued without charge. In general, it is Government policy that the cost of providing such services should be met by those who use them.

  It is not intended that the Secretary of State will introduce a maximum fee that can be charged under clause 84(3) (81(3) as amended by committee) of the same Bill.

  Communicable Diseases
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are suffering from(a) tuberculosis and (b) pulmonary tuberculosis in each primary care trust; and how many staff each trust employs to oversee their treatment in the community. [120432]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Health Protection Agency are responsible for collecting data on tuberculosis notifications. Information can be found at http://www.phls.co.uk/topics_az/tb.

  Data cannot yet be provided by primary care trust.

  The number of staff employed is not held centrally.

  Contingency Plans
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts have not conducted a practical exercise to test their major incident plan. [121345]

  Mr. Hutton
  Every national health service trust is required to test its contingency plans and satisfy its health authority (HA) that they are effective. Earlier this year all HAs reported that they were satisfied with the plans of NHS trusts. The health emergency planning advisers of the Health Protection Agency (HPA) facilitate exercises for the NHS. Details of these exercises are being collated by the HPA. Summaries of the outcomes of the exercises will be disseminated across the NHS to share good practice.

  Doctors (Home Visits)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the minimum standards are for out of hours on call doctors(a) to speak by telephone to a patient and (b) to visit a patient at home. [121071]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: Following the Carson Review in 2000, standards for out-of-hours primary medical services are set by regulations. These require patients to be clinically assessed within 30 minutes of their telephone call. If that assessment
  1002W
  determines that a doctor needs to visit a patient at home, emergencies must be visited within an hour, urgent cases within two hours and less urgent cases within six hours.

  Drug/Alcohol Dependency
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people who presented to treatment services for drugs and alcohol problems in the last 12 months had mental health problems. [123935]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, the importance of providing services for drug and alcohol misusers is well recognised. Research suggests that there is extensive co-occurrence of other psychiatric disorders and substance misuse problems.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are(a) in place and (b) planned to identify the extent to which those with drugs or alcohol problems also suffer mental health problems. [123936]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health publication, "Dual Diagnosis Good Practice Guide" (2002), sets out policy and good practice in the provision of mental health services for people with severe mental health problems who are also experiencing difficulties with any drug, including alcohol.

  The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse (NTA), in partnership with the Department, has published "Models of Care", which sets out a national framework for the commissioning of an integrated drug treatment system for adult drug misusers in England. "Models of Care" provides detailed guidance on the provision of services for psychiatric co-morbidity (dual diagnosis).

  A national programme, entitled Opening Doors to Drug Treatment, is also being delivered in partnership by the NTA and the National Institute for Mental Health in England.

  Dysphasia
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to support self-help groups for people with aphasia; [123392]

  (2) what plans he has to increase funding for services used by people with dysphasia; [123397]

  (3) what steps the Government have taken to support Connect centres for those suffering with dysphasia; and if he plans to extend them to (a) other parts of the country and (b) Oxfordshire. [123398]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) now have the responsibility of improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services and integrating health and social care locally. They have the resources to commission services and to identify the number of professional staff that they need to deliver those services.

  In making their commissioning decisions, PCTs will need to consider how best to use a range of providers for the benefit of national health service patients. PCTs may fund local support groups for a range of conditions

  1003W
  including aphasia and dysphasia, if they have identified this as a need when assessing the health needs of the local community. They will need also to consider how best to use voluntary sector providers.

  "Connect" is a voluntary sector organisation, which is free to apply for Section 64 grant scheme funding at national or local level. The development of their centres is primarily a matter for them.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Department has to provide funding for computer-based therapy programmes for people with dysphasia. [123396]

  Ambulance Service NHS trusts

  Mobile decontamination units

  PPE suits

  Avon Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Ambulance and Paramedic Service

  4

  100

  Cumbria Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Dorset Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  East Anglian Ambulance Service

  8

  200

  East Midlands Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Essex Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Greater Manchester Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Hampshire Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Hereford and Worcester Ambulance Service

  4

  50

  Isle of Wight Healthcare

  4

  100

  Kent Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Lancashire Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Lincolnshire Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  London Ambulance Service

  14

  350

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service

  8

  200

  North East Ambulance Service

  8

  200

  Oxfordshire Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Royal Berkshire Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service

  0

  0

  Surrey Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Sussex Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service

  6

  150

  Two Shires Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Warwickshire Ambulance Service

  1

  70

  West Midlands Ambulance Service

  3

  75

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  West Country Ambulance Services

  16

  400

  Wiltshire Ambulance Service

  4

  100

  Total

  166

  4,145

  Note:

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service has not been issued with new PPE equipment, as it can operate effectively with adapted military techniques with its existing equipment.

  The Department was informed of some early operational problems, which have been rectified.

  Food Additives
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what process is in place to enable the assessment of interactions between food additives individually approved for use in food products. [123831]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All food additives undergo a rigorous safety assessment by European Union and United Kingdom scientific committees prior to approval. As part of the approval process, a maximum permitted level of use is set to ensure that intakes do not exceed the acceptable daily intake (ADI). An ADI is the amount of an additive that can be consumed on a daily
  1004W
  Mr. Hutton
  It is for local clinicians and primary care trusts to consider the use of particular clinical approaches, and their funding, in the provision of local services.

  Emergency Planning
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) mobile decontamination units and (b) personal protective equipment suits have been given to each Ambulance Service NHS Trust; and what representations he has received on the condition of this equipment. [122104]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the provision of mobile decontamination units and personal protective suits (PPE) to each national health service ambulance trust in England from the overall allocation to the NHS of £5 million in 2002–03.

  basis over a lifetime without causing any adverse health effects. For groups of additives having a similar biological mode of action, the ADI is set for the group as a whole, thereby taking account of possible interactions.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether(a) his Department and (b) the Food Standards Agency is seeking to permit for sale products which are not included in the Food Supplements Directive list of permitted ingredients, but are recognised as safe and appropriately labelled. [123050]
  1005W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have already secured provisions which enable member states to allow the continued sale of products which do not comply with the Directive's compositional requirements up to 31 December 2009 provided certain criteria are met. The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003, which implement the Directive in England, make full use of this flexibility.

  In addition, the Food Standards Agency is urgently seeking a meeting with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and relevant interest groups to discuss the content of safety dossiers for those vitamins and minerals and their sources currently excluded from the permitted lists. The EFSA has responded positively and we expect a meeting to be arranged within the next couple of months.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assurances he has received that the assessment being compiled by the EU Scientific Committee for Foods about the Upper Safe Limit intake of vitamins and minerals is based on scientific evidence; and if he will make a statement. [123155]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The European Community Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a task force of independent experts with expertise in medicine, nutrition, toxicology, biology, chemistry and related disciplines. The approach taken by the SCF task force in reviewing the upper levels of daily intakes of individual vitamins and minerals is based on an internationally agreed risk assessment model. This process takes into account all relevant scientific evidence. Following the formation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), this work will be completed by the new EFSA expert panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies, which will be advised by the former SCF task force. The report of the United Kingdom expert group on vitamins and minerals on safe upper levels for vitamins and minerals has been sent to EFSA to be considered by the EFSA panel.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why(a) sodium and calcium ascorbate, and (b) sodium, potassium and calcium hydroxide have been included on the positive list in Annex II of the EU Food Supplements Directive; and why magnesium ascorbate has not been included. [123562]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The list of permitted nutrients in Schedule 2 to the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 is drawn directly from the list of permitted vitamins and minerals in Annex II to the Food Supplements Directive. This list was drawn directly from established lists in existing Community food legislation.

  The annexes to the Food Supplements Directive remain open, pending safety assessment of additional substances on the basis of dossiers submitted in support of the safe use of substances currently omitted from the annexes.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 720W, on food supplements, what representations he has received from BioCare since 1 January 2003. [123622]
  1006W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No such representations have been received from BioCare. However, since 1 January 2003, correspondence has been received from an hon. Member and from a Member of the European Parliament referring to representations from BioCare. My hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State (Ms Blears) responded on 1 April and 1 March respectively, explaining the rationale for establishment of the list in Annex II to the Directive, indicating that the Government are doing what they can to facilitate submission of dossiers supporting additions to the list and committing the Government to continuing to press for a safety-based approach to setting of European Union maximum limits in order to prevent unnecessary restrictions to consumer choice.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the conclusions were of the Regulatory Impact Assessment undertaken by the Food Standards Agency in relation to the Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and what steps he intends to take to address the issues of those missing nutrients which pose a threat to the UK food supplements industry. [120437]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom is obliged to implement the provisions of Directive 2002/46/EC into national legislation. The conclusions of the regulatory impact assessment undertaken in relation to the Food Supplement (England) Regulations 2003 were that making the current Regulations was the best option available. It maintains the widest possible consumer choice of safe and properly labelled food supplements consistent with the Directive, and imposes the minimum burden on industry.

  The lists of permitted vitamins/minerals and their sources in the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 can be extended if additions are made to the permitted lists in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive 2002/46/EC on which the Regulations are based. These annexes remain open pending safety assessment of additional vitamins and minerals and their sources. Industry is currently working to compile safety dossiers for some of the vitamins and minerals and their sources currently omitted from the Annexes.

  The Food Standards Agency, in recognition of the difficulties associated with dossier production, and the timescale for dossier submission, is pressing the European Food Safety Authority for an urgent, substantive meeting with relevant parties to discuss dossier requirements.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that information collected about patients as part of the charging policy on insurance payments within foundation hospitals(a) will not be passed to other agencies and (b) will meet the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. [121646]

  Mr. Hutton
  The requirement to provide information necessary to administer the proposed scheme for recovery of national health service charges, set out in Part 3 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, would apply to NHS foundation trusts in the same way as any other NHS
  1007W
  hospital. The provisions in the Bill for the collection of patient information for the scheme comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. They do not allow patient information to be passed to other agencies but do allow the compensation recovery unit, which administers the existing state benefits recovery scheme and is expected to administer the NHS costs recovery scheme, to share information between the two schemes where it is appropriate to do so.

  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Co-operative Party and other bodies in the wider Co-operative movement on foundation hospitals. [110404]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), has met the hon. Members who are involved in the Co-operative movement. A number of leading experts in the co-operative movement are members of the External Reference Group on Governance, which is providing applicants for national health service foundation trust status expert advice on governance issues.

  GM Products
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what GM products are used in(a) fish feed for farmed fish and (b) fishmeal contained in feedstuffs for ruminants. [124511]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that feed for farmed fish consists primarily of fishmeal and fish oil, although feed producers have been turning increasingly to vegetable ingredients such as maize gluten feed and soya bean meal. Whether this is likely to contain a proportion of genetically modified-derived material will depend on its source, although I understand that the fish farming industry endeavours to avoid the use of GM or GM-derived ingredients.

  The feeding of fishmeal to ruminants is currently prohibited as part of European Union controls on the use of processed animal protein in animal feed. Fishmeal is solely derived from fish and at present, genetically modified fish are only reared and kept under laboratory conditions.

  GP Survey
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the results of the NH S GP survey; what plans he has to act on the findings; and if he will make a statement. [123053]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information from patient surveys is central to informing local service improvements. We expect primary care trusts to use the information from the national health service general practitioner survey to develop action plans to improve services to better meet the needs of local people.

  Results were disseminated in March 2003, on a strategic health authority (SHA) basis. This enabled the cross-comparison of the results, for local benchmarking purposes. Such an approach enables the SHAs, as the local headquarters of the NHS, to maintain an overview of how results are formulated into local follow-up plans.

  Health Records
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking against hospital trusts who fail to keep the records of patients with lifelong conditions for the required period after their deaths; and if he will make statement. [124893]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health does not directly monitor or enforce record-keeping arrangements in national health service trusts or strategic health authorities (SHA). Each NHS trust and SHA is legally responsible for managing records and complying with legislation and guidance on disclosing information.

  In the NHS, guidance and governance arrangements have been designed to ensure compliance with law and good practice, while minimising the overheads of managing and auditing detailed procedures. Independent authorities, such as the Audit Commission, Health Service Commissioner and Information Commissioner, oversee the governance arrangements and may impose sanctions where there is a significant failure to comply.

  Trusts keep records to support patient care and other legal requirements, but it is also necessary to destroy records when they are of no further value. Destruction should be controlled by formal retention and disposal arrangements based on the NHS Retention and Disposal Schedule issued by the Department of Health.

  Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip replacements were performed in(a) England, (b) South Sefton, (c) Southport and (d) Formby in each year since 2000. [122245]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of hip replacement operations carried out in each year since 2000 in the appropriate national health service trusts and the total number of hip replacement operations carried out in England. Southport and Formby are covered by the same NHS trust, so figures are not available separately.

  Finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where a hip replacement operations was recorded as the main operation

  Total number of episodes

  Place

  Trust

  2000–01

  2001–02

  South Sefton

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  326

  330

  Southport/Formby

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  325

  374

  England

  70,258

  72,241

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  2001–02 is the last year for which figures are currently available.

  Hospital Dispensing
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals do not have one stop dispensing or dispensing for discharge schemes. [124588]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan" sets out an agenda for change in the hospital pharmaceutical service, which
  1009W
  includes the re-engineering of services, putting more emphasis on to clinical services, self administration schemes, the continued use of patient's own medication and dispensing for discharge.

  Results from the Department's Medicines Management Performance Framework and from the Audit Commission report, "A Spoonful of Sugar", suggest that the majority of trusts have introduced dispensing for discharge, or one stop dispensing, where appropriate. More detailed information is not collected centrally.

  The next revision of the Medicines Management Framework is expected later this year and will build on current good practice.

  "Pharmacy in the Future" made a commitment to establish a collaborative programme to share and spread best practice. The Department is exploring options for delivery including discussions with the National Prescribing Centre and other stakeholders.

  Maternal and Child Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of merging the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths and the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. [122454]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The cost of merging the two inquiries during 2002–03 was £130,000. The merger will bring an annual saving of around £800,000, which is being re-deployed to extend the remit of other confidential inquiries.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations are being conducted in the Confidential Inquiry into Maternal and Child Health. [122455]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There have been two consultations on the constitution and structure of the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH). The first took place in 2001, following the overall review of the confidential inquiries carried out by Sir John Grimley-Evans in 2000. The second consultation, on the specific constitution and structure of CEMACH, took place from October to December 2002.

  Maternity Care
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total clinical negligence bill in obstetrics and gynaecology was in each year since 1997. [124225]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the total clinical negligence bill in obstetrics and gynaecology is not collected centrally.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123122]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  While media training is offered to Ministers and officials, the cost of providing this training is not separately identified in the Department's records.

  Mental Health
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been detained under each relevant section of the Mental Health Acts in each of the last five years, broken down by ethnic group. [122475]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This particular data is not collected. The most recent data on the ethnicity of those detained under the Mental Health Act is issued by the Mental Health Act Commission in their Biennial Report for 1999–2001.

  Percentage

  Mental Health Act data

  Census data

  1997–98 (n= 33,552)

  1998–99 (n= 35,097)

  1999–2000 (n= 40,024

  1991

  Ethnic Group

  White

  83.3

  85.0

  88.2

  94.5

  Black Caribbean

  6.2

  5.2

  3.6

  0.9

  Black African

  2.5

  2.4

  1.7

  0.4

  Black other

  2.0

  1.5

  1.1

  0.3

  Indian

  1.6

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  Pakistani

  1.0

  1.4

  1.2

  0.9

  Bangladeshi

  0.6

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  Chinese

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  Other Groups

  2.5

  2.4

  2.1

  0.9

  The Mental Health Act Commission Biennial Report for 2002–2003 will be issued in October 2003 and will contain an updated table.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on mental health costs in(a) the UK and (b) Sefton in each of the last five years; and what he estimates will be spent on mental health costs in the next (i) five years and (ii) 10 years. [124395]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows expenditure on mental illness by health authorities (HAs) and primary care trusts (PCTs) for England and for the Sefton HA area. Expenditure relates to the commissioning of secondary care services for mental health only.

  Mental illness expenditure

  £000

  Sefton health authority area

  England

  1997–98

  11,814

  2,767,036

  1998–99

  12,977

  2,925,934

  1999–2000

  17,688

  3,408,660

  2000–01

  175,006

  3,951,618

  2001–02

  183,492

  4,561,000

  1 Sefton commissioned secure mental health services on behalf of all health authorities in the north-west; hence its exceptional spend in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Estimated figures for future expenditure are not available. PCTs have been allocated resources for 2003–04 to 2005–06. These allocations are in line with the Planning and Priorities Framework, which in turn, reflects the commitments made in the NHS Plan.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget is of the National Care Standards Commission in 2003–04; and what its outturn in budget was in 2002–03. [125166]
  1011W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The revenue budget of the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) in 2003–04 is £129.949 million. The amount of the capital budget for 2003–04 has not yet been finalised.

  The outturn of the NCSC's revenue and capital budgets in 2002–03 were £108.720 million and £7.775 million, respectively.

  Needle Exchange Schemes
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on needle exchange schemes for drug addicts. [123480]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom adopted harm minimisation strategies in the early 1990s as a preventive measure for HIV/AIDS. Needle exchange schemes were developed as part of the strategy. Over 90 per cent. of primary care trusts in England have needle exchange programmes and over 27 million needles and syringes are exchanged each year.

  On international comparisons, we have been very successful in holding down levels of HIV/AIDS within the high-risk group of injecting drug users.

  Negligence Claims
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of negligence claims against the NHS involving children in each year since 1997. [124897]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the cost of negligence claims involving children is not collected centrally.

  NHS Drugs Scheme
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been saved each year by the national health service as a result of the Selected List of NHS Drugs Scheme. [123454]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The Selected List Scheme was introduced in 1985 and the savings to the national health service have been estimated at £75 million a year.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Single Assessment Process as referred to on page 172 of the National Service Framework for Older People. [124585]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Detailed guidance on the single assessment process for older people was published in January 2002. Since then, primary care trusts and councils, in consultation with a range of local interests, have been implementing the guidance. All localities reviewed their progress during the summer of 2002 and reported to their strategic health authorities. Where appropriate, information from these reports was shared with the Social Services Inspectorate (further progress reports for 2003 are being finalised).

  As part of the routine monitoring of councils' performance, the Social Services Inspectorate pays particular attention to the single assessment progress. In
  1012W
  January and February 2003, the Department of Health held two implementation conferences for all those leading the implementation of the single assessment process at local level. Final implementation is planned for April 2004.

  Organ Donation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the introduction of an opt-out scheme for organ donation in the UK; and what targets have been set to increase the number of people carrying donor cards. [122998]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Government policy on organ donation is one of informed consent, not presumed consent (opt out). The Government have been reviewing the law on the removal, retention and use of human tissues and organs and tissues. A report on the responses on the consultation document 'Human Bodies, Human Choices' was published in April 2003. New legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows.

  "Saving Lives, Valuing Donors—A Transplant Framework for England", was published on 7 July 2003. It sets out key aims for organ and tissue transplantation over the next 10 years. This framework identifies the part that the Government, individuals, the national health service and other stakeholders can play in:
  Encouraging people to donate organs and tissues
  Raising the quality and effectiveness of transplant services
  Improving the clinical outcomes and quality of life of people who receive the gift of an organ or tissue
  Increasing the supply of viable organs and tissues for transplantation
  Accrediting tissue banks to ensure high-quality tissues for transplantation.

  Its aims include encouraging the NHS and others to play their part in ensuring that at least 16 million people are registered on the NHS Organ Donor Register by 2010.

  Osteoporosis and Related Fractures
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue calcium and vitamin D free to the institutionalised elderly; and what he estimates the cost would be in a year. [122323]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Under the National Minimum Standards that apply to care homes for older people, special therapeutic diets should be provided when advised by health care and dietetic staff, including adequate provision of calcium and vitamin D. No estimates of cost have been made.

  Patient Advice and Liaison Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each NHS trust the(a) status, (b) number of staff and (c) budget of its Patient Advice and Liaison Service. [124402]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A recent mapping exercise completed in January 2003 showed that 98 per cent. of all trusts had a Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) in place. Individual trusts are responsible for
  1013W
  establishing and resourcing PALS. The Department does not hold details of the number of staff working within individual trust PALS or their budgets.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general and (b) community hospitals (i) have been built and (ii) are scheduled to be built under PFI contracts since 1997. [122628]

  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, 32 are now operational, of which 31 are general and one community. A further 17 are under construction, of which 13 are general and four community. Within the 104, there are another five planned community hospitals.

  The NHS Plan also set out plans for the modernisation of primary healthcare. 42 national health service local investment finance trust sites are being developed, which will bring in over £1 billion of investment. Much of this investment will provide community hospital services, for example, day case surgery, diagnostic services, oncology and physiotherapy.

  Salt Consumption
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the consumption of salt by children; and if he will make a statement. [120882]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have not received any specific representations on the consumption of salt by children.

  In 2001, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) agreed to consider the issue of salt and health, at the request of the Food Standards Agency and the Chief Medical Officer for Wales. In response to SACN's call for submissions, the Co-op, Safeway, British Retail Consortium (BRC), the Food and Drink Federation (PDF) and the Salt Manufacturers Association (SMA) acknowledged that there was a need to assess salt in childhood and/or provide guidance. Submissions are on the SACN website (sacn.gov.uk).

  The draft SACN report on salt and health underwent a period of consultation at the end of 2002. Responses are posted on the SACN website. All responses to the consultation were fully considered by the SACN salt sub-group. The minority of organisations who queried the basis of the salt targets for children did so on the extent of the evidence available and the methods used by the sub-group to establish salt targets for children. The sub-group's deliberations are minuted on the SACN website.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to his Department's responsibilities and Government bills he has sponsored. [120696]
  1014W
  Mr. Hutton
  Of the bills sponsored by the Department, or which fell to the Department's responsibility, the following were the subject of a Sewel motion on the dates indicated:Food Standards Act 19991—23 June 1999
  Care Standards Act 2000—22 June 2000
  Health and Social Care Act 2001—17 January 2001
  Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002—17 January 2001
  Adoption and Children Act 2002—4 April 2001, 24 October 2001 and 30 January 2002
  NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002—22 November 2001
  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—19 June 2003
  1 This Bill was previously the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many smallpox vaccines he expects to procure through(a) the first and (b) the second tranche of the order; when he expects to take delivery of both tranches of the vaccine; and if he will make a statement. [108002]

  Mr. Hutton
  Increasing vaccine stocks is part of the Department's strategy in providing the maximum possible protection to the public and ensuring that the national health service can deal safely with any potential smallpox cases.

  The Department of Health has taken full delivery of the first smallpox vaccine procurement. The procurement process for the second tranche of smallpox vaccines will be completed shortly.

  We have sufficient stocks of smallpox vaccine, which would be rapidly deployed to contain any outbreak. We are planning for every eventuality and this includes the ability to vaccinate the entire population if necessary.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on increasing the number of universities offering degrees in speech and language therapy. [123395]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills about increasing the number of universities offering degrees in speech and language therapy. Commissioning for training in speech and language therapy is a matter for the workforce development confederations (WDCs) to agree with local service providers. In making commissions decisions, WDCs are guided by recommendations from the national Workforce Numbers Advisory Board.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [122256]
  1015W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service are collected from Departments and 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 on the world wide web at: www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. 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.

  The Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication, "Public Bodies". The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each NDPB at 31 March each year. "Public Bodies 2002" was published in January 2003. Copies of "Public Bodies" published each year since 1997 are available in the Library.

  The information on staff costs is published in the Department of Health's Annual Report. Copies of the document are also available in the Library.

  Total Quality Management
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of national health service trusts use total quality management systems to improve patient satisfaction with services. [124699]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is no prescriptive total quality management framework for this. There is considerable freedom therefore for trusts to build strategies and deliver services that are appropriate for that location in partnership with patients and the local community.

  Worcestershire Royal Hospital
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he plans to make to representations from the President of the Royal College of Surgeons on the services provided by Worcestershire Royal Hospital. [124348]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The concerns of the President of the Royal College of Surgeons about services provided by Worcestershire Royal Hospital are being investigated by West Midlands South Strategic Health Authority (SHA). I understand that the SHA and Worcestershire Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust are planning to meet the President of the Royal College of Surgeons to discuss his concerns on 16 July 2003.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chemical Weapons Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  In accordance with the Act, I have laid a report on its implementation during 2002 before the House.

  Company Law
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  The House will know that we are undertaking a comprehensive reform of company law, following the independent Company Law Review and the Modernising Company Law White Paper. This involves recasting an extremely large body of legislation. Our aim is to introduce this as soon as is practicable, consistent with ensuring it is clear, coherent, delivers for business and can stand the test of time.

  There are, however, some especially urgent issues on which we aim to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows in order to implement changes to the law recommended by the various reviews in the aftermath of the Enron and Worldcom failures and covered in our Statement to the House on 29 January this year. These changes will complement the non-legislative measures already taken or underway as a result of the work of the Co-ordinating Group on Audit and Accounting Issues, and the Review of the Regulatory Regime of the Accountancy Profession, and will help restore investor confidence in companies and financial markets. The legislation will also include measures enhancing powers to investigate companies, and create a new corporate vehicle, the Community Interest Company (CIC), to boost the development of social enterprise. Creation of the CIC will take forward
  62WS
  the proposals set out in the joint DTI, Home Office and Treasury consultation paper "Enterprise for Communities", which The Secretary of State announced in a written statement on 26 March 2003.

  In parallel with this legislation, we plan to use existing powers to implement the proposal for a statutory Operating and Financial Review (OFR). We propose to publish draft regulations on the OFR for consultation in due course.

  As part of the measures implementing post Enron/ Worldcom recommendations referred to above, we announced on 29 January a number of changes to the regulatory regime of the accountancy and audit professions, including the establishment of a new independent inspection unit, located within the Financial Reporting Council, to take over from the recognised supervisory bodies responsibility for monitoring audits of listed companies and other significant entities, and the establishment of a new Professional Oversight Body for Accountancy to oversee the activities of the supervisory bodies themselves.

  Until the new FRC structure is formally established, it remains the responsibility of the Secretary of State to oversee the supervisory bodies' activities, and to that end we have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses copies of the annual reports for 2002 which we have received from the five existing recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors. Specifically these are: a combined report from the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland; and one each from the Association of Certified Chartered Accountants and the Association of Authorised Public Accountants. These reports inform the Government about the activities of the recognised supervisory bodies in relation to their statutory requirements to monitor and enforce compliance with their rules relating to membership and eligibility to be an auditor.

  European Economic and Social Committee
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith)
  We are pleased to announce that Sally Scutt has been nominated as Professor Robert Baird's successor as a member of the United Kingdom's representation on the European Economic and Social Committee.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
  COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 53 as first printed for the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  10 After Clause 107. insert the following new clause—
  "THE NATIONAL TRAILS

  (1) In the interest of public health and safety, subsections (2) and (4) shall have effect.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall within one year from the coming into force of this enactment make a permanent Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit the use of non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles on the National Trails.

  (3) Non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles shall mean all such vehicles but shall not include those driven by individuals with an estate or interest in land adjoining the Trail or their lawful visitors or emergency vehicles.

  (4) A Traffic Regulation Order shall mean an order as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27) and as subsequent amended."

  The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
  10A Page 48, line 19, at end insert the following new clause—
  "TRAFFIC REGULATION ON LONG DISTANCE ROUTES
  The following shall be inserted after section 22A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27) (traffic regulation for purpose of conserving natural beauty)—
  "22B TRAFFIC REGULATION ON LONG DISTANCE ROUTES

  (1) This section applies where the Secretary of State thinks that, because of the use of a long distance route by vehicular traffic, members of the public cannot safely and conveniently—

  (a) enjoy the amenities of any part of the route or of the area through which the route runs;

  (b) take advantage of opportunities for recreation in any part of that area;

  (c) study nature in any part of the area.

  (2) The Secretary of State may make an order preventing the use of the route or a specified part of the route—

  (a) by vehicular traffic, or

  (b) by vehicular traffic of a specified kind.

  430

  (3) An order under this section may have effect only in relation to a long distance route which is, or in so far as it is. in England.

  (4) An order under this section shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a traffic regulation order made by the Secretary of State in relation to a road for which he is the traffic authority (and, in particular, any provision of this Act about the making or effect of such an order shall apply)."."

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu thereof.
  I was very sorry to have to resist Amendment No. 10, which was put forward on a previous occasion. That was not because we disagreed about the dreadful state of the Ridgeway, in particular, among our national trails, but fundamentally because it was an issue of human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, who I do not believe is in his place, asked me whether it was a human right to drive a motorbike along a country path. That was not the issue at all; it was that, if one extinguishes existing rights, then it is a human right to have one's objections heard and, if necessary, for an independent public inquiry to take place. That was not provided for in the amendment.
  Having said that, I recognise, and sympathise with, the strongly held views about the inconvenience, annoyance and, indeed, danger to users on foot and others, the damage to the surface of parts of the Ridgeway and the potential dangers created as a result of recreational vehicle use on that route. By "recreational vehicles", I really mean motorbikes and four-wheel drives.
  The Countryside Agency is already drawing up a business plan for the Ridgeway to address those problems. The plan envisages working with local authorities to deliver improvements to the Ridgeway. That will involve selective use of traffic regulation orders in combination with repairs to parts of the Ridgeway that have been damaged. Funding for that work will be provided by the agency as well as by local authorities.
  In responding to the concerns raised in this House, today the Government have also introduced their own amendment to the Bill that would give the Secretary of State a new power. That power would enable the Secretary of State to make a traffic regulation order preventing the use of the Ridgeway or any other long-distance route by all vehicular traffic, or vehicular traffic of a specified kind, where he believes that such use means that the route cannot be safely or conveniently used by members of the public for the purpose of enjoying the amenity. It will enable the Secretary of State to make a permanent traffic regulation order for this purpose.
  Temporary traffic regulation orders made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are used in situations where it is necessary to prohibit or restrict traffic for a relatively short period of time. The purposes for which temporary orders may be used are when works are carried out on or near a road and

  431
  there is the likelihood of danger to the public or serious damage to a road or to enable litter clearing or cleaning. Clearly, that is not the problem that we are addressing now.
  The normal procedures for making a permanent traffic regulation order would apply. That means allowing an opportunity for objections and, if necessary, a public inquiry. The previous amendment would not have provided for that and therefore it would have been at risk of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights.
  We want to give the Countryside Agency's management plan for the Ridgeway a chance. But if the strategy of working with the local authorities does not produce results in the next 12 months, then the Government will consider using the new power given by this amendment in order to promote a traffic regulation order banning non-essential motorised vehicles from the whole length of the Ridgeway.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very great interest that he has taken in this issue throughout the stages of the Bill. I am also grateful to noble Lords who supported me on previous amendments during the Bill's proceedings. I am far more interested in outcome than process. Therefore, I am happy that we seem to have found a way that satisfies my concerns, those of noble Lords who supported me and, most importantly, those of the users of the Ridgeway and routes like it who have found their quiet enjoyment of the routes completely ruined. Therefore, I am happy for my amendment to be withdrawn and for the Government's amendment, as agreed by the Commons, to be moved forward.
  I want to make two brief points. My experiences in Suffolk—in the practical sense of trying to manage this kind of route—do not leave me feeling wholly optimistic about the prospects for voluntary management and for the management plan. However, I am entirely happy that it should be given a year to work. But I put the noble Lord on notice that I believe that the pressure on the Government to bring forward a traffic regulation order will be considerable if there is not a significant improvement on the Ridgeway.
  In addition, and in the interests of what one might consider pushing my luck, perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord whether the Government would consider examining the whole issue of traffic regulation orders, which are very bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult to use. If the processes could be streamlined without in any way subverting the interests of natural justice and
  432
  public consultation, then I believe that local authorities and the people they represent would be very grateful.
  Lord Luke: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has said about this amendment. My noble friend Lord Astor could not be in his place today, but I am sure he would agree with me that the Minister has shown that the Government have good intentions on this matter. If the countryside agencies work, the matter will be on its way towards a solution. If they do not, I am sure that your Lordships will hear about it promptly from my noble friend.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to congratulate my noble friend on tabling it. It certainly covers my concerns. I am grateful to my noble friend for all the work that he has done with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
  I have one comment on the phrase "the Secretary of State thinks" in the first line of new Section 22B. I know that Secretaries of State always think, but I suggest that "think" is a slightly odd word. Perhaps "consider" would have been a better word. Presumably, however, other people will be able in the usual way to influence the Secretary of State's thought process and all will be well.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask him whether he can enlighten us on one matter. I am sure that this is a very helpful initiative by the Government. However, I recall the debate that we had during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill on the question of bridle-ways, which were also being used in a similar way, and I wonder whether it would be possible for the helpful procedure now before us to be used to correct injustices and mistakes that occur in the use of those bridle-ways by similar recreational vehicles?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall take the points in reverse order and respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The noble Lord will know that from the beginning of this month we have been implementing provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to convert roads used as public paths, which happen to constitute about 3 per cent of the Ridgeway, into restricted byways from which vehicular traffic will be prohibited. If the noble Lord is aware of any particular case in which the regulations are being flouted—I am not—I should be grateful if he would write to me so that we can deal with it.
  On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we are happy to engage parliamentary counsel who use ordinary English—what I would call demotic English—in the drafting of the Bill. I believe that "think" says what it means and is the right word to use, rather than "is of the opinion" or some more pompous phrase.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the additional point about traffic regulation orders in a more general sense.

  433
  As I am sure she is aware, we have in preparation a traffic management Bill, of which traffic regulation orders will form a part, and we shall have an opportunity to debate that matter.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
11.16 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 94 [Power to charge for discretionary services]:
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 51, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we consider that the new power to charge for discretionary services is important, and we welcome it. In my county of Essex, we are keen to make the most of this new freedom to maintain as many of our discretionary services as possible. However, we are disappointed to find that, having been granted this freedom, local authorities will have their hands tied by the unnecessary caveat of having to ensure that the income from charges for a service does not exceed the cost of its provision.
We are concerned that this restriction will prevent local authorities improving the quality of services that they provide. We understand that the power is to be exercised primarily to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of our communities and is not to be seen as a money spinner. That is fine. However, for local authorities to be able to provide a service and raise their standards of service provision, it is clear that they may on occasions want to over-recover their costs in order to invest in service improvements. To prevent them doing so is likely to lead to a gradual deterioration of service. It seems to me to be a topsy-turvy world in which the instruction that we send out to local authority managers is, "You must not make a profit. By all means make a loss, but do not make a profit".
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the dangers of allowing authorities to enter into an unrestricted commercial activity. He did not say what those dangers were. As the leader of an authority under financial pressure, I believe that the key danger is that the service would lose money, which would put pressure elsewhere on the authority's budget. From my perspective, the danger of authorities making a profit is a somewhat lesser concern.
The amendment does nothing to affect the scope of powers to charge for discretionary services. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a local authority providing a service that it does not need to provide should be able to charge what the market is happy to pay for that service. The Minister says that it should not be allowed to do so. I say that in principle it should. If the only reason standing in the way of that is the effect that it might have on powers elsewhere in the
434
Bill—that is what the Minister said in the other place—it surely cannot be beyond the wit of the Minister and his civil servants to work out a way of resolving the problem. I am also concerned that insisting that local authorities enter local markets on a non-commercial basis will distort local markets and will not be welcomed by local businesses.
I appreciate that the Minister will probably take the view that the purpose of these powers is to enable local authorities to step in to provide services where the local market cannot or will not do so. In many cases, that may be true. But should we not also see these powers as providing an opportunity to stimulate local markets? That would not have the effect of a large, uncommercial player taking part.
As well as the principled objections we have to this measure, we are also concerned about how it will operate in practice. What will happen if the calculations go slightly wrong and against all the odds local authorities make a slight profit on the discretionary services? We might have to make adjustments the following year to the pricing structure—perhaps reducing charges—but that might only have the effect of leading to more people taking up the service and an even higher profit. I suppose that we could consider that as a way of providing the service. Perhaps local authorities may be carrying out the work too efficiently. Therefore, we could try to meet the Government's requirements by increasing our cost base. It seems to me that the provision is wrong in principle and difficult to police in practice. I hope that the Minister will think again. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I have to tell the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 stands in my name, and I would be delighted if it were to be pre-empted by the deletion of subsection (3). My amendment is less ambitious. While I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, if the subsection is retained, I am concerned about a point in it.
In Grand Committee I said that I wondered whether a local authority would be caught out—to use demotic language—if its income slightly exceeded its costs. That was because of the very precise and technical point of the local authority's vires—less demotic—or its powers. If a local authority were to be challenged on the basis that income, even taking a number of years together, was just a little over its costs, what would be the position?
I accept that it would be difficult for all income to be attributed to a particular charging activity. If the Government seek to take that approach, I understand why they have done so in that way. It does not seem to me that what is being done addresses the dangers of the challenge on the ultra vires basis. Although I do not for a moment support some of the activities that happened in the 1980s that led to the cases in regard to what were local authorities' powers, I am alert to the dangers that they articulated at some length.

435
My amendment seeks to provide that the income from charges does not significantly exceed the cost of provision—I used different language at the last stage. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in Grand Committee:
"I would hate to think that a local authority would fall foul of some crazy interpretation of the Bill and that because its costs turned out to be a little lower than it thought and it made a profit of a quid, that nullified the whole exercise … Obviously, if the noble Baroness tables such an amendment I will be happy to give her a considered response to it".—[Official Report, 17/6/03; col. GC 262.]
I have tabled this amendment in order to hear the Minister's considered response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Good morning, my Lords. What a wonderful day—back on local government finance! With Amendment No. 1, we have a choice between the ambitious and the less ambitious. I do not favour either of the approaches, although I entirely understand them. Thinking back to the time when I led my local authority, we could have done with some more flexibility in terms of costs and charges. I can understand where noble Lords are coming from in this regard.
Clause 94 is designed to allow authorities to cover the costs of providing discretionary services, but not to provide a new source of income, a new profit line. Amendment No. 1 understandably seeks to remove part of the clause, the part designed to ensure that authorities do not profit from the provision of discretionary services.
In Clause 94 the costs of provision are deliberately not defined so as to give authorities the maximum amount of discretion and flexibility in its interpretation, both now and in the future. We have built in flexibility and it is guaranteed in the clause as it is written. Our belief is that authorities should be enabled and free to establish their own robust methodology for assessing the costs of providing a discretionary service.
I believe that that is the way it should be left. If we become overly prescriptive—that was our original intention—and if we over-regulate we shall create more of a problem for ourselves. We want the flexibility; that is what we have tried to achieve in the way in which the clause is designed. I suggest to noble Lords that it is probably best left that way. If the determination is made locally, and if the assessment is made locally, I am sure that in the localities the local authorities will exercise their powers and duties sensibly.
Amendment No. 2 differs as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained. She has put the word "significantly" into the script. Our problem with that is that it is open to very variable interpretation. It is hard to see what it would mean and what it adds in terms of the clause. That is why we have adopted the formulation,
"taking one financial year with another",
436
because we recognise that one cannot have an exact balancing act in organising costs. I believe that to add the word "significantly" would raise the possibility that year in, year out best value authorities could make a profit from charges for discretionary services without any real gain being made in terms of service quality.
The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, suggested that local authorities need an extra bit of up-front income generation to ensure that they do not run at a loss or there is not a deterioration in service. I do not believe that that will happen. My belief is that there is already sufficient flexibility. I say that because I want it to be understood by the local authorities. I think that what we have will work. Obviously, it is something that we shall watch for carefully in the future.
We do not want to blur the line between trading and charging. We are clear that we want trading to be achieved through companies, but we want to give local authorities the ability to charge for discretionary services where they wish and where there is no current power or current prohibition. That is why I believe that we should stick with what, ultimately, is quite sensitive wording in the Bill.
Having heard those words of encouragement, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will feel happy to withdraw their amendments. I believe that we have the situation about right. The freedoms and flexibilities that we have provided up front will give the local authorities the scope and the freedom to work well in that area.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister able to answer my precise question about tires, which I also raised at the previous stage?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have had an answer for her at the Dispatch Box, but I have not. I shall undertake to ensure that she receives a more precise answer than I can honestly give her today. It would be wrong of me to answer her now as the noble Baroness deserves a more precise response.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. This is a very difficult area. As noble Lords are aware, I have considerable practice and involvement in this area at this moment. In Committee stage I mentioned, and I shall mention it now, an archaeological team working in Colchester, Essex, one of the oldest towns in the country, which is covered in archaeological sites. Every time a new building is built another site is found. The county council is in danger of having to give up its service in that regard because it is a discretionary service and the priority is care of the elderly, children's services, schools and so on. If one could use those services one would probably keep them.
Although I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, he did not give us enough encouragement in the area of work that local authorities carry out very well, and local authorities are in danger of having to give up that work because

437
of the pressure on finances. We need to look at the wording again, because the Minister suggested that the wording left enough flexibility for local authorities to perhaps receive enough back from those services to continue them. I shall look at that wording again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but reserve the right to return to it at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
11.30 a.m.
Clause 95 [Power to disapply section 94(1)]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 52, line 7, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 95 allows the "appropriate person"—I imagine the Secretary of State or the National Assembly—to disapply Section 94(1) either for "particular descriptions" of authority or with regard to a particular service by all best value authorities; or by particular best value authorities or particular descriptions of best value authorities. I seek to remove the second and third of those from the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Grand Committee that he was sure that I would acknowledge that the power to disapply, which I do acknowledge is a reserve power that the Government hope will not be used, was needed in case the power to charge for discretionary services, under Clause 94, was misused or abused. I then asked why it was necessary to have the power to disapply if Clause 94(3), which we have just debated, was retained in the Bill. That has clear restrictions. I tabled the amendment, hoping that the Government could answer why it is necessary to have a discriminatory power to disapply—albeit a discretionary one—but which allows them to discriminate between best authorities if the power is limited in the way that Clause 94(3) requires. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the spirit behind the moving of this amendment and I shall try to explain further why it is unacceptable. The power in Clause 95 is a reserve power and one that we expect to use only in exceptional circumstances. It means that the Government could take action if a single authority or a number of authorities were to misuse the power to charge, and the power to disapply could be applied to one particular discretionary service or to all discretionary services of one or more authorities.
I explained in Committee on 17th June in Hansard, col. GC 264, that Clause 95 might be of use where it became clear that an authority was not complying with the duty in Clause 94 to ensure that,
"taking one financial year with another, the income from charges … does not exceed the costs of provision".
If the result was that the authority was effectively undertaking unauthorised trading activities, Clause 95 would enable the general power to charge to be
438
withdrawn from that particular authority. But if we were to accept the amendment we would only be able to withdraw the power to charge in relation to all discretionary services of that authority, or in relation to a particular discretionary service provided by all authorities.
We want to ensure that best value authorities have the freedom and flexibility to charge for discretionary services if they choose to do so, but we need some flexibility and that is why we have proposed this power for exceptional cases. It would enable us to be very selective so as not to penalise other authorities that were playing by the rules—and indeed other parts of the offending authority which were using the new power properly. It is therefore a precise tool which can be brought to bear if one small part on an authority with a particular discretionary service is not playing the game. It is right that we have that power. The noble Baroness would probably accept that if, in an area where there were competing local authorities, an authority decided that it wanted to exploit the opportunity provided by the marketplace to provide a service, and then did not play by the rules, one would have to accept that that would be wrong. We would want the power to make a critical intervention where an authority was stepping out of line.
However, we wish overall to allow best value authorities, and the way in which they provide those services, to operate with the maximum freedom and flexibility. We shall use this power with great care and caution.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. At earlier stages of the Bill there were a number of provisions which began to be described as hackneyed provisions, and this is perhaps another example. It raises an interesting point. We are told that in order to ensure that another provision of the Bill is not violated, the Government need this power to disapply that provision. It opens up questions as to what all the other parts of the Bill which cannot be disapplied might mean, what the sanctions might be and what the force of those provisions might be. The Government are saying that the only—or perhaps, to be fair, the best—way that they can ensure that a provision of the very same piece of legislation is observed is by disapplying it. That is a major issue, which perhaps I am not qualified to expand on, and one that is certainly not appropriate to examine now, although the matter is serious. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause—
"FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY

(1) The powers in this Act shall be exercised by the Secretary of State in accordance with a general duty to increase the freedom and flexibility of operation of any local authority that has been assessed as "excellent" or "good" in its most recent comprehensive performance assessment.

(2) When issuing any regulations or directions under this Act or the Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) or the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) that he intends to apply to a local

439
authority or local authorities that have been placed in the top two tiers of classification in accordance with the provisions set out in section 100 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall at the same time publish a statement explaining how the regulation or direction concerned will increase the freedom and flexibility of such authorities and in what way it will devolve decision-making to local level.

(3) In exercising powers to make an order under section 101 the Secretary of State must have regard to subsections (1) and (2) above.

(4) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with the classifications provided for in section 100, ensure that the following reductions in inspection activity for all inspectorates are made so that—

(a) for authorities in the top tier of classification there shall be no external inspections during the period of the order made in section 100(4), and

(b) for authorities in the next tier of classification there shall be a reduction in inspections of at least 50 per cent during the period of the order made in section 100(4).

(5) Regulations made under Sections 11 and 26 of this Act shall not apply to any authority that has been placed in the top two tiers of classification in accordance with the provisions set out in section 100, except with the prior agreement of the local authority concerned.

(6) In section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (local authority executives), after subsection (5) there is inserted—

(5A) The duty under this section does not apply to authorities that are classified under section 100 of the Local Government Act 2003 in the top two tiers of performance."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this new clause, we are trying to establish in the Bill where the comprehensive performance assessment should stand given that it is a major plank of the Government's local government policy.
When the Government introduced the comprehensive performance assessment they said that it—I shall call it the CPA—would be the vehicle for delivering freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. When they introduced local public service agreements they said that PSAs would he the vehicles for delivering freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. When the Government introduced the beacon councils scheme, they said that they would be the vehicle for introducing freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities.
If there is scepticism on this side of the House about the Government's promises of freedoms and flexibilities, it is the product of experience rather than ideology. If distinguishing between service providers on the basis of their ability to deliver the goods is a central plank of the Government's policy for public services—as seems to be the case—then the introduction of a clear statutory commitment on freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities should be an important component of that strategy. It would be welcomed in local government as a statement of the Government's good intentions.
In addition to the general principle set out in the amendment that would give real flesh to the Government's public utterances on freedoms and flexibilities, I have suggested a number of areas on which a freedoms and flexibilities clause could bite. First, we should remember that the Government first introduced the CPA on the back of a promise that it would lead to an overall reduction in inspection activity. It is on that basis that local authorities have engaged with the
440
process. However, there are some worrying reports that although the Audit Commission may be willing to play ball, other inspectors—Ofsted, SSI—are perhaps less willing to reduce their inspection activity.
That may or may not be true. The key point is that there should be a statutory agreement on the level of reduction in inspection activity for each class of authority. That would send a powerful signal from the Government to the local authority community that they really do mean business and will compel inspectors to comply with their targets.
Setting statutory targets for reductions in inspection activity does not mean a less flexible system. It would still be possible to tailor individual inspection programmes to the needs of individual authorities. It does mean, however, that authorities will know in advance exactly how much inspection activity they can expect in the medium term. That would aid the budgetary stability and forward planning processes for local authorities and would be welcomed.
Secondly, the amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations binding good and excellent authorities on the use of capital receipts and on minimal levels of reserves. As other amendments will demonstrate, we are opposed to these provisions on principle, but find them particularly objectionable in relation to authorities that have been classified as good or excellent.
Thirdly, the amendment would allow those authorities that have been classified as good or excellent to determine for themselves whether they want to continue to operate under the new executive structures set out in the Local Government Act 2000. If they choose not to be bound by those provisions, then they would be subject to the laws governing executive structures that existed prior to the 2000 Act.
The purpose of the provision is not to suggest that one form of executive structure is better than another. It is not about turning the clock back. The amendment is about choice. It is about providing good or excellent authorities with the power to determine for themselves their internal governance structures.
Why might the Government resist choice? I do not want to put words into Ministers' mouths, but I foresee that the Government might claim that it is not helpful for authorities to revisit their executive structures; that this might cause unnecessary upheaval when an authority should be concentrating on service delivery. Funnily enough, that is precisely why we are opposed to the creation of elected regional assemblies and the reconstitution of the whole local government structure beneath the region. So I do not disagree with the Minister on that.
The authorities themselves, it might be argued, have benefited axiomatically from these executive structures—after all, they are good or excellent. Why then change a winning formula? I would not disagree with that. I would simply say that it is for good and excellent authorities to judge these things for themselves. They are in a position genuinely to consider the costs and benefits of changing their executive structures. The point is whether the Government trust local government. Do they trust local

441
government to judge for itself whether its current executive structure or a committee-based structure is the right way forward?
I think that the Government, with their belief in freedoms and flexibilities, must welcome this helpful amendment that gives flesh to so mar y of the things they have promised over the past few years. I hope Ministers will look favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield, which stands in both our names. The Bill has been heralded as the Bill of freedom and flexibility. Those two words are mentioned in almost every second breath. It has been hard to find during the proceedings on the Bill—the Committee stage was held off the Floor of the House—where those freedoms and flexibilities are. So the purpose of the amendment is to try to pick out some of those areas where the excellent and good councils in the performance assessments might be able to find some freedom and flexibility. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield has described those very well.
It would be helpful for local government to have those issues put together in one statutory clause. The inspection regimes have caused a great deal of angst; and that angst has not necessarily produced any very sensible or useful results. There have been far too many inspections. Most people now accept that that was the situation. I have always thought it absurd for the Government to be laying down from the centre exactly and definitively how local authorities should run themselves and how they should make their decisions. It is my belief that what has happened and what is happening is that we are making local government unattractive, except to the very few at the top who have a job to do and a job to lead. If we are not careful we will end up having to advertise for councillors who can perform specific roles rather than being generic.
I support my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. I very much hope that the Minister will receive the amendment sympathetically.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it seems to us that the Conservatives have bought into the Government's notion of earned autonomy for local government. We on these Benches have made it clear on many occasions that we believe local authorities should be treated as inherently autonomous. I have said before—I do not want to go through the matter at great length—that Audit Commission review can be very helpful. I have experienced it being helpful. But the inspection regime which is now in place and to which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have referred—the inspections are often carried out by people who do not know as much about the subject as one might like to think they should and, indeed, who sometimes do not know as much as those who actually deliver the service—has got quite out of hand.
442
Categorisation is quite a different matter. The Government think that outside assessment, other than by the electorate, is a driver for councillors and officers. I do not think that that brings job satisfaction, but that doing the job well does. I really fear that the route which the Government are taking will mean that it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy; that one looks at the assessment through the eyes of other people who perhaps are not doing the job well for its own sake.
We do not support the Government's approach, which is more or less, "Here is a freedom provided you are good boys and girls". But, at least, the Bill as drafted gives freedoms which are not necessarily confined to those at the top of the class. Some of the powers to disapply are discretionary powers. We have heard throughout from the Government that they hope in many cases not to use them.
It seems to us that the amendment would consolidate rather than ease the distinctions. It frankly does not make Sections 11 and 26—I share the distaste for those—any more palatable. I find the suggestion of disapplying Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000 curious: that is, disapplying the duty—as I read it—to put in place an executive scrutiny structure which is one of the models provided by Section 11. We had considerable criticisms of that Act as it was passing through the House. Indeed, I was able at the final stage to persuade the Government to exempt small authorities from the provision. Saying that is probably enough to confirm that we do not like Section 11 of the 2000 Act any more than the others that are referred to. However, we do not feel that this amendment is the solution to the problem. If anything, as I say, it would consolidate and not relieve what we see as a very real issue and difficulty inherent in the Government's approach. I am afraid we could not support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment is a curious and interesting one in terms of debate about the general direction of local government—where it should go, the nature of its leadership, how it works, its relation with central government and the degree of deregulation that should take place. I am intrigued by the amendment. I should like to congratulate noble Lords opposite because they have bought into what the Government are trying to achieve. I can see that they are trying to exercise political imagination in extending where we are going, though not in all regards. It is a useful contribution to what I genuinely believe to be a very important debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has seen that. This has moved the debate on. I congratulate the noble Lords opposite for having seized that opportunity.
The focus of the amendment is on the best performing authorities. They are important, but I should make clear to your Lordships' House that greater freedom for all authorities is central to the approach in this Bill. Much of this additional freedom to charge for discretionary services and the introduction of the new prudential regime for capital finance will be available to all authorities. Many of the

443
burdens that we are removing, whether through this Bill or in other ways, will be removed for all authorities. In this we are going a great deal further than some of the more recent converts on the Benches opposite thought we would go and perhaps at an earlier stage in the debate, were prepared to go themselves. So I am grateful to the Opposition for joining in the discussion.
We do see the need, in some cases, to be able to take account of capacity of authorities in deciding whether to provide an additional flexibility. That is why we are providing higher performing authorities with further substantial freedoms. Our commitment to greater freedom for all authorities in order to remove barriers to improvement, and for higher performers to give them the opportunity to do more is absolutely clear.
I ought to turn to the amendments in more detail. The first amendment seeks to impose a requirement that everything that we do in exercising powers under the Bill should be directed at increasing the freedom of the best authorities. Secondly, it seeks to write into statute a rather disparate wish list that the noble Lords opposite have put together to exempt good and excellent councils from certain requirements. As far as concerns the first point, I have already set out our commitment to greater freedom, but it seems to me that the proposal is fundamentally flawed. I am not sure that I understand what a general duty to increase freedom and flexibility would actually mean in practice. Noble Lords opposite might want to flesh this out in more detail. It can only be given effect by specific policies and decisions of the kind that we have set out, many of which are included in this Bill. The only point on which I am certain is that it would be likely to create absolute confusion about the use of powers under the Bill.
As an ex-leader of an authority, I have some sneaking sympathy with what I take to be the basic point that underlies another part of the amendment—looking at how regulation affects freedom of operation for authorities. We agree that there is a need to look at the way in which government engage with local authorities, particularly authorities that are performing well. Being more refined in our approach and seeking a more variegated engagement depending on their performance across different service areas is indeed something that we are seeking to develop. However, I do not think this is well served by asking the Secretary of State to produce in each case some kind of certification that the use of a regulation-making power will increase freedom and flexibility. This seems like the long hand of centralism gone mad. In practice it would be inoperable as I suspect the promoters of this amendment are well aware. The way forward here is to strengthen and deepen what we have been doing—less control over process for authorities, more of a focus on outcomes, more freedom about how to achieve them and support and engagement that is proportionate to the performance of the authority. I do not believe that can be quantified and written into statute.
444
I wish to turn briefly to the second set of issues. On inspection, it is indeed our policy that the very best authorities should have a holiday from most inspection activity and that good authorities should see the level of inspections cut by at least a quarter. But the duties under which inspectorates operate preclude this being written into law even were that a sensible approach in the first place. We cannot write into legislation an absolute ban on all inspection activity. Excellent councils are clear that in some cases inspection may be required. Take for example the significant concern of serious child abuse. Inspectorates also have statutory obligations to inspect certain functions, such as residential care homes and day nurseries, as part of their registration process. Our policy on reducing inspection activity is clear and we shall shortly be making announcements on what has been achieved to date. Good progress is being made on working with the inspectorates under a shared commitment to coordinated and proportionate inspection.
On the powers that we have to make regulations about the use of capital receipts in Clause 11, this amendment would exempt certain classes of authorities from the requirement to contribute to the redistribution mechanism that underpins housing investment in this country. As I have made abundantly clear in earlier debates, it is a fundamental principle of local government finance that resources are allocated in line with need. Anything else would be irresponsible. I simply do not accept that some authorities should have significantly more resources to spend than others, regardless of the condition of their stock or their other housing needs. This proposal is neither fair nor logical. It could lead to either higher taxes or a reduction in government funding for the most needy authorities. I doubt whether your Lordships would find that outcome acceptable.
On the power under Clause 26 to set minimum reserves, we have set out the very limited circumstances in which we would seek to use that power. I hope that no authority in the top tiers would be a candidate for a statutory minimum. But we have also made clear the very great importance that we attach to sound finances in the local authority sector. The new freedoms and flexibilities that we are giving re-emphasise the need for a sound financial base on which to operate them. If an authority in one of the top tiers for any reason neglected the need for adequate reserves we would not want to be deprived of the means of setting that right.
Finally we have that old bugbear about allowing authorities in the top two performance categories to opt out of the requirement for executive arrangements. We have heard that the Liberal Democrats do not like Clause 11. That is clear from the way they performed in local government. I respect their different viewpoint. The purpose of requiring authorities to have a cabinet executive or alternative form of political management arrangements for smaller councils is well recorded. Our commitment is to maintain this reform, and to promote efficient, transparent, and accountable decision-making.
We believe that the current arrangements are working very well. We set a target of all authorities having their new form of political management

445
arrangement in place by the end of last year. We met this, primarily because of a lot of hard work by authorities. To suggest unravelling the process, even if only for highly performing authorities, would signal that that hard work was in vain and would undermine our determination and that of well led Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Independent authorities. It would also undermine the shared and collective recognition of the need for good quality, well understood and transparent leadership in local authorities, something which I thought had become a commonly accepted value and was widely supported.
What appears to underlie this amendment is the clear view of the Benches opposite that political management arrangements are in some way a burden on authorities from which they need to be freed. I take the contrary view. The new system provides councils with exactly the kind of flexibility they need to sharpen up leadership and delivery, and to be properly held to account. Indeed, the irony of the position adopted by the Opposition is this: certainly in my time in local government I constantly encountered Conservative council leaders who said, "If only I had the freedom as a leader to act more decisively and authoritatively, I could do so much more for my authority". We have now provided the framework for that kind of dynamic leader to enjoy the freedom to get on with the job, because that is what people want their leaders of local authorities to do.
I believe that this amendment, although well intentioned, does not add in a sensible way to the freedoms package that we have developed and put in place. Nor do I think it would add anything to the reforms that we have set in train over the past three or four years. The amendment is useful because it demonstrates a recognition that the world of local government has moved on. I congratulate the movers on that recognition and I am pleased to see that they are now beginning to catch up with the general drift of the Government's thinking.
I hope that, having heard my encouraging words on some of this, noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Noon
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the Minister had to say about our proposed new clause. As a past leader of a local authority himself, he knows very well how local government operates. I would not say that noble Lords are converts—to repeat the word used by the noble Lord at one stage—to the Government's policy on local government, but we are realistic. We have before us a piece of legislation that we are trying to improve. This amendment therefore seeks to improve the Bill which, in one way or another, I am sure will shortly become the law of the land.
446
I, along with others, do not like comprehensive performance assessments any more than does the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but we have them and we can see which authorities are designated as good or excellent. However, I think we would all agree that the subjective judgments in this area are not all that we would desire. However, we have comprehensive performance assessments and the Government talk consistently about those authorities enjoying greater freedoms and flexibility. That has been a theme running through the legislation, which is why we felt very strongly that the theme should be brought together in a single new clause.
The most important element of the assessment is the inspection. Over the past five or six years of Labour government we have seen a consistent and continuing growth of inspections. Now literally hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on inspections, which is money that we would rather see spent on services for children, the elderly and schools. We are facing so many problems with regard to school budgets that it would be much better if some of the enormous sums being spent on inspections were directed towards school budgets. The amendment would tie into the legislation a theme of reduction of inspection.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord remark that he thought the best authorities might see a 25 per cent reduction in inspections, although until today there has been talk of a reduction of around 50 per cent. This is an extremely important issue.
I read with interest what was said by the Prime Minister last weekend. He commented that he was keen to take Labour policy forward on the delivery of services by imposing fewer targets, carrying out fewer inspections and thus spending more money on the services themselves. This amendment would help in that process by enabling the Government, in their dealings with local government, to provide greater freedoms. Although there were some thoughtful words from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, we did not hear all that we wanted to hear.
I turn now to the structure of local government in this country. It is quite absurd that we have to retain such a totally rigid structure for local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned that there was a clause to exempt, but that applies only to very small district authorities which do not have to make provision in many service areas. By contrast, large authorities must have 10 cabinet members; they cannot have 11 or 12, although for larger authorities it would be much better if they could operate with a degree of flexibility on such matters. In the amendment we suggest that good authorities should be allowed to experiment.
As I have said, it is absurd that in a country of this size, with some 50 million people, that there is only one system of local government. No other country in the world has such a rigid structure. Elsewhere people are allowed to introduce their own systems of management within a guidance framework. This approach is objectionable and

447
demonstrates the fact that national government do not trust local government. Greater trust is a theme that I should like to see pursued in this legislation.
On this side noble Lords feel strongly that some of these matters should be included in the Bill, so I shall now test the feeling of the House on this proposed new clause.
12.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 138.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ackner, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Marlesford, L.

Attlee, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Biffen, L.

Montrose, D.

Blackwell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Blatch, B.

Naseby, L.

Bowness, L.

Noakes, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Byford, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Palmer, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Peel, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Chalfont, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Plumb, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Pym, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Quirk, L.

Dundee, E.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rees, L.

Emerton, B.

Renton, L.

Feldman, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Flather, B.

Saatchi, L.

Fookes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Freeman, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Geddes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanham, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Stokes, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strange, B.

Higgins, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Thatcher, B.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Vivian, L.

Luke, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

448

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Addington, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Alderdice, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Alli, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Amos, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Andrews, B.

Lipsey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McCarthy, L.

Berkeley, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Billingham, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blood, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Borrie, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brett, L.

McNally, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Maddock, B.

Brookman, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Burlison, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L.

Marsh, L.

Chan, L.

Masham of Eton, B.

Christopher, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morgan, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nicol, B.

Crawley, B.

Paul, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Pendry, L.

David, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rennard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Ezra, L.

Rogan, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rooker, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falkland, V.

Sandberg, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Filkin, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Sheldon, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Gale, B.

Simon, V.

Gavron, L.

Slim, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goodhart, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Greaves, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Tumberg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Walmsley, B.

Harrison, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Haskel, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitaker, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Whitty, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.16 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 60, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 7, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 7 would leave out Clause 104(1)(a), which refers to local elections. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would leave out subsection (1)(b) and subsection (2)(b), which refer to elections to the Greater London Assembly and parish councils respectively.
The amendments return us to a debate that we had in Committee on the Government's stated intention to change the date of the local government elections in 2004 from their statutory position in early May. The rationale is that the local elections should coincide with the European elections in June. Consultation took place some time ago and the Government have made it clear since that they intend to implement the change. Legislative recognition of that is now being sought.
There are a number of reasons why the Government should not be allowed to change the date of elections, particularly those that are set in law to a precise timescale. The only election that is not set to a precise timescale is, of course, the general election; all others are set to a timescale and framework in law. The Government are proposing unaccountably to bring together the dates of the European election, the mayoral election in London, the election for the Greater London Assembly and any other local government elections that are due to take place in May 2004. Those elections are all to be lumped together and held on a date in June 2004.
I understand that the Government believe that that would be a one-off—presumably for the moment. However, if it can be done once, it can certainly be done again. In our view, an extremely undesirable precedent would be set. It is undesirable for a number of reasons, not only constitutional and practical, but relating to principle and motive. As I said, constitutionally, dates of elections are set in law by Parliament; they should not be moved lightly. Indeed, they should not be moved unless there is a major emergency. Your Lordships will remember the foot and mouth catastrophe, when it was agreed on a cross-party basis that it was inconceivable that the elections should be held when a great number of people who would be voting were unable to leave their houses because of the restrictions that were in force at that time. But that is not the case here. The only reason seems to be that voters may not want to turn out twice in a short period—five weeks, in fact. But they have done so in the past and I have no doubt that they could manage to do so again.
If voter turnout is a concern—and indeed it is to all of us—that will not necessarily be resolved by having a whole lot of elections put together that are all done on a different basis. This is not even about elections all
450
to be carried out on first past the post; each one will be carried out in a different form. They will involve a number of policies and projects.
However, the overriding concern is that any government should feel able to change elections when they think that they have a rational reason to do so. If we do not stop this now, we feel that the Government will return to it in future on the basis of low turnout or it being more convenient, saying, "Oh, let us not worry about returning officers having to deal with several forms of election at the same time; that just looks convenient". That may be convenient for some people—and some voters—but I suspect that most voters would rather stick to the principles enshrined in law and would perfectly willingly turn out in the usual way for two elections. There should be no suggestion that those elections should be brought together. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is perhaps proper that I declare my interest. I will be a member of my party's list for the London-wide vote in the London Assembly election, so I have a quite substantial interest; if I am not elected, I will have drawn another month's salary by virtue of the provision, if enacted. The noble Baroness said that voters have done it in the past, but the problem is that they have not necessarily done so in great numbers.
For me, the overriding issue in what is a difficult situation—I do not minimise the noble Baroness' point about different electoral systems, and so on—is what is convenient for voters. Although I thoroughly enjoy elections, it is pretty obvious that voters do not like being asked to keep on turning out. I am not sure that the balance is overwhelming. The overriding consideration is voters' convenience, but it is a difficult judgment. That is the long and short of it.
The noble Baroness talks about principles being forfeited. I find it difficult to see what principle is forfeited. Of course I agree that governments should not be allowed on a whim to move election dates around. I should like—this is our clear party policy—fixed dates for general elections. This will not be on a whim but to co-ordinate elections that would otherwise come inconveniently close to one another.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment, although I certainly support it, but I am moved to respond to the speech that we have heard from the Liberal Benches—I say, "Liberal" because people might be amazed to hear such a speech from those Benches. Those people who choose not to vote in elections are often expressing as much of a view as those who do. Recently, in elections for the Scottish Parliament, half the voters did not turn out because they were so disgusted by the performance of the Scottish Parliament—in particular, by the cost of its building, which had risen from £40 million to £400 million.
Perhaps the advocates of constitutional reform on the Liberal Democrat Benches might reflect that many of their innovations have resulted in complete disillusion on the part of voters and fragmentation of

451
our parliamentary system. It is not the voters' problem that they cannot be bothered to turn out; the problem is that there has been so much constitutional tinkering and meddling that voters have become completely confused and cynical about the political process.
Far from changing the dates of elections so that the manifest dismay on the part of voters is hidden—which is what the Government's proposals amount to—surely those who advocated constitutional change and setting up more and more bodies of politicians should reflect on what they have brought about and show some respect for the established traditions and way in which we have carried out our electoral process with considerable success, until the tinkering which came from Charter 88 and its friends got us into this mess.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I, too, did not intend to speak to the amendment, but I find it extraordinary that matters that have been decided through election—especially the Scottish Parliament—are now considered to be tinkering by people on the edges.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot resist a quiet chuckle on this one, but I will stick to the point.
We disagree with the amendments because they would remove the Secretary of State's ability, in different combinations, to move the date of elections to district councils, parish council elections and elections for the Lord Mayor—sorry, the London mayor; although that is a dream is it not?—and the Greater London Assembly. If we accepted Amendment No. 7, we could move only the GLA elections but not parish or local elections; if we accepted Amendment No. 8 we could move only the local and parish elections but not the GLA elections; and if we accepted Amendment No. 9, we could move only the local and GLA elections but not combine parish elections with them on 10th June.
The accusation was made that we were acting willy-nilly. That is just not the case. We consulted on moving the local, GLA and parish elections in order to combine them with the European Parliament elections. We received support for moving all three sets. Most respondents agreed—172 out of a total of 310 who expressed a preference. Many of those were local authorities and ordinary members of the public. Also, it must be put on record, two of the three major political parties agreed—a position reflected in this debate. The Local Government Association supported our proposal, as did the National Association of Local Councils—a body that supports and encourages parish councils.
We judge that that support is sufficient to justify our view that we should put the needs of voters first and reject the inconvenience of asking the electorate to turn out twice in five weeks. In an age in which we are concerned about participation in the electoral process, it would be absurd to do otherwise than to have those elections on the same day in 2004. The amendments would wreck Clause 104 and run wholly counter to the perfectly logical aim of increasing voter convenience.
452
I greatly respect the views of the noble Baroness. Lady Hanham, on local government, but I cannot support what she proposes. I cannot see how she can justify ignoring the support that we have identified in our consultation exercise. I cannot resist making this point: it is not as though we are abandoning wholesale a set of local authority elections. That is not something that this party has a track record of doing; as I look at those on the Benches opposite. I recall that that is something that they delighted in doing some years ago.
We are trying to encourage electoral participation in what is an important set of local and national elections. All parties should have it within themselves to encourage maximum participation. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about that: that people were exercising the option of abstention to express their disagreement with a particular Parliament. That is his view; he is entitled to it. We should encourage participation and try to do all we can to undermine what I would argue sometimes happens in politics, that is the "cynicisation" of the proces. As politicians we have nothing to gain by encouraging that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I ought to remind the noble Lord we are on Report.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. However, the Minister did refer to me and before he sits down, I should like to raise a serious issue.
In the Scottish elections the Electoral Commission spent large sums of public money running advertising campaigns. In the advertisements, the commission said that if you do not vote, it means you do not care about the health service or about public education. As the Labour Party would be disadvantaged if there were a low turnout, I think that is of questionable propriety. Many of the people who did not vote did not do so because they did not care about the services, they were expressing a particular view. The notion that turnout as such is something which should be encouraged is right. However, many people are actually expressing a view by deciding not to vote in particular elections.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, makes a perfectly valid point. Incidentally, I think the Electoral Commission has done good work and its independence is something we should be proud of and value. There were those who questioned whether a commission could ever be independent. I applaud them for encouraging people to vote. As the noble Lord said, turnout is very important and an acid test of effective elective democracy. That is something we should all encourage. However, he is right to say that people have a right to abstain and to express a view in that way. One has to respect that.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If he had only 310 responses to the consultation, then I am slightly concerned. How many

453
authorities are there in this country and how many organisations are there that deal with local government? It seems to me quite extraordinary.
There is a point that the Minister did not mention about the Electoral Commission. We may get to it by the next amendment, it depends on how we get on with this one. I have a copy of the Electoral Commission's response to the consultation paper, and the response to the proposals is hardly glowing. It would be fair to say that the Electoral Commission has the greatest possible reservations about what the Government are doing. I have the paper here and if the Minister wishes to take that point from it, he can.
It is very clear from the Electoral Commission's response that it feels that this proposal is fraught with hazard. It is fraught with the hazards which, to some extent, I have already outlined. It is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that there should be a greater voter turnout. However, what about voter confusion? We have a very sophisticated electorate, but why should it have to try to decide between two or three—and in London three or four—forms of voting? Why should it be pestered with different pieces of paper and propaganda for the same day? My view is that the more you try to do on one day, the less likely it is the electorate will turn out. Voters will simply throw their hands up in despair and say, "Why should we even bother?".
The only rationale for this proposal that I have heard from the Minister today is that it will increase voter turnout. I do not agree with that. I do not think the Electoral Commission feels that the proposal will achieve anything. I think there are real problems about having legislative dates for elections and then changing them. I am sure this Government are benign. There could be other governments that are not benign. While I do not suggest any question of governments abandoning elections, I think that tinkering with election dates looks very curious. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
12.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 142.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Chalfont, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Attlee. E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Biffen, L.

Cox, B.

Blackwell, L.

Crathome, L.

Blatch, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Bowness, L.

Croham, L.

Bridges, L.

Cuckney, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Denham, L.

Burnham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Byford, B.

Dundee, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Eden of Winton. L.

454

Elks, B.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth. L.

Feldman, L.

O'Cathain. B.

Ferrers, E.

Peel, E.

Flather, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford. L.

Fookes, B.

Plan of W'rittle, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Plumb, L.

Freeman, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Quinton. L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Glentoran, L.

Reay, L.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Renton. L.

Hanham, B.

Roberts of Conwy. L.

Hanningtield, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Saatchi, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Higgins. L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howell of Guildford, L.

Selkirk of Douglas. L.

Jellicoe, E.

Selsdon, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sharpies, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lane of Horsell. L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Luke, L.

Soulsby of SwafTham Prior. L.

Lyell. L.

Stokes, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Swinfen. L.

Tebbit, L.

Marlesford. L.

Thatcher. B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Thomas of Gvvydir, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Tombs, L.

Monson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Montrose, D.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Noakes, B.

Walker of Worcester. L

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donnand of Easington, L.

Addington, L.

Dubs. L.

Alderdice, L.

Eider. L.

Alli, L.

Elis-Thomas. L.

Amos, B.

Evans of Parkside. L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Temple Guitirk, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ezra. L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bach, L.

Bassom of Brighton. L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Blackstone, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield. L.

Boothroyd, B.

Gale, B.

Borne, L.

Gavron, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen. B.

Brett, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goudie, B.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Greaves, L.

Carter, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Chan, L.

Hamwee, B.

Christopher, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harrison, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Haskel, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

David. B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hoyle, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hughes of Woodside. L.

Desai, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dholakia, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Dixon, L.

Janner of Braunstone. L.

455

Judd, L.

Redesdale, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rennard, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Rogan, L.

Link later of Butterstone, B.

Rooker, L.

Lipsey, L.

Sandberg, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sawyer, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

McCarthy, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sheldon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Simon, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McNally, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Maddock, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tope, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Tordoff, L.

Mitchell. L.

Turnberg, L.

Morgan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Moms of Aberavon, L.

Uddin, B.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ouseley, L.

Walmsley, B.

Patel of Blackburn. L.

Walpole, L.

Paul, L.

Warnock, B.

Pendry, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Weatherill, L.

Plant of Hig,hfield, L.

Whitaker, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Put tnam, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Radice, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 61, line 8, at end insert ", provided that the conditions in subsection (6A) below have been complied with.
(6A) In consulting the Electoral Commission under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State must invite the Commission to report publicly on whether, in their view, the making of an order under this section is likely to—

(a) complicate the conduct of the ballot on the polling day or days;

(b) lead to greater clarity about and public understanding of the issues involved in the campaign for the elections being moved under the order and for the European Parliamentary elections;

(c) lead to greater or lesser risk of confusion among electors about the voting procedures in the elections concerned."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I alluded in my final remarks on the previous amendment to the Electoral Commission—the Government's own creature—the views of which are extremely important in terms of electoral progress and probity. A little while ago I asked the Electoral Commission for its views and received a perfectly public document—that is, its response to the consultation paper.
It is fair to say that the Electoral Commission has considerable reservations in regard to these proposals. Its reservations are important because they relate to the constitutional principle of changing the dates fixed in law
456
by Parliament; the complexities for the voters of the range of votes and electoral systems; the risk of confusing or obscuring the issues at stake in each of the elections; and the difficulty for returning officers of conducting several elections, particularly with different voting systems.
The Electoral Commission has stated that it sees the potential benefits as the possibility of maximising voter turn-out and removing the inconvenience for electors and party workers of two separate polls within five weeks. But, as far as I can see, those are the only two benefits. The others are overtaken by the concerns it expresses.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the views of the Electoral Commission are taken again—because, I understand, there should be a second consultation—and that those views are made widely known. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who will be contesting the elections next summer.
Cynicism is, unfortunately. part of my personality make-up. I have listened with enormous interest to the contributions made by both the noble Baroness. Lady Hanham, just now and. a few minutes ago, by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who, I regret to say, is no longer in his place. The noble Baroness displayed an enormous respect for the Electoral Commission, whereas her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a few minutes ago said that it was a dreadful organisation which promoted increased turn-out in elections.
I wonder what is the purpose of the amendment. It requires the Electoral Commission to produce a report—a report which, I suspect, will be something of a no-brainer. In London, for example, if elections are combined, electors going to the polls will be asked to mark ballot papers five times; they will be given three separate pieces of paper; and candidates will be elected under four different electoral systems. If you present a detailed report on whether or not that is potentially confusing and require the Electoral Commission to publish it—and, no doubt, spend an enormous amount of money in so doing—you are actually seeking to frighten people from going to the polls. If we end up with a great debate about how complicated voting will be in the elections next summer—because it is all so difficult with the different systems and different ballot papers—we will succeed in putting off people and reducing the overall level of turn-out.
We can have enjoyable debates in the House about the mechanisms of the D'Hondt system for allocating additional members and how the system will work, but that does not matter to the people who are voting. They want to know, quite simply, that they go to the polling station, or vote by post, or whatever it may be, and that they cast their vote for the parties of their choice. It is as simple as that. That is all they have to do. That is the only message that is required. The more that public organisations, politicians and other opinion formers seek to tell people that this process is

457
very complicated and difficult and that they will find it hard to express their point of view when they get there, the more likely it is that we will have a reduced turnout.
The reality is that this amendment calls for a report to be published—I do not know at what expense—which will tell us something we already know but in a way that will increase the sense that these elections are somehow difficult and to be avoided. The amendment has an underlying strand running underneath it. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, let the cat out of the bag earlier when he said, essentially, that it is Conservative Party policy to depress turnout whenever possible, because higher turnouts favour the Labour Party.
If that is the motivation, fine. Let us be explicit about that. The amendment is about confusing the electorate by telling them that voting is difficult. I do not believe it to be worthy of the support of your Lordships' House.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment sets out a range of issues about which the Secretary of State would be obliged to invite the views of the Electoral Commission. Although I reject the need for the amendment, for reasons that I will explain, at least it shows that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is thinking a little more constructively.
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, had to say about the matter. I think that he is right. There is a tendency to talk down turnout, which is the danger of this amendment and may explain the politics that lie behind it.
I want to focus on the constructive and make it plain that we as a Government value the view of the Electoral Commission. It is important, otherwise we would not have sought to create a commission in the first instance. The commission's views could be embarrassing to the Government. It could be interpreted as being in disagreement with the Government, but it was established to have independent view. We welcome the commission's comments. That is why we consulted the commission on the principle of this particular combination, why we have regular exchanges and why we will consult it about any orders moving the date or amending the rules necessary for the conduct of the combined elections before putting them before Parliament.
We reject the need for Amendment No. 10. We want the commission to report its views on these issues in its own way reflecting its impartiality. Indeed, the commission has commented on all of the issues raised in the amendment, so requiring it to do so is mysteriously superfluous.
Some important things were said in the Electoral Commission's response. It was recognised that combining elections could be beneficial and would help to maximise the turnout. It would also remove the inconvenience factor for voters, and for party workers and activists in terms of running two separate sets of elections within five weeks—we know how inconvenient that can be. We wholly agree with the commission. I continue to be puzzled about why members of the party opposite are so opposed to having two elections on one
458
day. It is not as if they were not involved in the great experiment. In 1979, there was a very high turnout for the local elections that were held on same day as the general election.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is a member of the party that ensured that there was a combination election on that occasion. and I do not remember them trotting off to seek consultation. They were happy with the outcome, as they were with the outcome whenever there have been other combinations of elections during the period that they were in office.
The commission was plain about its concern about the risk of confusing or obscuring the issues at stake in different elections. There is a need to explain the different voting systems to the public as well as the practical difficulties for returning officers and their staff of administering a combined election, especially when different voting systems are used. Those are issues that we and others—including the commission and electoral administrators—are addressing.
We accept that there are areas of concern, but we do not accept that they should prevent us from combining elections. We can address the issues that have been raised and will continue to have a dialogue with the commission on those matters. We have already discussed the benefits of combining elections, so we think that the amendment is superfluous. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not sure whether to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his contribution, because it was unusually unworthy. To play down turnout is certainly not something that my party is trying to do. It would be hard to do such a thing, because turnout in local elections keeps going down. To reduce turnout would not be to anyone's benefit.
I refer briefly to the Minister's comment about 1979. We were on a different playing field then. The 1979 general election was held on the date of the local elections, which had already been set. Although the two elections were combined, they were held on the same basis—first past the post. What has happened in the interim is that there is now a great run to adopt proportional representation, but not a proportional representation that has any logic. We have several varieties taking place on the same day.
The purpose of this amendment, and also the purpose of the previous debate, is to try to draw attention to the fact that there is a great deal of incoherence about what is predicated for June 2004. It is unsatisfactory that the Government can set about changing the dates of elections for not terribly good reasons. It will be interesting to see whether voter turnout is affected by the manner in which the elections are conducted. Having said that, I do not intend to pursue the matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved]
Baroness Maddockmoved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
"DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS
A member of a local valuation tribunal is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a member of that tribunal unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns members of local valuation tribunals. I raised this matter in Committee, and having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said at that time, and following discussions with representatives of LVTs, I wish to pursue it further to see whether we can clarify the position.
Over many years, LVT members have expressed serious concern about their potential liability should a disaffected appellant decide to bring an action against them. It is an accepted fact that judges enjoy immunity from suit. Likewise, arbitral and administrative tribunals have long been held to have judicial immunity at common law. The LVT members accept that, as tribunal judiciary, they also have immunity in respect of their judicial function and their judicial decisions.
LVT members are concerned, however, about the amount of protection that they would have should they be attacked as a result of their decisions or their involvement in administrative functions. Such functions may not be directly related to the hearing of a case, but about which an aggrieved person may have a complaint—a claim of being disadvantaged by an adverse agenda setting or alleged administrative mismanagement, for example. That is the issue.
The position of arbitral tribunals has been clarified. Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to accept the advice provided to it by the Department of Trade and Industry's Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law. To remove any doubt, Section 29(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 clarifies the situation. My amendment is based on the wording of that Act.
In like manner, members of LVTs also carry out both a judicial function, and frequently, administrative functions to support it. The Government's position, which was clarified in Committee, is that it is standard practice for departments sponsoring non-departmental public bodies to indemnify their members and staff against costs arising from or incurred while carrying out their official functions. However, there is a caveat to that indemnity, which was clarified again for us in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The caveat is that the indemnity is available only where they are seen not to have acted recklessly. The problem is that that is another variation of the imprecise wording which has been used at various times. Other examples include, "conduct has not been unreasonable", "acted reasonably", "acted responsibly" and "not acted in bad faith".
Local valuation tribunal members must therefore rely on the Civil Service being sufficiently kind to interpret such imprecise wording in a way that provides local valuation tribunal members with proper indemnity in relation to any action that might be
460
brought against them and to decide quickly on whether the indemnity is to be provided. Unpaid volunteer members of local valuation tribunals are very apprehensive about being reliant on such a system. Clerks and tribunal support staff will continue to be covered effectively as employees. However, even post-2004, local valuation tribunal members will continue to be locally appointed and subject to regulatory supervision by the Secretary of State. They will have no direct connection with the new non-departmental public body and the new valuation tribunal service.
If the current arrangement is continued, civil servants and/or politicians would take the final decision on whether to indemnify. They appear not to be able to settle, as I explained, on a precise test for that support or to agree on the wording. I therefore maintain that the procedure is not very transparent. More importantly, the process could take quite a long time and could even go to judicial review.
All the concerns of local valuation tribunal members could be removed by the simple expedient of Parliament statutorily confirming that the current common law judicial immunity is extended to include administrative matters. The Government seem very concerned—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised this in Committee—about the possible financial consequences of such action. However, immunity can prevent actions from being initiated. It could therefore prevent some of the problems that we may get anyway.
I think that I have fairly fully explained the situation. As I said, the wording of the amendment is in line with wording in another Act covering this type of issue. The inclusion of this clause would remove the anxiety from the minds of local valuation tribunal members. Like members of the service, I believe that it will reduce the possibility of a tribunal's decisions being affected by the fear of potential action. I beg to move.
1 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I think I made plain in Committee, I do not see a need for such amendment. Amendment No. 12 seeks to introduce into legislation a clause to remove any liability from members to local valuation tribunals for any acts or omissions by them while undertaking their tribunal functions, unless those were in bad faith. Members holding office have public policy immunity from an action in negligence. Similar protection already exists for members of local valuation tribunals through the standard procedures governing the relationship between public bodies and their sponsoring departments. Departments will indemnify members against any personal civil liability provided they have acted honestly, reasonably, in good faith and without negligence. That seems to me to cover it.
Furthermore, Clauses 106 and 107 are primarily concerned with the creation of a new body, the valuation tribunal service, and the framework for that new body. They are not about local valuation tribunals. Ultimately, therefore, I think that it is inappropriate to introduce

461
such a new clause. We have had no complaints about the way in which the current system works on this issue. Although I realise that the noble Baroness wants to provide a further comfort blanket for members of the service, we do not think that that is necessary. If a problem emerges in future, we can review the situation and deal with it then. I do not think that this amendment is required and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his next to last comment—that the Government will keep an eye on the situation and ensure that there are no problems. The purpose of the amendment is not to provide a total blanket, but to clarify that we are talking about the words "bad faith" and not all the other descriptions used in this regard. However, in view of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 13:
Before Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATION OF BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS OUTSIDE LONDON
After section 36 of the Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) there is inserted—
"36A REGULATION OF BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS OUTSIDE LONDON

(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this section coming into force, by regulation make provision for the extension of powers to all local authorities in England to regulate establishments carrying out body piercing.

(2) Powers under this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was first moved in another place by my honourable friend Philip Hammond. I understand that it is appropriate to raise this issue within the terms of this Bill. I do so only because I seek some assurances. When I briefly mentioned the issue at Second Reading and—because of Mr Hammond's concerns—asked for an assurance that Ministers were considering it, some noble Lords quizzically raised their eyebrows. The Minister in another place, Mr Nick Raynsford, said that discussions were taking place. I wonder whether there has been any progress on those talks and where we go from here. I also realise that my amendment may not be drafted correctly. If so, I am willing to take advice.
Body piercing may seem an odd issue to raise. However, increasing numbers of people, particularly young people, are undergoing the procedure. All parts of the body can end up with bits and pieces stuck through them. The procedure is undertaken also by some who are not quite so young. No one is concerned at all about that; it is up to them. We are simply concerned about whether those doing the piercing are under any form of regulation or licence.
We are concerned for several reasons. First, it is an invasive procedure that involves needles and should involve sterile procedures and a hygienic location. I think that parental consent also should be required in
462
the case of those in their early teens, and certainly those under 16. Such consent is currently not required. The Greater London Authority Act regulates the procedure in London, where all premises carrying out such procedures are regulated and licensed. As I understand it, however, that is not the position in the rest of the country.
Therefore, several issues arise, the first of which is consent. The second is the need to ensure that these establishments maintain clean and sterile procedures. People have contracted septicaemia when the procedure was performed in unclean conditions. There is also the issue of whether young people should be allowed to have their bodies abused in this way without their parents being informed and giving consent. Furthermore, those performing the procedure ought to know that the procedure can affect various medical conditions. That issue was brought to the attention of another place as the result of the death of a young man of 17 who had a congenital heart defect. Those performing the procedure were unaware of his condition. He contracted septicaemia, to which he was susceptible as a result of congenital heart disease, and he died.
That is the burden of the amendment. The amendment asks that, within a reasonable time—the amendment provides for one year—regulations be issued to ensure that premises cannot carry out these procedures without being regulated. However, I do not want anyone to say that I am trying to stamp on anyone's enthusiasm for self-decoration. It is just that if they are going to undergo the procedure, they should survive it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the noble Baroness: she raises an important point. When the noble Baroness responds, I wonder whether she can give us any idea of how well the system is operating in London. Also—and I am sure that this is dear to her heart—can the noble Baroness say, bearing in mind that we are not looking for a straight read across, whether the current regime requires fees to be paid and whether they cover the costs of local authorities in undertaking the licensing? The noble Baroness may not know and I appreciate that. Although it is important, it is not so important as ensuring people's health and their survival.
When dealing with the matter in another place, the Minister raised a concern about there being two different regulatory regimes if this measure were introduced. He said that there would be,
"a registration and bylaws regime for ear-piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture and a licensing regime for body piercing".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 13/2/03; col. 604.]
That is an important point to be ironed out. I hope that she will be able to say "Yes" to the fact that regulations will address and co-ordinate the regime.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. She referred to it at Second Reading, but there was not an opportunity during Committee to discuss the matter. We are very

463
sympathetic towards the concern that local authorities outside London should have powers to regulate cosmetic body-piercing businesses.
The Government are committed to giving local authorities outside London powers to regulate cosmetic body-piercing businesses so that the position across the country is consistent. We intend to bring forward an amendment to achieve that at Third Reading.
For the record, the proposed amendment does not take into account the existing legislation, which already gives local authorities outside London powers to regulate ear piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture. That is contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which needs to be amended and that is what we intend to do. We also intend that local authorities outside London should have powers to regulate businesses providing micropigmentation or similar services and our amendment will cover these activities.
I do not have advice at the moment on the question of consent. It is a double-edged weapon. I have brought with me to the House today my own catalogue of sophisticated body adornment products. It contains every product that one can think of for fitting on any and every part of the human anatomy. The House is a family place so I shall not read them all out, but these products are not just for young people.
The reason I have the catalogue is that there was an occasion when an issue arose regarding parents with young children aged three or four, and even babies, wishing to have them pierced. Consent could not be given by the child and that was the issue. I walked into the studio expecting a real towelling from various people and the parents. I was met by a couple of dozen people who had ball bells hanging from all the parts of the body which I could see and they assured me that they were hanging from all the parts which I could not see. I thought "Wow, I'm in trouble here". But, no, they said that they were on my side because they were adults who had gone into the matter openly and had made a free choice. They said that they had gone to places with air conditioning, clinically clean and where business was conducted properly. They said that children should not have it done to them. Therefore, consent works both ways.
I shall take advice between now and Third Reading, which will not be for some time because of the approaching Recess, and return to the issue. I have a line to take on the age of consent, but I am not really clear whether it meets the point. We do not have any plans currently to introduce a minimum age of consent for body piercing.
But that answers only one part of the question: it does not answer the question about parents with young children who cannot give consent to be pierced for the gratification of the parents. On the same television programme I was accompanied by a consultant from a hospital in the Midlands. He spent part of his time digging out attachments to bodies. There is a serious issue if the matter is not dealt with properly.
464
In no way do we seek to curtail people's choice as regards what sophisticated body adornments they wish to have and on which parts of the body they wish to attach them. Nevertheless, it needs to be done safely and so that the attachments can be removed. It is made clear in the catalogue that some of the items are intended to be worn for a short period of time and also you must make sure that the internal diameter is correct. There are all kinds of caveats and warnings in such a catalogue. In view of the fact that I am going to return to the matter at Third Reading when I may share more of the contents of the catalogue with noble Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the Minister's reply. I am delighted to learn that there will be an amendment at Third Reading. I knew that we had got the Act wrong because I believe that the Local Government Act 1988 has been abandoned. I am tantalised by the Minister's catalogue. I did not know that he went to such lengths to conduct research. He is certainly one up on me in that regard.
If parents are voluntarily having their children pierced for the parents' gratification, that is quite difficult. My problem is those cases where children are having it done without their parents knowing about it and then running into all kinds of problems. I agree with the Minister that there are two sides to the question of consent. It may be that better brains than mine will be able to tangle with that. In the mean time, it seems to me that better brains are really tangling with the matter. I am extremely grateful and thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
"ADOPTION: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS

(1) No person employed by, working for or acting as an adviser to a local authority shall be under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in—

(a) any placement under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (placement for adoption agencies); or

(b) any application under section 49 of that Act (application for adoption)

to which he has a conscientious objection on either of the grounds specified in subsection (2).

(2) The grounds referred to in subsection (1) are that the placement is with, or the application is made by—

(a) a couple who are not a married couple; or

(b) one person who is in fact part of a couple within the meaning of section 144(4)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (general interpretation etc).

(3) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest upon the person claiming to rely on it.

(4) A local authority shall not treat less favourably any person who relies on subsection (1) above."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. we have some wonderful professionals involved in the work of placing children for adoption. Many are excellent, competent and effective professionals. However, Dawn Jackson and Nora Ellis were hounded out of their work as social workers because they held a conscientious belief that children for adoption should be placed with married couples.
My amendment simply asks for a conscience clause for such people like that enjoyed by doctors as regards abortion and by teachers as regards religious belief. Neither of these conscience clauses, which have been on the statute book for quite a long time, has caused difficulties in any way either to the medical or the education professions. No employee who is otherwise good in every respect in their work should be intimidated to the point of losing their jobs. A conscience clause would therefore be a way of helping to keep excellent professionals involved in the important work of placing children for adoption. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have some interest in this matter because noble Lords will know that we debated the change in the adoption law extensively in the previous Session of Parliament. I believe that the measures taken will lead to a very great improvement in the way in which adoption procedures are conducted. Anyone who has looked at the outcome statistics comparing children in care to the outcome for children who had been adopted would find it very hard not to conclude that we should do everything we possibly can to increase the number of children who are adopted in this country.
Whatever one's view about the issue of same-sex couples being able to adopt, I believe that most noble Lords who took part in those very extensive debates agreed that there was a very good purpose in seeking to improve adoption procedures.
I do not want to re-open the question as to whether that was the right thing to do as regards same-sex couples: I believe very strongly that it was. As regards a question of conscience undertaken by individual social workers who do not agree with such adoptions, I do not believe that it is a matter of such moment that social workers should be given that ability. I hope that noble Lords will not agree to the amendment.
I do not think—and it is a value judgment after all—that one should be able to equate a matter of conscience in relation to the abortion law to a matter of conscience in relation to gay adoption. At the end of the day it is a matter of individual decision as to how one equates the issues and whether there is a hierarchy of conscientious objection, but as this Parliament approved the new adoption law that allows same-sex couples to adopt after going through a thorough process it does not seem reasonable to pass this amendment to allow an opt-out for social workers.
As for the alleged intimidation against social workers. I would always regret any act of intimidation by an employer against an employee under any such circumstances. One would always hope that adoption
466
agencies and local authorities would be good employers and that where intimidation does take place, staff have recourse to the law. But accepting the noble Baroness's amendment would chip away at Parliament's intention when we passed the Adoption and Children Act in the last Session. I hope that noble Lords will not go down that path.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I too have something to do with the matter. I shall not take much time, because I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, especially that the amendment seeks to chip away at the clear decision by the House in which I supported the Government and was opposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It was one of the toughest fights in which I have been involved, but we made it and it became an Act of Parliament. To come back here and chip away at the decision of both Houses by such an amendment is not playing the game. I oppose it.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the problems of these debates is that we all know perfectly well that most of us could go around the Chamber and work out exactly who is going to go through which Lobby; none the less we go through the debate out of politeness. Not only do we know which way through the Lobby noble Lords will go, but we could precis all the speeches that will be made on each subject.
There is a pattern, an irreconcilable division. Some believe, for religious reasons, or what they call moral reasons—by which they mean their moral reasons—that people should not be allowed to adopt children if they are homosexual. There are many arguments against this but the key issue is that everyone involved in the placing of children believes that it would be a disastrous decision because, although some people go away from the debate with a glow of satisfaction, a large number of children would fail to be placed with a loving couple.
The other issue that arises time and time again is that people who live together as opposed to having a formal marriage are somehow a sub-species. Yet the House has to recognise that a large and growing number of people, for different reasons, choose not to get married. For two and a half years my wife-to-be and I lived together because we regarded marriage as an important step that we did not want to take lightly. When we eventually did, it was primarily at the insistence of our accountants.
We do not all have the same religious beliefs and it is arrogant to seek to impose one's belief on people who do not share it on the simple grounds that. "I am right and you are wrong". I find it a sad situation that there is such intolerance of other people's opinions on these issues that many of us define as private matters for personal opinion.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I rise to say a few words about the needs of children being paramount as expressed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act. I declare an

467
interest as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children, which has considered the matter deeply.
As noble Lords have said, last autumn we debated the issue of unmarried and same-sex couples in adoption and agreed that it was right in the best interests of the child. I recall a great deal of evidence being considered during the debates and a well thought-out decision being made with the welfare of children at its heart. To attempt to go back on that decision is retrospective. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with almost everything in the last raft of speeches. The amendment is against the background of a recent decision. We have heard of the large numbers of children in care. I add to that the difficulty that social services departments have in struggling to cope with a variety of clients' needs. In the South East one might almost say that they are at crisis point. I wonder about the management of the organisation if there were an opportunity to opt out of certain matters on this basis.
I hope that good management in a social services department, as anywhere, would mean that people were directed to their skills being used for what they are best at. A social worker with an objection to a particular matter might not be so good at it. I am not suggesting that that would be deliberate, but it is human nature.
At the last stage I asked the noble Baroness if a social worker with a problem of conscience over the issue could work in adoption at all because by definition they would have to consider the whole pool of potential adopters. I cannot equate the matter with abortion. I have been trying to work out why not. One of the reasons is that abortion is a discrete procedure with many matters surrounding it other than the medical procedure. In the case of a child seeking placement one needs to consider all the child's needs.
The amendment is about particular placements. In the light of what I have said I wonder whether it would be workable. We oppose the amendment.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have just heard six speeches in 11 minutes, so I will be as commendably brief in responding to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester. It seeks to ensure that no person working for. or on behalf of, a local authority shall be under any duty, whether by contract or statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in adoption placements or processing adoption applications to which they have a conscientious objection.
That refers to cases where children are to be placed for adoption with an unmarried couple or with one person who is in fact part of a couple living together as partners in an enduring family relationship. It also covers the processing of those adoption applications.
468
As noble Lords have said, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 allows, for the first time, unmarried couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, to apply to adopt a child jointly. However, it has long been possible for a person in an unmarried relationship to apply to adopt as a single person.
Therefore, the Adoption and Children Act does not raise any fundamental new issues, and thus we do not believe that there is any need whatever to make special provision in terms of "conscientious objections" as a result of the change to enable unmarried couples to adopt jointly. Arguably, the key benefit for children of the change in the 2002 Act is that it gives a child adopted by an unmarried couple the permanence and security of having two parents.
Essentially, the proposed new clause raises an employment issue because it relates wholly to the adults concerned. As I suggested in Grand Committee, these matters are being more suitably addressed by the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003, which were approved by both Houses of Parliament on 17th June. Those regulations, when made, will prohibit discrimination in employment and vocational training on the grounds of religion or belief.
Local authorities have a clear duty to maintain an adoption service in their area that meets the needs of those who may adopt a child. That includes unmarried couples and individuals who are in fact part of a couple. The proposed new clause would make it more difficult for local authorities to meet their duties and could well lead to delays in the assessment of prospective adopters who are able to meet the needs of the children waiting for adoption. The Government believe that it is unacceptable to risk vulnerable children losing out on the chance of, or experiencing delays in, finding a new family.
The comparison drawn at the Grand Committee stage with conscientious objection to abortion is wholly unhelpful in that conscientious objection to participating in an abortion procedure often raises strong ethical issues around the sanctity of life, whereas objecting to non-married couples adopting is a matter of judgmental attitudes towards other people's lifestyles and personal choices, which. in the current times, seems entirely inappropriate. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness, on her own behalf and on that of the right reverend Prelate, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the full answer given by the Minister. My amendment does not cut across what Parliament has decided. Parliament has made a decision, and that is that. In the case of abortion, Parliament decided; and in the case of religious education, Parliament decided. No doctor loses his job simply because he will not take part in the abortion process, and no teacher loses his job if he will

469
not take a religious assembly. Therefore, why should a social worker lose his job simply because he has a conscientious belief that children should be placed with a married couple?
The issue is simple: it is whether a professional should he refused employment on the ground of his conscientious belief. He is not imposing that belief on anyone else; he is simply saying that he does not wish to do something. He is not even arguing against the legislation—the legislation is what the legislation is.
But the logical conclusion that I draw from all that has been said in the debate is that, frankly, a professional who wishes to be involved in the adoption processes for all the right reasons—that is, because he believes it is in the interests of the child—should be refused employment if he cannot accept that children should be placed in families other than those where the parents are married. That is the logic and, if the Government are really honest, that is the law that they should pass if that is what they mean. However, I should prefer to fight for Dawn Jackson and Nora Ellis, who have been hounded out of their jobs on those grounds. I consider that to be objectionable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. this may be a convenient moment to move that consideration on Report be adjourned until after Starred Questions.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.34 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m.for Public Business.]

Royal Assent
3 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

Appropriation Act 2003,

Finance Act 2003,

Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003, Marine Safety Act 2003,

Licensing Act 2003,

Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003,

Aviation (Offences) Act 2003,

Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003,

Nottingham City Council Act 2003,

Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.

Millennium Development Goals: Reproductive Health
3 p.m.
Viscount Craigavonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What importance they are giving to reproductive health in their commitment to meeting the internationally-agreed millennium development goals.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, reproductive health continues to be a key priority for DfID. We remain firmly committed to the target, agreed at the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015. DfID believes that population and reproductive health issues are fundamental to efforts to tackle poverty and achieve the millennium development goals. We plan to write a public policy statement on reproductive health before the end of the year.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most welcome and encouraging answer. With regard to the statement that she mentioned, will the Minister agree that if we are to have a realistic chance of meeting some of the millennium development goals by 2015—one thinks particularly of the child mortality and maternal health goals—it is essential that her department maintains its complete support and indeed leadership on this subject, especially in view of the slightly negative sounds that we hear from the other side of the Atlantic?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Viscount that our commitment to reproductive health remains very strong. We recognise the need to continue to promote reproductive health and rights within the international policy arena. I can also tell him that we have established a millennium development goals and reproductive health team within the policy division of the department to reflect the importance that we attach to the issue. The noble Viscount will know that spending by DfID on reproductive health has risen from £40 million in 1997 to £270 million this year.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the department also has a number of programmes to deal with HIV and AIDS. Are they not likely to diminish the focus on sexual health and reproduction?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we do not see a conflict. So far as the department is concerned, the focus is not likely to diminish. We shall continue to work on both reproductive health and HIV AIDS in all our country programmes, with the aim of achieving the three goals to which I have referred. We recognise

471
that access to reproductive health systems and information is essential to efforts to prevent HIV and AIDS.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sure that we have all been delighted to hear the Minister's answers today. However, can she tell us what will be the overall effect on budgets for reproductive health, at an international level, of the United States' reluctance to co-operate in these matters because of pressure from the extreme right?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there certainly are concerns about some activity that is taking place with regard to, for instance, funding for family planning clinics. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that DfID made a one-off contribution of £25 million to the United Nations Population Fund to assist it to make up the shortfall that it experienced; and, of course, the EU has also renewed its determination on that matter.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing more focus on reproductive health in the millennium development goals. We have been asking for it, and we are grateful. Will the Minister also agree that the poorest of the poor are the women of developing countries, that reproductive health goals must inevitably include access to family planning and that the choice factor is extremely important?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for those remarks. I agree that women are the poorest of the poor. In reading up for this Question, I discovered that every year over half a million women die from the dreadful consequences of a lack of maternal health. However, through our funding of UNFPA, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar—approximately £18 million per year—we provide support to all parts of the supply chain, the access chain to which the noble Baroness referred. By supporting the strengthening of health systems more generally, DfID makes an important contribution to developing local capacity for access to reproductive health supplies.
Lord Rea: My Lords, to follow the question asked by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. will the Minister agree that services related to reproductive health should be closely related to services concerned with the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV and AIDS? The international community and DfID have understandably put a lot of resources into the fight against AIDS, but can the Minister say whether the two arms of the service should be linked and what steps DfID is taking to achieve that?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. DfID's definition of "reproductive health" encompasses maternal conditions, family
472
planning, fertility regulation and the tackling of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention of HIV/AIDS.
Lord Chan: My Lords, will the Minister go further to include in the purpose of reproductive health the care of new-born babies? If babies do not survive, it would be extremely difficult to carry on a family planning programme with any success.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I entirely agree that the survival of young children is most important and is very much a part of the accent that we place on our reproductive health programmes with developing countries.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister referred to the considerable increase in spending on reproductive health from £40 million to £270 million. Can she give a clearer indication of precisely where that increased funding goes?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord. I shall not take up the time of the House to give full details. It will be spent on the issues to which I have referred, including helping pregnant mothers—many women in developing countries die during pregnancy—antenatal care, the care of infants and young children, and ultimately, through our support for developing country programmes, the care of all the family, because healthy mothers mean healthy families, which mean healthy local economies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lady Flather, the Minister said that the Government were funding the UNFPA. What steps have been taken to ensure that none of that funding supports the coercive family planning programme in China? If money goes to China, how is the distinction made between the small number of areas of the country where it is not coercive and the rest of the country where it is?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the UNFPA has looked into the concerns that the noble Lord has raised. I understand that Members of the other place were part of a delegation that visited China following such concerns. The UNFPA certainly satisfied DfID that there is no coercion involved in the programme in which it is involved.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that some of the international development targets are hopelessly unrealistic? It is 25 years since primary healthcare for all was declared at the Alma-Ata conference and it is obvious that primary healthcare has not reached the majority of the poor. Can the noble Baroness influence her department to influence the United Nations to moderate some of their targets?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl. Lord Sandwich, that the target of 2015 is an

473
extremely challenging one. There will need to be a step change in the commitment of all international leaders in that area, including NG0s, if we are to reach those targets. In all the support that DfID provides to the health sector, our highest priority is to ensure the provision of good primary healthcare.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, 2,000 babies are born with HIV/AIDS every day. The UN human development report 2003 released this week warned that sub-Saharan Africa will not reach the millennium development goals for child mortality until 2065. What pressure are the Government placing on their European counterparts to fulfil and to take their commitments further to the global health fund to fight HIV/AIDS'?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we work extremely closely with our European partners and wherever possible we ensure that the common position is strengthened in reproductive and sexual health matters and we shall continue to do so.

Equitable Life: Penrose Inquiry
3.12 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they now expect the report of the Penrose inquiry into Equitable Life to be published.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Lord Penrose has said that he intends to report to Treasury Ministers later this summer. The report will he published as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been received.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the Treasury was responsible for regulating Equitable Life, is it wrong for the inquiry to be set up by the Treasury, with terms of reference determined by the Treasury, with reports being made back to the Treasury and with the Treasury deciding what to do about it? The inquiry was set up in August 2001 and it was expected to report last year. It is still stuck in the long grass. When will we have a firm date for the report? Can the Minister tell the House?
More specifically, does the Minister recall that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on the -Money Box" programme, said that if any former Equitable Life director was not prepared to co-operate with the inquiry, the inquiry would be put on a statutory basis. Have any witnesses refused to co-operate and is that still the Government's position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is running in two opposite directions. On the one hand he says that the report is too much controlled by the Treasury and, on the other hand. he complains that we have not speeded up the report. The report is independent. It is being
474
conducted by a Scottish judge. He has complete freedom on how he conducts his inquiry. Incidentally, he is still being paid as a Scottish judge; he is not being paid by the Treasury. The Treasury has no influence on when he produces his report. As to the issue of refusals to participate, it is not my understanding that there have been more than occasional refusals to participate and I am told that those refusals are not critical to the report.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while the House recognises that the report is not formally a Treasury report, the Government have taken a significant interest in the developments in Equitable Life if for no other reason than the fact that most Members of the House of Commons had their pensions with Equitable Life? Does he accept that the delay in publishing the report is damaging to the interests of policy holders who may have lost money and to directors who have co-operated with the inquiry and who have the threat of litigation, both actual and potential, hanging over them? Does he take the view that Her Majesty's Government should do anything that they can to speed up the inquiry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is the Treasury's job to keep abreast of the situation. Indeed, the Ombudsman, in her report published recently, says specifically that the Treasury kept abreast of the developing Equitable Life situation and had regular discussions with the FSA. In other words, life goes on despite the fact that Lord Penrose is still producing his report. Once we set up an independent inquiry, and once it has been given the very wide terms of reference that it has, it is for Lord Penrose to decide when he feels able to produce a report with which he is content; it is not for us to chase him.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what he has outlined has been the policy of successive governments, certainly since the 1970s, when I had that responsibility? It is entirely wrong for any suggestion to emanate anywhere in the House that Lord Penrose or anyone in such a situation should be influenced by the government of the day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree. Imagine the reaction if the Treasury had said to Lord Penrose, "Come on, this has taken long enough; produce your report now", and he had produced a report that was, let us say, critical of some players in Equitable Life. Would they not then say that the report did not have credibility and would they not protect themselves on the grounds that the report had been rushed forward by the Treasury?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, would it not be more sensible and compassionate to employ someone full-time to produce the report, to reach conclusions and to make recommendations before more people lose future pensions in other pension schemes and in the Equitable Life scheme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I said that Lord Penrose was being paid as a Scottish judge I did not say that he was acting as a Scottish judge. He is, and has been from the beginning, full-time on the inquiry and he has a very substantial staff working for him.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister spoke of the Ombudsman's report on this subject, which presumably, like me, he has read. Will he undertake to investigate the Ombudsman's comment that the FSA was under such a lax regulatory regime, under instructions by the Treasury?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Ombudsman is entirely independent of the Treasury and we are not responsible for anything in her report. I have read only the summary and conclusions. The report is 100 pages long and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on having read every word of it. I do not recognise the quotation that he appears to be giving the House, but I shall look into the matter and see whether a response is necessary. It did not seem to me that the Ombudsman's report, as a whole, focused significant criticism either on the FSA or on the Treasury.

Directors' Remuneration
3.19 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made with their proposals to deal with excessive awards to company chairmen and directors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, in August 2002, the Government introduced the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations, which give shareholders of quoted companies a vote on the directors' remuneration report. These regulations need to be given time to demonstrate their full effect. The options presented in the Department of Trade and Industry's document "Directors' Remuneration—Contracts Performance and Severance", published on 3rd June, are currently the subject of consultation, which closes on 30th September. Any further government action on this issue will be considered in the light of the responses to the consultation
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that in recent months there has been a noticeable increase in the number and type of payments and perks in this field? My noble friend mentioned consultation. If I am correct, we have now been consulting for at least two, possibly three years. Can he say, or hazard a guess on, when the Government might come to a decision? Will that be by the end of this year?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have not only been consulting, we have taken action. As I said in my Answer, we have produced the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002. We need to see what effect those will have. We are now consulting on a new set of proposals. There is no point in consulting unless one waits to the end of the consultation before taking action.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise that many of us are encouraged by the persistent way in which my noble friend Lord Dormand presses this question? We need to see a consideration of the extraordinary and persistent growth in the ratio of top pay to average pay. It is now 100:1 in major public limited companies; that is, £20,000 to £2 million. Will he take note of the fact that this is not a free market, as would apply to David Beckham and other footballers? It would be better described in some respects as a rigged market in so far as self-serving remuneration committees are all chasing the upper quartile, as independent studies have demonstrated.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. I am aware of and greatly admire the persistence of my noble friend Lord Dormand, on this question. Hardly a month passes without us returning to this question. He is right to do so, because the issue is serious. The only question in dispute is over the best way to tackle it. We continue to think that the best way to tackle it is by giving more opportunities to shareholders to make their voices heard. That is the correct way. It is significant that we have seen spectacular revolts by shareholders when they felt that a company's position was being abused. We would like to see that continue.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, given that the Minister has answered the identical question asked about three weeks ago in this House by another of his noble friends, and given that his answer has for certain an outstanding merit for consistency—because he has given the same answer—would he be prepared to answer a slightly wider question that is germane? When will the final decisions on the implementation of the Higgs report be put into place, because that report will be germane to this issue?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a series of issues which relate to the Higgs report. Many of them depend on the various bodies that are concerned with practice in this area. I cannot give a specific date on when they will be implemented.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that the Minister has indicated that the Government have already given the power to shareholders to have a say on remuneration, particularly by voting at meetings, will he go a step further and state the Government's view on the huge remuneration in nationalised industries where, after all, the Government are the shareholder? Would he answer that with reference to the former directors of Railtrack?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is always a clear issue of difficulty here, which is that if one is going to have public services which require considerable management skills, in order to obtain people to run those corporations one is required to pay them at least a salary in some proportion to the pay of other people. It is not a sensible strategy to have second rate managers because they are not paid enough.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, addressing the Local Government Association on 4th July, when he drew attention to the large increase in the salaries earned by chief executives of certain local authorities? He pointed out that they were now earning more than the Prime Minister. Does the Minister agree with Mr Prescott's view that this is having a deleterious effect on wage bills in local government generally and that it is time that proper criteria were established?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only say that I have always felt that the Prime Minister was underpaid.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord take time to circulate to all the chairmen of remuneration committees of public companies his reply concerning the need to pay market salaries to achieve an appropriate quality of management? That would save them having to write it out themselves before the AGM.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain that I understand the noble Lord's question. It is always difficult to know in exactly what direction its underhand nature is. Clearly, there is a problem, alluded to by my noble friend, of a constant chasing of every company that says it has to be in the top quartile. The combination of that and remuneration experts who are constantly talking up salaries provoke a difficult situation which will be resolved only when shareholders stand up and say that this nonsense has to stop.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend really convinced that there is a direct relationship between the quality of management and the salary that is paid? Surely it is not as direct as that? If it were, what about this House, which is unpaid?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as an unpaid Minister, I am not certain that I can make any comment. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation. There is a correlation where, if one pays significantly less than the market, one will probably get second-rate managers.

Hunting Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Local Government Bill
3.28 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
"PARISH COUNCILS (MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT) ORDER 2001

(1) The Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3576) shall cease to have effect.

(2) This section shall come into effect on the day on which this Act is passed."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Parish Councils are the first tier of government. They do enormous good work for their communities, often for little recognition or reward. They do that because they are made up of public minded citizens with a real sense of community, who wish to make a positive impact on their localities. The parish councils' code of conduct requires all parish councillors to register interests, including their property, their employment and their business interests. It also requires them to register the interests of their spouses and relatives—and possibly friends. Minor infringements of the code can end up with the National Standards Board of England. The code places parish councils under a duty to make written allegations about the conduct of other councillors.
No-one disputes the need for probity in public life, but there are times when regulations such as these go too far; they are too heavy-handed and wholly disproportionate to that which is being regulated. When that happens it damages the institutions that we all wish to see supported. The situation with parish councils is potentially serious. In May 2002 the University of Aberystwyth published an Economic and Social Research Council report on community governance in England and Wales. That report found that nearly 40 per cent of parish councils did not have enough councillors to fill their seats and that the situation had been in decline for more than a decade. The report concluded:
"It has been suggested to us that one factor behind the lack of candidates is that being a parish councillor is seen as an onerous task with little reward. The introduction of the new code of conduct may prove a further disincentive".
For the most part, parish councillors are giving up their time for free to deal with very local issues. They do so because they are committed to the community ethic. We need to encourage more people to take that view. The introduction of this code by the Government has had the opposite effect: it has made a difficult situation worse. It threatens to undermine one of our oldest institutions of government in this country. I hope the Minister will consider the amendment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we do not support the amendment. It was very interesting that in moving it the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that parish councils deal with very local issues. They do. Many

479
have very local interests as well. It is absolutely right that people in the locality should know what those interests are when decisions are being made on their behalf in the area. It does not matter at what level one represents and holds public office; it is absolutely right that one should be transparent about every interest one has. If people are not prepared to serve their local community on that basis, so be it, but I think it is absolutely right that they should declare every interest that is not typical.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, if this is the issue I think it is, people have been bending my ear about it. They have said that it is a ridiculous situation in which people who are experts on a particular subject in an area—say on property or whatever—are not allowed to take part in debates on it. As a result one gets people debating the issue who do not know anything about it, and people who do know about it have to withdraw. The thing is all going slightly over the top. If one just had to declare an interest, it would work.
Apparently, if I am right—and it may be that people are misinterpreting the regulations—at the moment, one gets the experts having to withdraw, whereas in the House of Lords we declare our interests and you are then accepted as an expert and people listen to you.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said. I do not think that it will have escaped the notice of Ministers that there has been great concern among parish councillors. That concern is not related to declaring an interest or being open; it is partly to do with the fact that councillors are responsible to the National Standards Board of England. Every other authority is responsible to its own national standards boards in the first instance and then to the National Standards Board of England ultimately if there is a major complaint. That is not so with parish councils. Their overseeing and over-supervising—I suppose I can put it in that way—body is the National Standards Board of England.
Amendment No. 15 would get rid of that model code. We probably accept that in its place there would need to be another body, but there would need to be some discussion about it because the issue has not only caused offence but has also caused people not to stand for parish councils.
This model code was not meant to have that effect. In our view it needs reviewing at the very least. The best way of reviewing it is to remove it for the time being and to go back and reconsider it in the light of what parish councils do, who they are, what they give to their community, what levels of budgets by and large most of them are dealing with and what powers by and large they are operating under. I support very much the amendment put forward. I hope that the Minister will be more sympathetic about its withdrawal on the basis that it might be reconsidered in another way.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I live in a parish where the model code of conduct has produced a disproportionate effect. I am not a parish councilor
480
myself. Nor is my wife. But we made a point of getting hold of and studying this document. I came to the conclusion that there is something of a storm in a teacup about this matter, or, as they say in Italy, "a tempest in a wine glass". It is largely a question of insensitive drafting. When some serving councillors looked carefully at the words. they felt they could not possibly continue.
If the order is written in a rather more sensitive and less bureaucratic way, I think the problem can be overcome. Clearly, there should be a declaration of interest. I do not think the prose in this model conduct has had quite the right effect. A further effort could produce better results.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I support the amendment and also what my noble friend has just said. When it comes to the smallest unit, one is looking at parish meetings. It may be possible for the Minister to inform the House whether parish meetings are automatically exempt. In my experience the smaller the unit the less possible it is for local people to absorb not only this regulation, but all the other regulations that are coming through.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this issue is interesting. I recall it being raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, some while ago in a parliamentary Question. At that point I had a grain of sympathy for her position. I attended parish meetings when I was growing up. My mother took an interest in our local parish council and should really have been made a parish councillor. But there we are. I could see the point.
Ultimately, I hold very firmly to the view we have taken. For many of the reasons alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, we believe very strongly in the importance of parish and town councils. Equally, we believe that those who serve as parish and town councillors should observe the highest standards of conduct. That is probably a view shared by all Members of your Lordships' House; I should he very surprised if it was not.
The parish code sets out the expected standards and gives, we believe, reassurance to local people that their councillors are behaving correctly, as they would expect any other councillor to behave actually.
When we took office, there were some 8,700 parish and town councils in England. They varied widely in many ways. It must also be remembered that some are representative of small villages and hamlets, perhaps of fewer than 100 people. Others, like my own Great Bentley, have a population of 2,500. Others are larger still and can represent large towns, perhaps with as many as 70,000 residents. For that reason their budgets vary. The smallest might have a budget of a few hundred pounds; the largest might have one of perhaps more than £1 million. They operate local services; they maintain footpaths; they maintain street lighting; they look after playgrounds and play equipment; and they run community halls. Some run markets. There are some famous markets. Oswestry is one that is run by a local town council. They generate

481
considerable income and revenue. So they are very responsible small units of local government and democracy.
One of the most important jobs of the councils is to enable that small unit of local governance to make comments on important planning matters. Planning at local level is sometimes a very vexed issue. I doubt whether there are many Members of your Lordships' House who have not at some time had a view on a particular planning matter and become caught up in the crossfire on the debate. These issues can he very controversial.
Since 1997 over 80 new parishes have been created across England. In line with our recommendations in the rural White Paper, Our countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural England, all parishes have been given further powers and responsibilities. These include powers to provide community transport, to introduce traffic calming and to undertake basic crime prevention measures within the terms of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.
With those increased powers comes a need for increased responsibility and openness. The code of conduct for parish councillors was put in place only after extensive consultation. The overwhelming majority of the 700 plus responses to the consultation supported the registration proposals. Even among these parish representatives who responded, a majority felt that the registration requirements were reasonable, clear and workable.
I accept that sometimes the language of Government is less transparent than we would like. It can feel excessive and bureaucratic. But it is worth remembering that the bodies representing parish councils—the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and the Association of Larger Local Councillors (ALLC)—were supportive of the proposal that parish councils should be subject to the same registration requirements as principal councils. They deserve to be taken seriously. I understand the concerns that these additional duties and powers may deter some local people from making that important decision to stand for election to local parishes. But I believe that in the main, in the large majority of parish councils, members have accepted the code and have not found it an excessive burden.
We have done some interesting research on the pattern of complaints and allegations about local members. Between April 2002 and the end of June this year, there were 3,689 allegations of misconduct to the Standards Board. Of those, some 54 per cent related to parish councils. In total, some 1,491 allegations have been sent for investigation. Of those 60 per cent related to parish councils. After investigation the most serious cases were referred to the Adjudication Panel for England. One hundred and thirty-five cases involving parish councils were referred to that panel. Of those, 121 related to a failure to register interests. The penalties are clear. Councillors can face a period of disqualification. Sixty-eight councillors were disqualified for a year, 15 were disqualified or suspended for a shorter period and three received no sanction.
482
The sorts of cases being heard are also interesting. I have a number of examples of which I shall give a couple because they are important. There was one member of a town council who sexually harassed and criticised the parish clerk in letters and comments to that council. It was considered that the member had failed to treat the parish clerk with respect and brought his office or authority into disrepute. Who can argue against that being properly investigated so that we uphold standards? It is unarguable that that should be properly investigated.
There was another case involving the member of a parish council who failed to disclose a prejudicial interest and withdraw from relevant meetings when decisions were made on land adjacent to his house. Those decisions would have had an effect on the value of his property. The member had previously expressed the strongly-held view that the land should not be used for a particular purpose. In the member's mind, the decision that he was involved with, ensured that the land in question could never be used for that purpose. There is a distinct conflict of interest relating to land and property values. The other cases that I have are very similar. We find the argument against the application of the code to parish councils less than compelling because serious conflicts of interest arise.
The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the question about declaring interests. The code allows councillors to declare a personal interest, remain in the chamber and speak and vote. But they have to declare that personal interest which is right and proper. I do not find the case against the operation of the code compelling. I understand some of the concerns raised by its imposition on parish councils. Those councils have an important job to do. They consider important matters and they can make important comments on major planning decisions. Some parish council members overstep the mark from time to time. It is right that the code of conduct should apply to them so that the highest standards of probity operate even at the lowest level of local government. I hope that having heard that explanation, the Benches opposite will withdraw their amendment.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, 1 thank the Minister for his answer. I repeat what I said earlier. We have the most local form of local government. We have thousands and thousands of parish councillors. I am a county councillor and the patch that I represent has 12 parish councils. I attend quite a lot of them. They debated this code of conduct. They went along with it after a lot of discussion and unhappiness but accepted it as the law of the land.
The Minister's reply was far too simple. Everyone wants probity. Anyone should declare any interest in planning issues, and 99.9 per cent of people in local government have done that, whether at parish, district, county or metropolitan level. Obviously one gets the odd person who does not obey the law, whether in local government or any other field. This legislation is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I was involved with Hilary Armstrong, the then Minister for Local Government when this legislation was talked about. I

483
was Vice-Chairman of the Local Government Association. At that stage it was not envisaged to include parish councils in this rigorous code of conduct. We concentrated on more major councils.
The Minister quoted a lot of ammunition from the Standards Board. Most parish council complaints concerned four-letter words. Therefore the Standards Board has sat for hours and hours at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds just because people complained about name-calling. The cases he quoted were serious, but I repeat that we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, we do not suggest that there should be nothing at all for parish councils. We suggest removing the onerous conditions of the Standards Board and replacing them with something more simple for parish councils. We will reflect on what the Minister has said, but for today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 [Local polls]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 71, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) In conducting a poll under this section, a local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the appropriate person on facilitating participation in a poll under this section by such of those polled as are disabled people."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 117 confirms the right of a local authority to conduct an advisory poll. The provision creates an express power removing doubt about the freedom of local authorities to hold advisory polls. We want councils to have maximum flexibility in who is polled and how the poll is conducted. We have carefully considered the points made during Grand Committee following the amendment proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock requiring local authorities to have regard to guidance about making local polls accessible to local people. We have tabled the amendment in order to provide for the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales to be able to issue guidance, to which local authorities must have regard, on facilitating participation by disabled people in a local poll.
I hope that this amendment meets with the approval of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I found it rather difficult to defend the position that we had previously.I am much happier with the position we have now reached as I am sure other noble Lords will be. I am grateful to them for the work that they did in bringing forward their original amendment. I hope that this one satisfies the points about which they were concerned. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government and the Minister for this amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. I do not believe she had
484
anticipated contributing to the debate, but she made some very telling points from her own very long and deep electoral experience.
I have one or two questions to put to the noble Lord. I note that the amendment refers to "any guidance" which means that there is no requirement on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance. I appreciate that it is sensible for the Government and the National Assembly to give themselves an opportunity to consider what is necessary in this area, but if the noble Lord has any news on how the matter might be progressed, I know that that would be considered with interest. I say that because I hope that guidance is issued.
The second point I should like to make is that, having consulted on the matter, this is an issue that is often raised in the local government world when considering local government legislation. We have become accustomed to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say, "Of course we are going to consult". I hope that he will say it again today. thus confirming that the disability organisations will be consulted, allowing those who really can make helpful contributions to what should be set out in the guidance to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House are very consultation-friendly and of course we shall encourage all views to be brought to us on these matters and that best practice is commonly adopted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 117, insert the following new clause—
"GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRACTICE: POWER TO AMEND ENACTMENTS

(1) The appropriate person may by order amend or repeal an enactment relating to a local authority if he considers it appropriate to do so in the light of generally accepted accounting practice as it applies to local government.

(2) It does not matter for the purposes of subsection (I) whether the enactment itself relates to the accounts of a local authority.

(3) No order under this section shall he made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of. each House of Parliament.

(4) In this section—
"enactment" includes an enactment contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act:
"local authority" means—

(a) a body which is a local authority for the purposes of Part 1, or

(b) a parish council, a community council or charter trustees."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 sets out a new clause regarding accounting practices and the power to amend enactments. I shall take a little time to explain the clause because it has been drafted in response to a point which came up in Grand Committee. Indeed, the matter has also been looked at

485
by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I want to set out in a proper response the reasons why we have produced this new clause.
The clause would give the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales power to amend or repeal, by order, any enactment relating to a local authority in the light of generally accepted accounting practice as it applies to local government.
It is in part a response to the Liberal Democrat amendment to Clause 18 tabled in Grand Committee, as reported in the Official Report on 4th June at col. GC 220. Clause 18 concerns the definition of a local authority company and the Opposition amendment reflected the pressure from local government for a modern, all-purpose definition of such a company. In resisting that amendment, we acknowledged that it raised an issue of real importance and I promised that we would bring forward our own measure on Report.
Our new clause will achieve all that the Liberal Democrat Opposition amendment was meant to do. It will enable the definition of a local authority company in Clause I8 to be brought into line with accounting practice. The timetable for that action will depend upon the work being done by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. CIPFA is currently working on a revision to its standard local government accounting code to incorporate a group accounting requirement for companies. As soon as the CIPFA code is ready, the proposed new power would be used to substitute the accounting definition for a statutory one.
The need to update the definition has arisen in particular as a result of work being taken forward on the Treasury-led Whole of Government Accounts exercise in which the Audit Commission and CIPFA are also closely involved, along with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly.
This initiative to produce a consolidated set of accounts for the whole public sector, as required by the Code for Fiscal Stability, must encompass all central and local government bodies, including not only local authorities but also those companies in which they have a major interest.
The present definition of a local authority company now in the Bill for the purpose of the new prudential system would not meet the needs of the Whole of Government Accounts exercise. The result is that authorities would have to undertake two different accounting procedures in relation to their companies. This would be onerous and unwelcome, and potentially more unreliable than operating a single set of procedures. So the new power will serve as an important function in solving that problem relating to companies.
However, the new clause goes further. It allows other aspects of the local government finance system to be harmonised with appropriate accounting practices and to be adapted to reflect future developments without the need for primary legislation. Such a move would implement the Government's policy objective of
486
bringing public sector accounting more into line with generally accepted accounting practice—GAAP. There has also been pressure for a move in this direction from the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as well as from the Commons Standing Committee on this Bill.
As this is a power to amend primary legislation, we propose that orders exercising it should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. We also submitted a memorandum on the new clause to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House. In its response, the committee commented that it did not find the delegation or level of scrutiny inappropriate. However, the committee identified two areas where it considered that further clarification might be helpful to the House, and I should now like to address those two issues.
The committee noted that the clause offers no definition of the term "generally accepted accounting practice" and asked how the scope of the power is in practice to be limited. In leaving the term undefined, we were aware of setting a precedent. The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 requires the Treasury to use its powers to ensure that departmental resource accounts comply with generally accepted accounting practice subject to adaptations that are necessary in context, although it does not give a definition.
In fact, the expression has a well-established meaning. In the UK, it means the aggregate of the accounting practices that companies are required to follow in preparing their accounts. It includes elements drawn from the companies Acts and uncodified accounting practice, but its principal source is the practices recommended by the Accounting Standards Board, a body independent of government.
For local government, accounting practice is established by the code issued by CIPFA. This is a statement of recommended practice within the Accounting Standards Board framework. The Accounting Standards Board will not award that status unless the local government body complies with generally accepted accounting practice and, in particular, any accounting standards issued by the board. The only exception is where local government is unable to comply with generally accepted accounting practice because of statutory constraints. The link with generally accepted accounting practice, a standard that is independent of government, is the key to understanding how the clause will work and how its scope will be limited. I can best explain this by citing some examples.
First, generally accepted accounting practice itself may change, perhaps to a new standard issued by the Accounting Standards Board. Accounting practice is developing rapidly and a number of important new standards are in the pipeline. CIPFA will wish to incorporate those changes in the local government code, but may find that it cannot do so because of incompatible primary legislation. This is where an order made under the new clause could assist by amending the inconsistent statutory provisions.
Another possible scenario is where generally accepted accounting practice does not itself change, but CIPFA decides that it wishes to bring the local government code into closer conformity with generally accepted accounting practice. Again, an order made under the new clause may assist by amending statutory provisions that are either directly incompatible or are so closely linked that a difference in definitions would impose a burden on local authorities. That last situation is the one that I have already mentioned in relation to companies.
This is how we would see the new power being used. In each case, the provision of generally accepted accounting practice which was behind the order should be readily apparent. It would be easy for Parliament to check that we were following this approach when the order came before it for approval. Powers to amend primary legislation by order are always of concern to this House and to the other place, and rightly so, since they can confer extensive freedoms on the government of the day.
However, the effect of this new clause is significantly different. It only affects legislation to which accounting practice is directly relevant and, when the power is used, the Secretary of State will be giving up his own freedom to devise accounting practices and will be choosing to rely instead on standards imposed by independent accounting bodies.
The second matter raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform was the link between the new power and that already provided for in the Bill under Clause 21. The latter enables the Secretary of State to specify codes that are to count as proper practices. The Committee sought clarification of the relationship between the concepts of proper practices and generally accepted accounting practice. I am happy to confirm, as the Committee requested, that the local government accounting code to which I have referred as the route by which generally accepted accounting practice is imposed on local government is exactly the same code as the one identified under Clause 21(2) as proper practice.
The two powers work in different ways. Clause 21 ensures that local government accounting practice is compliant with appropriate professional codes—again, normally those issued by CIPFA. However, that power could not be used to amend existing legislation that might be acting as an obstacle to the adoption of proper practices. That is likely to be an issue of increasing concern over the next few years. We know that there are likely to be major developments in national and international accounting practice to improve transparency and reduce the scope for the kind of creative accounting highlighted in the Enron affair. For example, there could be fundamental changes in the treatment of borrowing and investments, the full implications of which may not become clear for some time. Those changes would need to be applied in local government. Clause 21 is unlikely to be adequate on its own for that purpose, but we are confident that the new clause would make that possible.
In conclusion, I should add that the need for such a power has been recognised by the Local Government Association. In its latest briefing on the Bill, the LGA said that it supports the new clause, as it allows a wider range of definitions to be revised by order in line with accounting practice. The measure also has the support of CIPFA, of course.
I apologise for taking so long to explain what is a complicated matter, but I felt that the Committee deserved a response and that it was better to put that response in Hansard. Of course, the explanation is also important for those outside who will operate the procedure.
I beg to move the amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we welcome the amendment. I particularly welcome not having had to have any hand in its drafting or indeed the drafting of the new clause that CIPFA asked me to table in Committee. I am pleased that the matter is moving to a resolution.
The Minister answered all my questions bar one. In Clause 21(4), "enactment" is defined to include
"any enactment contained in … this Act …[or] any Act passed after … this Act".
Will the Minister confirm that the term also extends to any enactment passed before the Bill is enacted? After all, that seems to be where the problem is. I am almost wholly certain that that must be the case, as the clause says not "any enactment means", but "any enactment contained in". However, I would welcome confirmation of that.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. Obviously, one would agree that the Government should fall in line, follow accounting practice that is recommended by the accounting world and be transparent. The powers should be available to allow that to happen.
I should like some clarity from the Minister, although my point is not so much about the revenue side of accounting. We had a long debate in Grand Committee—we will probably come back to the issue later—about where private finance initiatives sit in the transparency of accounting. PFIs involve both capital and revenue and the issue of where they stand in relation to capital borrowings seems rather fudged. Obviously, PFIs have revenue consequences too. As there is not quite clarity on the matter, perhaps the Minister will give his view on where PFIs sit in relation to the amendment that he has just moved.
Lord Rooker: I will certainly not give my view on that. As I think I said in Committee, Part 1 of the Bill is really for the people whose eyes glaze over when they discuss local government finance—for them, local government finance is the most exciting thing and it gives them a tingle on the back of their neck. It does not do that for me, although I accept that it is incredibly important—we are dealing with billions of pounds of expenditure.
I regret that I will not go down the PFI route. I do not have a specific answer. if there is some global announcement. I promise that I will write to the noble Lord

489
I regret that I will not go down the PFI route. I do not have a specific answer. if there is some global announcement. I promise that I will write to the noble Lord to clarify the matter.
One wonders why the term 'enactment" is used. I keep defending the parliamentary draftsmen, who are an excellent body of good women and men. The term includes
"any enactment contained in…this Act… [or] any Act passed after…this Act".
It also includes any previous Act, so why mention it in the first place? It includes past Acts, this Act and future Acts. The answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness is "yes", as the measure would not work if that was not the case.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
"EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES

(1) No employee whose employer is a local authority or local authority company shall be required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child.

(2) On whichever day the employee is not required to work under subsection (1), he shall not be required to work at any time during that day.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family has the care and control of that school-age child and where more than one adult qualifies under this test each of them has the care and control.

(4) In this section—
"employee" and "employer"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, and Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

"local authority" means a local authority in any part of the United Kingdom, including the Common Council of the City of London but excluding a parish or community council;
"local authority company" means a company through which is exercised a power conferred under section 95;
"school-age child" means a person who has attained the age of five but has not attained the age of eighteen."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is relatively modest, but I think that the principle underlying it is important. It seeks to give the legal right to employees of local government to spend at least one whole non-school day per week with their child or children. I shall explain later why I think that it is particularly relevant that local authorities should take this view.
As I said in Grand Committee, it is in the nation's best interest to provide children with the opportunity to spend time with their parents. I am sure that most noble Lords would agree with that. Much research shows that time spent with a parent or indeed with a long-term, committed carer is crucial to a child's normal, healthy development. For boys of school age,
490
time with a father or a surrogate father is particularly important—time doing normal family things together, such as going to the shops, having a meal, kicking a ball around, flying a kite in the park or just watching television.
Without the amendment, some employees might and do, in term time, see their children only in the evening, when the children are tired or struggling with homework, and in that dreadful half-hour in the morning before the children rush off to school. During term time, which is most of the year, Saturday and Sunday are the only times when children can spend the whole day with their parents.
The amendment is not about religious observance; it is about children seeing their parents. Children need their parents. Time in childhood is not refundable. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, Happy Families? Atypical Work and Its Influence on Family Life shows that about 10 per cent of all parents with children under 14 regularly work on both Saturdays and Sundays. It also shows that between 70 and 80 per cent of those people say that they have no choice in the matter.
Local authorities employ about 10 per cent of the total workforce, if we exclude education, and they should set an example to all employers in helping employees who are parents to give the nation's children the time and support that they need to develop into the good citizens of tomorrow.
Both in Grand Committee and in another place, there has been strong support from all sides of the House for the amendment's objectives. Those local authorities that have been consulted have indicated that they can see no insuperable difficulty in applying the provision. Sadly, in spite of the support from all sides of the House and in spite of the Government's declared policy of support for children and parents, the Ministers' response to the proposal, in both Houses, has so far been entirely unhelpful. The objections that were raised in Committee do not in my opinion stand up to scrutiny.
First, it was held that many local government employees may be required to work on both days of the weekend by the very nature of their employment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gave the examples of the emergency services, gritting roads in adverse weather conditions, and security. Emergency and stand-by services would not be affected by the amendment; if they were they could easily be excluded from it. As for other kinds of local authority employment, residential care has been cited. I have some experience of residential care and see no reason why suitable rostering cannot ensure that the amendment's objectives are achieved without any adverse effect on the care given.
The second argument used by the Minister was that any such provisions would have to apply to the whole workforce in an employment Bill as there would be no particular case for singling out local authorities. The case for singling out local authorities is perfectly clear. As public bodies, they have a special responsibility to set an example. Many local authorities and government

491
departments are already doing that. We must give credit where credit is due. The purpose of the amendment is simply to secure that those who are not already doing that are made seriously to consider their responsibilities.
Thirdly, the Minister suggested that the Employment Act 2002 included a whole raft of rights specifically for parents, launched on 6th April 2003. He therefore argued that the amendment was unnecessary. I carefully re-read the Minister's speech and the Act. It seems to me that the raft of rights that he describes applies only to children under six or disabled children. I should be grateful if he could confirm that I am right about that. If so, those rights will affect only children between five and six years old. I could find no reference in the Act to weekend working for parents with children of school age, which is the subject of the amendment. Can the Minister give a reference to the Act he mentioned in Committee?
Finally, the method of argument used by the Government in both Houses has been to list a number of family-friendly policies and employment practices that have been adopted by local authorities. It is an impressive list and the Government and local authorities deserve to be congratulated on it. But nothing in the list deals with the issue addressed by the amendment. Existing authority policies do not offer an answer to the problem addressed by the amendment.
I have read the Government's survey of a work/life balance in local authorities published in 2001. At no point does it mention the subject of the amendment—the right of local government employees to spend at least one non-school day per week with their children. I suggest to the House that that is an important right that should be given, first, to local authority employees, and then, progressively, to all other employees who have children of that age. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must record my absolute support for everything the noble Lord said.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is an attractive and generous amendment. It is the sort of amendment that one would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has thought long, carefully and usefully about the matter. There is no doubt that the issue of work/life balance will demand a great deal more attention from all of us. To take the latest topical example, I cite the report in The Times on Monday from the young solicitors' group recording the fact that an alarmingly large number of women are leaving the legal profession as a result of problems with work/life balance.
Of course, business may complain of the burdens placed on it. But business can employ no one else but people. Increasingly, the issue of work/life balance is affecting both genders, not yet equally, but the gap is closing so rapidly that that may come within many of our lifetimes. Something needs to be done. Our concern is whether the prescriptive form of the amendment, confining the provision to Saturday and Sunday, is necessarily the best way to approach the matter—especially for separated families, where there
492
is the problem of ensuring access for fathers. I know that the noble Lord has concerned himself with that problem for some time; it requires concern. Friday may often be a crucial part of the package.
To take a topical example—I am here speaking off the top of my head—this morning, to my great regret, I had to withdraw from accepting an invitation to a wedding in Oxford on Saturday because I could not find the time to do my shopping on Friday, being engaged in an all-day conference. That sort of situation will be repeated in a great many cases. If we do not consider the problem of Fridays, we shall not succeed in the object of the amendment, which is to clear Saturday and Sunday.
As has been said, there are a great variety of people who do and must work on Saturdays and Sundays. Some arrangements should be considered for finding time for those people to get time off during the rest of the week because they have the same rights and needs to see their children as all the rest of us. If we could find the right words to do it, I should prefer to approach the matter in the spirit of the Renton report on the preparation of legislation—laying down a general principle asserting the need and the obligation to do something to meet it without having prescriptive allocation of particular days of the week. I do not immediately see how that could be done. I find it hard to imagine that it could he compulsory.
I should like to hear the Minister say that he will set up consultation about how such a thing can be done. Meanwhile, whether or not the noble Lord has got his amendment right—personally, I do not think that he is quite there yet—he has done us a great service by drawing attention to a problem about which we ought to be thinking hard and which will take some time, especially because, like the Irishman's it keeps changing every time we try to count it. I thank the noble Lord for moving the amendment. If I say that it is not quite right yet, I say so in no unsympathetic spirit.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as everyone will recognise, the new clause is very similar to one we debated in Grand Committee and to one debated and withdrawn at Report stage in the Commons.
On the face of it, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. I have to work long hours in your Lordships' House and greatly value my weekends with my children. It is hard to argue against that point. However, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put his finger on part of the problem—the prescriptive allocation of days of the week—and there are other important considerations. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I go carefully through them.
The new clause is intended to ensure that no local authority employee or employee of a local authority company is required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child. The clause

493
covers any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family, or who has the care and control of that school-age child.
It is important that I start by setting out what legislation already exists to encourage flexible working. The Government have in place a range of family friendly policies, including a commitment to help to support working parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne recognised, on 6th April a new series of new rights specifically for parents were announced, provided through the Employment Act 2002. This includes a new right for parents with children under six or a disabled child under 18 to ask their employers for flexible working arrangements. That law places a duty on employers to consider these requests seriously. The 2002 Act specifies the grounds under which any such request can reasonably be refused.
The new flexible working law is a "light touch approach" based on best practice. It aims to provide parents with more choice in when they work and how they manage their time while understanding the needs of management, particularly in businesses of a smaller size.
Prior to the introduction of' new rights for flexible working, there was extensive consultation—this is the key—on the needs of working parents. At no stage during the two-year policy development and consultation process were concerns raised specifically about local authority employees, or any parents in any sector, having to work weekends. The consultation process established that parents and employers alike wanted flexibility so that they could make choices and that they did not want rigidity in the legislation.
The working time directive already ensures that everyone is entitled to at least one day off per week or two days per fortnight. So there is a regulatory framework in place to ensure that employees are treated fairly. It does not just apply to local authority employees.
In addition, work-life balance for all employees is promoted through the Government's Work-Life Balance campaign and the Challenge Fund, which provides subsidised consultancy advice to assist employers in introducing and developing work-life balance practices and flexible working into their workplaces.
Sadly, Amendment No. 19 is inconsistent with the Government's general approach to better regulation; that is, we regulate only where there is an identified problem which cannot be solved in another way. Our approach to employment legislation has the specific aim of creating flexibility and choice in the workplace.
This amendment is based on a supposed need that has not been raised at any point to date. I believe that in practice the amendment has the potential to reduce choice and flexibility in the workplace because it is so specific, inflexible and, to use the term of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, prescriptive. For instance, it will potentially require local authorities radically to reorganise existing shift-working patterns. This may mean that some local authorities, in order to ensure
494
that they do not breach the law, actively prevent all of their employees from working full weekends, even when they are willing to do so and they do not have responsibilities as parents. Such rigid legislation could also potentially have an adverse effect on other flexibility currently offered by local authorities, such as midweek shift patterns or flexi-time or compressed hours that allow employees to take time off at other times when they need it, perhaps because they are carers. The Government aim is to promote flexibility on both sides—for employers and employees.
I have so far addressed the possible impact of such regulation on the employees, but it is also important that we recognise the potential impact on the services that they might provide. As we have made clear when this clause was previously debated, within local government there will always be situations where staff are required to work at weekends. In regular circumstances this would apply, for example, to residential homes, as has been mentioned, where care needs to be provided on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. In less regular circumstances, as I think I pointed out in Grand Committee, it would apply to road gritting in adverse weather conditions or to other critical environmental or security emergencies.
Whether these services can be adequately provided if employees are given the right not to work, the impact on recipients of such services being inadequately staffed and local authorities being unable to meet demand, and the possible cost to local authorities of having to pay premium wages for employing weekend staff do not appear to have been properly addressed or considered.
I see no special local government case for making the provision sought by the amendment. Local authority workers have full general protection under existing employment law and are as fully protected as any other employee in any other sector. Moreover, local authorities—I think this is recognised by your Lordships' House—are generally at the leading edge and proactive in promoting flexible working and adopting best practice policies in this field.
The new flexible working law, which is unprecedented across Europe, has only just been introduced. The Government are committed to commence a review of the law's impact in three years' time. The Government are currently developing a monitoring strategy in collaboration with the key stakeholders. It would be inappropriate to bring in another piece of legislation in this area before we have had the opportunity to review how existing legislation is working. If there are perceived to be problems in this specific area—and I repeat we have not had this brought before us—then the review might be an appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the point that you have to have consultation. He is absolutely right on that point. During such a review it will be important for us to consult the employing organisations and ensure that we get it right if there is a perceived and major problem. We do not see one now although we entirely understand the spirit and the generosity that lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.

495
In any event, the impact of the cut-off age of the child is an issue and we will look at that in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a point about that.
We recognise the generosity of spirit behind the amendment. We do not yet have any information that suggests this issue is a major problem. We are impressed that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wants to encourage good practice and we think that local authorities are generally at the leading edge of that good practice. We see no need at present for this amendment.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has announced a review of existing legislation, which could be helpful. Will he give an undertaking now that that review will include the needs of children between the ages of six and 18 and their need for good access to their parents on non-school days?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is exactly the purpose of a review—to consider such subjects. I am sure that if it is a perceived problem—we have no evidence to suggest it is a major problem for local authority employers—we will include it in that review. I am happy to give such an undertaking.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate.
As usual the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been most helpful and has also put his finger on some weaknesses in this amendment. The difficulty which neither the noble Earl nor the Minister addressed is that children are out of school only in the holidays and on Saturday and Sunday. It may be that flexible school hours could be looked at some time.
It is no good the Government saying that they are doing other things. They are doing other things and I congratulate them. The point of this amendment is that it addresses a particular issue.
It is possible that the results I seek to achieve could be achieved through guidance to local authorities urging them to pay attention to the importance of the time between parents and children and the necessity, as school programmes stand, for parents to be available either on a Saturday or Sunday during term time.
Next week we shall debate the Second Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I shall make then, as I make now, the point that there is no better way to encourage anti-social behaviour in young people than to deprive them of the time and attention of their parents, especially their fathers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 121 [Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality]:
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 74, line 30. at beginning insert -Subject to the terms of section 127(2A),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 88 and 91.
Once again, sadly, Section 28 has become something of a political football. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I was shocked, therefore, to receive—without a covering letter and in a House of Lords envelope—a briefing paper for this debate which contained inaccuracies and was written on Local Government Association headed notepaper. Having discussed the matter with the chief executive of the Local Government Association, he informed me that the LGA did not circulate the paper. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, did so, using House of Lords facilities and its materials.
I was told that the person who drafted the paper did not follow the proper procedures, including a requirement to clear the paper with the LGA public affairs office. The person has been interviewed and disciplinary proceedings are likely to follow. I have even heard that a council was telephoned by someone from the LGA who was looking for material to strengthen the brief. He said:
"We are doing a job on Lady Blatch".
The Local Government Association conservative group has put out a press release stating that it did not lend its support to the briefing—in fact it was not even consulted about the brief—and therefore it is not the all-party brief that has been claimed. The chief executive criticised the tone of the paper and said that it has never been LGA policy to criticise individual Peers by name. As I am criticised in the paper by name, I have received a fulsome apology from the chief executive. He went on to say that someone had got it wrong and that he was dealing with it as a disciplinary matter.
The Local Government Association has been brought into disrepute and Members of the House have been misled. I deeply regret that.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If it will be helpful, perhaps I can shed some light on the LGA briefing. I have read it. It was sent to me as a—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, almost certainly will be speaking in the debate and he will have an opportunity to rebut anything that I have said. I am not giving way because the noble Lord will have an opportunity to speak during the debate.
I am sorry to use precious time on this issue but, given the wide distribution of the briefing paper and the fact that many people will have been influenced by it, it is important to set it in context and to place it on the record.

497
Today it is my wish to focus on what has always been my concern and that of my late friend Lady Young—the protection of children. Mine is a simple mission in the debate. It is to protect children from the worst form of sex education. My amendments will achieve that by giving power to parents to make judgments about the sex education of their children and what they receive in school.
My views on the issue of Section 28 are well known, but three concerns have led me to table alternative amendments which would replace Section 28. First, although there has been much misunderstanding about Section 28—and as long as the perception of this clause rather than the reality is responsible for endless challenges in Parliament—I thought that it would be helpful to find a way of addressing the more sensitive issues without in any way compromising the protection of children.
My second concern is that Section 28 was not drafted to protect children from unacceptable health authority materials, including inappropriate heterosexual materials, or from visiting sex educators and advisers, who assist in schools at no cost to local authorities.
My third concern, which has led me to table an alternative amendment, is that for many parents Section 28 does not provide a simple remedy. Once Section 28 has been breached, the only routes available to parents are the very costly judicial review procedures, the intervention of the district auditor or the monitoring officer of the local authority. None of those options is very easy for an ordinary parent to resort to. It is for these reasons that I have tabled amendments which I believe should be supported even by those who wish to see Section 28 repealed.
If Section 28 is repealed—as, indeed, it would be under my amendments—we must strengthen the protection of children. It is not enough to say that the guidance issued under the Learning and Skills Act provides sufficient safeguards. For example, it is true that local authorities and schools must have regard to the guidance—but that does not oblige them to comply with it. As your Lordships will know, guidance can be considered but then ignored quite legitimately. The law requires schools and local authorities only to have "regard to" the guidance. As one local authority-funded sex education publication has already pointed out. to have "regard to" does not mean to "adhere to".
My amendments do not prohibit anything. Instead, they devolve decisions about sex education down to school level and, for the first time, give parents a role, in law, to determine the contents of sex education for their children. My amendments rely entirely on the good sense of parents and on the fact that they, above all other people, understand what is in the best interests of their own children.
I accept that schools are expected to consult parents about the content of sex education. However, the strength of my amendments is that they give parents a legal right to be consulted about the sex education policy of a school and its method of delivery, and to have information about and access to the materials
498
used. They will also have a legal right to know the school policy on the use of visiting sex educators and advisers who are not teachers in the school.
As a last resort, if all the normal grievance procedures fail, 10 per cent or more of registered parents can trigger a ballot of parents within the school. If the ballot is supported by a majority, the school is obliged to comply with the parents' wishes.
Existing government guidance on sex education advocates that schools should seek to work in partnership with parents. I absolutely agree with that. In the main, most schools will do that most of the time. I also believe that most problems which occur will, under my amendments, be resolved at school level. However, we have a duty to protect those children in schools where this is not the case. That is why I believe that the best way forward is to strengthen the power of parents to make judgments about what is best for their own children. As I have said, if 10 per cent or more of parents are deeply unhappy with the content or delivery of sex education then—I repeat—as a last resort, a ballot of parents is an appropriate way to resolve the issue.
I said that Section 28 must not be repealed without safeguards being put in its place. The Government argue that no further safeguards are necessary. The Minister will no doubt argue that the guidance on sex education is sufficient. But there are problems with the guidance. Consider what some local authorities have recommended for the teaching of sex education while, at the same time, claiming to comply with the guidance.
Very few parents would knowingly allow their seven year-old child to participate in a class discussion of anal intercourse, yet there are local authorities that recommend a sex education pack outlining just that. Very few parents would allow their 11 year-old child to take part in a teacher-led discussion on the use of sexual toys, sadism, masochism, dressing up and tying up, involving multiple partners in sex at one time and other activities which, quite frankly, I cannot bring myself to repeat on the Floor of the House, yet there are local authorities which recommend such resources. For the benefit of those noble Lords who are laughing, I should say that I do not find such matters amusing.
The latter lesson I described is to be found in a pack called Taking Sex Seriously. Many more such lessons can be found in that publication. I hope that noble Lords will agree that inviting children of 11-plus to discuss sado-masochism, bondage and sex orgies is not appropriate sex education. It is frankly astounding that such appalling resources are being recommended for use in schools by local authorities. To my knowledge, Taking Sex Seriously is currently recommended by a number of local authorities. Despite campaigning letters to the contrary, this information is irrefutable.
However, I know that many local councillors do not even know what council employees are recommending in their names. In fact it happened to one quite recently, who was named in the publicity surrounding this issue. This is all the more reason for giving parents a legal right to disclosure and consultation.

499
Advisory teachers working for Brighton and Hove and East Sussex Councils specifically recommend that all secondary schools should obtain a copy of Taking Sex Seriously. They claim that their advice to schools is based on the Government's own guidelines.
Taking Sex Seriously is not the only outrageous resource being recommended to teachers. There is, for example, the video pack "Beyond a Phase", which suggests to pupils aged 13 and over:
"Try experimenting with boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with".
If they knew that this suggestion had been made to their sons or daughters, most parents would be very angry.
"Beyond a Phase" is currently recommended by Gloucestershire County Council and in response to recent criticisms the council defended its actions by quoting previous government guidance. There can surely be only one conclusion. There is a problem and guidance alone will not solve it.
Although no doubt the Minister will argue that it is schools and not local authorities that are responsible for sex education, local authorities are highly influential. In most cases they are the employers of the teachers in schools. Local authorities provide teachers with courses on how to teach sex education and produce sex education guidance for teachers. Some local authorities fund advisory teachers for personal, social and health education, specifically to write sex education material or to advise teachers how to teach sex education.
My amendment to Clause 121 makes it clear that the repeal of Section 28 is subject to the terms of my new subsection (2A) to Clause 127, which deals with commencement dates for the Bill. My amendment therefore stipulates that the repeal of Section 28 can only take place when arrangements are in place that establish a right for parents to view the materials used in sex education and to be consulted when schools set a policy on the use of people who are not teachers to take sex education lessons. That does happen in some schools and there have been problems when third parties who are not teachers make poor judgments about the kind of materials that are suitable for children. Schools that use staff or volunteers from outside agencies should have a policy about doing so and ensure that arrangements are in place to inform parents of their new rights and to update government guidance.
A vote against my amendments would be a vote against giving parents a right in law to be consulted by schools about the content and delivery of, and the materials used in, sex education.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but would she not agree that schools are already required by law to have parents on the governing body, which has oversight of the sex education curriculum? Therefore, those parents already have a right to inspect material and develop policy.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am coming to the very point that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has just made.
Surely, all that I suggest is perfectly reasonable. Why should parents not enjoy a legal right to be consulted and to see the materials used? My amendments would strengthen the partnership between parents and schools and, having discussed them with many in education and local government, I have been heartened by the support for this approach.
My amendment would come after Clause 121. In Clause 117 the Government have decided to give local authorities a new legal power to conduct polls on the provision of local services. Clearly, the provision of education has to be one such service, and in particular the provision of sex education. Under Clause 117—the Government's own clause—local authorities can choose who is polled and the questions asked. Under my new clause, once the requirements set out in the amendment are met a local authority is required to exercise its powers under Clause 117 to carry out a poll of parents on the sex education provided at their children's school.
I see the arrangements for a poll of parents as an important measure of last resort. Parents who are concerned about their children's sex education will be able—and this is the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen—to speak formally or informally to their class teacher, head of department, head teacher, parent governors and the governors, and to all those who have a responsibility. In that way, most concerns will be resolved. Having a legal right to be consulted and to view materials will also minimise the need to take such matters further.
Sadly, at the end of the day there are some people who advocate the use of the kind of wholly inappropriate material from which I quoted earlier, and there are those who wrote that awful material in the first place. There are advisory teachers who are currently recommending it to schools. For 10 per cent or more parents to wish to resort to a ballot, there would have to be deep dissatisfaction among parents and a widespread desire for the school to change its sex education policy. For clarification, sex education within the national curriculum is not affected by my amendments. No vote is allowed on the content of the national curriculum.
When a council has received a valid petition consistent with the conditions in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (6), the council must call a poll within two months. If the proposition is successful, a further three months is allowed to ensure that the school complies with the wishes of parents.
My amendment does not create a need for a new register of parents because schools are already required to do this by law. A register of parents is already needed to hold elections for parent governors, for example. My proposed new subsection (2)(c) stipulates that a poll can only be held once every two years.

501
On a point of interest, I could not help noting that, last week, the Government announced that there would be local ballots to decide who should receive money from the National Lottery. How can it be that the Government encourage local ballots on the lottery and yet oppose ballots of parents on the quality of their own children's sex education?
1 hope that when noble Lords speak to my amendments, they will confine themselves to the case that I have made and not speak about issues that I have not raised. My package of amendments provides a safeguard for children that should be in place following the repeal of Section 28. They enshrine legal rights for parents and protection for children from some materials and lesson plans that frankly border on the pornographic.
As I said, to oppose my amendments would be to deny greater protection for children and more power to parents. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I have not sought to engage in the sterile and divisive debate about being pro or anti-homosexuality. My concern is exclusively for the education and well-being of children. In this, I have been supported by many Members of this House, both present and those who are unable to be here today, but, in particular, by thousands of teachers, many professionals, and parents and grandparents from the length and breadth of this country. It is our duty to support them and their children, and that is what I invite noble Lords to do. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and after such a powerful contribution it is difficult to say very much else. I believe that many of your Lordships will have received a letter, probably this morning, from the noble Lord. Lord Puttnam, and others urging support for the repeal of Section 28 and attacking the Christian Institute. I have yet to see any evidence that the Christian Institute briefings are misleading as is alleged. I have always found its material to be rigorously researched and thoroughly reliable.
I was deeply shocked to receive such a letter from such eminent people and even one from a right reverend Prelate for whom I have the greatest respect, and indeed, affection. The letter calls for the repeal of Section 28. The amendments to which I have put my name, of course, allow the repeal, subject to certain conditions. I hope that noble Lords who put their name to the letter will be willing, therefore, to look at these amendments with an open mind.
I support the amendments because I believe that there is a genuine need for strong, statutory safeguards to protect children from inappropriate sex education. Vague guidance and warm words from the Minister are simply not enough. Many people who have had sight of some of the ghastly sex education material recommended by various councils may have been surprised that such material even exists. That it should also be recommended by local authorities—bodies with statutory responsibilities for schools—is even more appalling.
502
I shall not begin to repeat what I said in Grand Committee. Suffice it to say that we have learned in Scotland that there are people in positions of influence in education who are prepared to recommend some awful sex education material for use with young people. Recommendations made by Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Scottish Executive's education quango, caused such a furore among parents that 12,000 of them signed a petition to the Scottish Parliament calling for them to be withdrawn. The parliamentary Education Committee sympathised with their concerns, and, after many months of pressure, the chairman of Learning and Teaching Scotland conceded that some of the resources are unfit for use with young people.
Of course, in a highly charged debate such as this, whenever any noble Lord cites an example of a resource or a recommendation which others find shocking, some people will try to split hairs about the status of the resource or what the council meant by its recommendation. Ultimately, however, if there really are people producing this sort of material with the intention that it should be used in school sex education, I believe that we must do everything we can to ensure that they are unsuccessful. That is why I support these amendments. They are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, intended purely to support the protection of children. Even with Section 28 in place, the sorts of powers which her amendments give to parents would always have been a good idea. If Section 28 is to be removed, I believe that the amendments are absolutely essential.
I would also urge noble Lords who support Section 28 to support these amendments as a realistic alternative—one which addresses all inappropriate sex education, not just material to do with homosexuality. I would also urge noble Lords who oppose Section 28 to support these amendments. There is certainly no way in which they can be thought as anti-homosexual. The amendments make no statements about sexual preferences at all. Instead, they move parents closer to the centre of the circle when it comes to deciding sex education policy. That can only be a sensible and logical idea. It places more powers in their hands to ensure that the sex education that their children receive is appropriate.
Who would deny parents a greater role in the sex education given to their own children? I believe that very few of us would. Who would deny them the right to view the material to be used? Who would deny them a legal right to be consulted? Who would refuse them a right ultimately to vote on the sex education policy in their child's school? I believe that the noble Baroness ought to be congratulated. She has sought to provide new safeguards which protect children by bringing in greater influence from their parents. I can see no good reason why her amendments should not attract the broadest possible support from all sides of your Lordships' House.
Lord Alli: My Lords, if I may, I should like first to deal with the LGA briefing which the noble Baroness mentioned. I did indeed circulate that briefing. As I understand it, it was prepared for me and not for

503
public consumption. I also understand that the LGA did not intend it to be circulated, but I did not know that at the time. Therefore, I circulated it to Peers who I thought would be interested. If I have caused any offence, I apologise unreservedly. I have already written to the noble Baroness, as she knows. If I have caused her any particular offence, I wish to apologise unreservedly.
This debate arouses a huge amount of passion and controversy. However, it has long since lost any sense of proportion, reason or logic. It has long since lost any basis in fact. This debate has become about two sets of values—values which come into conflict on issues to do with sexuality, and in particular if it has something to do with children or the protection of children. The noble Baroness's amendment not only seeks to reinstate Section 28 but also to put in place what is surely an unworkable system for both teachers and parents. My Lords, I ask you, is this debate to be reproduced in every school throughout the land, with headmasters, teachers and governors trying to adjudicate between warring parents trying to get votes? How would that help children?
Noble Lords have seen today, as in previous debates, the continued polarisation of the issues. In essence, the argument boils down to one of two truths. First, does Section 28 protect children in schools from inappropriate materials and, in doing so, stop loony councils from an overdose of political correctness? Secondly, does Section 28, in the light of the Learning and Skills Act, become redundant and serve only as another piece of discrimination against homosexuals?
Many smokescreens are erected by those in pursuit of a cause. In the one corner there is the Christian Institute which tries to dress up its cause in religion and prey on people's fear for their children, citing bogus material as their evidence.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords—
Lord Alli: In the other corner—
Noble Lords: Order.
Lord Alli: I am not giving way to the noble Baroness, my Lords.
In the other corner are gay organisations with their own equality agenda. To the many in this House who are in neither of the two camps, may I say that I have a huge sympathy for you for what has become an almost annual if not monthly event? I understand that if you vote against the repeal of Section 28 you will be labelled as a bad Christian.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is no proposal to do as the noble Lord suggests. My noble friend is not proposing to reinstate Section 28.
Lord Alli: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I shall come to that very point.
504
I understand that some noble Lords who vote against the repeal of Section 28 will, even if they are bishops, be labelled as bad Christians, and possibly as uncaring about the safety of our children. And if they vote for the retention of Section 28, they will be condemned as homophobic and endorsing gay bullying. Section 28 is just one of those issues. It was designed to divide and it is unsurprising that it does just that.
We all take our predictable paths. It is bit like a bad soap opera—we deliver our lines, and in some cases we play to the camera. However, I ask noble Lords the same questions as others will no doubt pose later today. Why would the NSPCC, Childline, the Children's Legal Centre, the Children's Rights Alliance, the National Children's Home, the National Youth Agency and the Children's Society all write to noble Lords setting out their support for the repeal of Section 28? Could they be so misguided as to believe that the repeal of Section 28 will leave schools exposed to an onslaught of inappropriate material?
Those organisations have considered this issue in detail, discussed it and agreed to put their views on paper and in public. They are not a few individuals writing letters with anecdotal evidence, trying to undermine an organisational response. Those organisations have reputations that we have learned to trust. This is not a group of trendy, left-wing, politically correct individuals. These are people who have dedicated their lives to helping, teaching and working with children.
Why would an overwhelming majority of MPs vote for the repeal of Section 28 if they believed that it would harm vulnerable children?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would answer the point. There is no proposal to reinstate Section 28, which has actually already been removed.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I shall come to that very point.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Alli: Then let me deal with it directly, my Lords. The enactment of the repeal would depend on a set of criteria of which the Secretary of State must he satisfied. However, the Secretary of State can never be satisfied that all those conditions are in place over the period. As noble Lords know, this is effectively a wrecking amendment. Nobody here believes that it is anything but that.
Perhaps I may inform the House why those people support the repeal. It is because they understand that sex education in schools is not governed by Section 28. No matter how many times the other side repeat it, it does not make it true. They know that maintained schools must have a written policy on school sex education. Because of Section 404 of the Sex Education Act 1996, they know that governing bodies of all secondary schools are required to provide a programme of sex education which is offered to pupils

505
above the age of 16. Because of Section 352 of the Education Act 1996, they know that the governing body and head teachers must ensure that sex education encourages people to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Because of Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, they know that parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or part of sex education. Because of Section 405 of the Education Act 1996, they know that the schools are under a duty to promote the education guidelines of the Learning and Skills Act.
In fact, we have discussed this countless times in connection with that legislation. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn is not in his place. He sought to find a compromise and a way through via an amendment to satisfy the House on that very issue. He said,
"In an ideal world, these issues would be expressed more precisely. But in relation to the government amendment, there has been considerable discussion to find the appropriate words to deal with these matters and it is certainly a considerable advance on Section 28. which does not at all protect children in school from these matters".
5 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord direct his attention at some time in his speech to the reasoning of my noble friend Lady Blatch and explain where and why it was defective?
Lord Alli: My Lords, I would rather get on because others wish to speak and I do not believe that I should make the noble Baroness's arguments for her. We must take heed of the organisations and professionals as well as the countless people who tell us that they work with children.
Section 28 is about one group of people trying to use the law to embody their own prejudices. Section 28 has no place in the protection of children, let alone in a modern, civilised society.
I turn to the specifics of the noble Baroness's amendment. As I said, it disguises the fact that in effect it prevents the repeal of Section 28 happening until the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has done everything in her amendment. It also seeks to use parental choice as a cloak under which to disguise what is simply an amendment to prevent the repeal of Section 28. The amendment is unworkable. It is simply a wrecking amendment.
I have one final request. Abstention, while welcome, may not see the back of Section 28. I believe that it will not be repealed without noble Lords walking through the Lobby and voting for the repeal. The measure is supported by a powerful and, in my view, compelling coalition of children's organisations, Christians, Labour, Conservative and Liberal councillors and MPs. It is a coalition which cares about children and their welfare and most of all it is a cross-party coalition. Please support that coalition and vote down this amendment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he has seen
506
the letter from the care organisation, Christian Action Research and Education, which has reached me and I imagine a number of Members of this House, which states quite clearly,
"Baroness Blatch has tabled a straightforward amendment to re-institute Section 28".
They certainly believe that that is what her amendments do and I suspect that a large number of people outside believe so too.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I have seen it. I believe that it is an accurate portrayal of the amendment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand that that letter was written before the amendments in question were tabled. I had not intended to speak, but it is really important that I should ask your Lordships to address the question before the House, which is not whether Section 28 should be repealed or not, but whether it should be repealed before certain fairly simple requirements are met.
It is not a wrecking amendment because, as anyone can see by reading the two substantial amendments in the group, the process set in place is simple. The process is designed to enable worried parents to have a final say in the way their children are taught. There is no question but that parents are worried and that the material to which my noble friend has referred and quoted, is in circulation or is intended to be acted on, as is clear from the note she circulated in reply to that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and which he spoke to earlier.
The question, therefore, is simply whether Section 28 should be repealed and nothing else put in its place or whether parents who are already anxious and who will be rendered much more so by the repeal of Section 28 should be given the power to speak in a forum in which what they say will have effect; that is to say, in the forum of the school in which they are taught.
There are so many vibrations in the Chamber at the moment, which relate to an earlier debate about homosexual practices. This is not about that, but all sexual practices, some of which are extremely odd. Some of the non-homosexual ones are perhaps less appetising than anything. It seems a natural thing to give reassurance to parents that their children will be brought up as they want and not as some activist in any cause, heterosexual, homosexual or whatever, believes is fit for them. Parents have the ultimate responsibility. My noble friend's amendments give them the means of fulfilling that responsibility. I hope that your Lordships will go through the Lobby with my noble friend and not vote against her.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. My credentials are that I have taught sex education and I have been a school governor for many years. I suggest that the amendments before us today. for all that they are designed to clarify a situation, would simply compound the confusion about teaching sex education and would not serve parents, teachers or governors well.

507
There is much talk about protecting children from unsavoury resources. I shall comment on that later. What concerns me is that the sex education of many young people is inadequate. They are left vulnerable to disease, relationship problems and susceptibility to abuse. This is not protection, but negligence.
I was at a conference this week where 450 young people were discussing sexual health. The question was put to them about the adequacy of their sex education. Only 11 out of 450 thought it was "good". One quotation from the conference was, "They told us what the bits were called and the teacher was a nervous wreck". No wonder if teachers are left in confusion about what they can and cannot teach. Ofsted reports point out that sex and relationships education should be taught by teachers who are confident as well as informed.
The statistics on sexual health speak for themselves and for our woeful failure to educate young people. One in 10 women have Chlamydia: many do not know it. Over 40 per cent of these women are under 20. Over 17,000 men had gonorrhoea last year. We have an unprecedented rise in other sexually transmitted infections. HIV/AIDS rates are rising, especially among young gay men. It is simply impractical to recommend the married state and total fidelity to one's partner being the only viable state. We have to be pragmatic and realistic.
We have heard today and in earlier debates about the unsuitability of resources being produced for schools. I have seen some such materials. Some were not produced for children in the first place. I contacted several teachers and asked about the resources. Ninety-nine per cent of the teachers I spoke to had never heard of them, let alone used them. What evidence is there that such materials are being used in schools?
Let us not be dragged into thinking that there is a plot in schools to corrupt young people—there is not. Let us not be dragged into thinking that unsavoury materials are rife in our classrooms. They are not. Sex and relationships education is probably the most policed area of the curriculum and the most subject to recommendations and guidance. Parental and pupil involvement in assessing resources has increased with the positive support offered by the national healthy schools standards scheme and the DfES sexual relationships guidance.
The Learning and Skills Act 2000, mentioned previously, requires that young people learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children; and that pupils are protected from teaching and materials that are inappropriate having regard to the age, religion and cultural background of the pupils concerned. What could be stronger?
I want to stress that governing bodies have a number of parents as members and that they have power. Governing bodies are charged with the oversight of sex and relationships education. They are already
508
expected to ensure the involvement of parents, young people, health and other professionals in developing policies on sex and relationships education.
Parents already have all the rights about which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is so concerned. I am a school governor and I know that that is precisely what happens. My governing body would be appalled by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We would not want to spend our time conducting polls of parents. There are already parents on the governing body and we know what happens in the curriculum.
I have just received a communication from the chair of governors of the City of Portsmouth Girls' School, who says that the amendment of the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, would:
"add to teachers' workload significantly…[and] undermines the role and responsibilities of Governors which is both insulting and offensive to the largest voluntary force this country has".
There is no need for the amendment before us. Spreading contention and confusion about sex education will damage even further the confidence of professionals. What they require is training, which is already being made available to deliver this area of the curriculum.
We must not deny our young people the information and skills to protect themselves and to form fulfilling relationships. We must reject the amendment.
Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, when "Newsnight" finished yesterday evening I looked to see what else I might watch. I could have watched a programme on whale hunting, or I could have turned to Channel 4, where in "Sex Tips for Girls" two unsatisfied women sign their boyfriends up for sex lessons to learn oral sex technique; or I might have chosen Living TV, which offered "Sex Toys": the easy guide to fulfilling one's sexual fantasies, followed by "Undressing", another easy guide to sexual fantasies. In the event I switched off in order to think what I might say today.
It is ludicrous to suggest that children and young people are waiting for local authorities to produce sexually explicit material with which to corrupt them. Such material is readily available. What young people need is to be taught how to respond to the material thrust at them from all sources. Any material produced by local authorities is already filtered by the time it reaches children. It is filtered by local authorities, which have community representatives available. It is filtered primarily by the governing bodies of schools that have responsibility to see what is used in sex education classes.
I am not convinced by arguments that parents know better than teachers. Many parents have failed their children dismally in carrying out sex education at home, which is why it is so important for sex education policy to be carefully worked out by governors, teachers and parents, who are all involved in policy and not the minutiae of what is dealt with in the classroom.

509
5.15 p.m.
Sexual orientation is a given; it cannot be caught or taught, and even if promotional material were to be made available, it would be ineffective. But sexual behaviour needs to be discussed. To allow in class only responsible heterosexual behaviour to be the focus of sex education is to deny those of homosexual orientation the opportunity to be helped towards a responsible use of their own sexuality. Parents are singularly had at recognising the homosexual orientation of their children and children need a safe place in which to discuss this. Teachers must be allowed to introduce discussion of such matters without fear of prosecution.
Education is about giving the tools for good judgment. It is about protecting young people by promoting respect for difference and about valuing themselves and one another and being able to evaluate the materials that come into their hands. To suggest that there are some things that should not be discussed openly is to create a climate of secrecy that could lead to bullying and allow abuse to go unreported.
Either to leave Section 28 in force or simply to replace it with a poll of parents is not responsible behaviour. To leave it in force is an offence not only to lesbians and gays but to the integrity and judgment of all involved in education. It should be repealed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, this is the first time that I have participated in a debate on this subject and it has been a privilege to follow the noble Baronesses who have just spoken. I have followed the issue with some interest over the years as a member of your Lordships' House, as a county councillor in Suffolk, part of a local education authority; but above all, as the mother of two teenage children with whom I discussed the issue yesterday evening, because I thought it was interesting to get the perspective of at least two of the young people about whom we all purport to know and understand so much.
What originally moved me to speak was the briefing material that I received from the Christian Institute, which has been widely quoted. When I read it I was shocked. I was shocked by the way in which material that was never intended to be seen by young people was presented as though it had been, and I was shocked by the selective and partial use of out-of-context quotes, in a way that was designed deliberately to shock and outrage.
This dodgy dossier contains a number of myths. The first is the myth that somehow wholly unsuitable materials are being distributed widescale across our schools. In my 12 years on a local education authority I have never seen such material distributed to children, nor has a teacher, parent or governor ever come to me and expressed such concerns. I am deeply offended by the suggestion that a local authority run by whichever party, or that teachers, youth workers and organisations dedicated to young people are all somehow hell bent on corrupting the young people to whom they have dedicated their professional lives.
510
The second myth being propounded is that local authorities are retaining responsibility for sex education. That is simply not true. The teaching of sex education is a matter for school governors and parents. I find it ironic that someone who has rightly championed the freedom of schools from central control should seek to add to that control by imposing compulsory ballots on schools that in the main do not want them.
Local authorities produce guidance, but they do so as a result of demand from teachers, many of whom are struggling to know how to deal with those difficult topics. Goodness knows, anyone who has ever sat down with their children and tried to tell them the facts of life knows how excruciating it can be for both parties. Teachers find it very difficult, and the guidance is often produced as a response to their needs.
I also received the briefing from the chair of the board of governors. I believe that his final comment, concerning the question of balance being "insulting and offensive" to his profession, is very telling.
The third, and to my mind most invidious, myth is that somehow children will be protected by ignorance. There is no doubt that sex can be a risky business. Unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and psychological damage are issues dealt with by health professionals every day. But whispered conversations behind the bike sheds, a furtive exploration of porn sites on the Internet or, indeed, mainstream television channels leave young people in ignorance of the real facts of life, and it leaves them more and not less vulnerable to damage in the future. Unless responsible sex education takes place under appropriate circumstances, we leave them highly vulnerable.
Therefore, sex education must—for practical purposes if for no other—pay heed to the reality that there is a variety of sexual activity out there. We cannot simply teach activities which the noble Baroness or anyone else regards as mainstream or acceptable.
It is very difficult for any parent to consider his or her adolescent offspring as sexually active beings. It is probably even more difficult for the offspring to think about their parents in that light. Therefore, on either side it cannot be relied upon that sex education between parents and children will, indeed, be adequate and address these issues.
I am the mother of two teenage children arid I desperately want them and their friends to receive an education which prepares them for a life in which they are happy and confident in themselves and their sexuality. I want them to learn to respect the differences found in other people's faith, belief, culture and sexuality. I want them to make reasoned judgments about danger and risk and I do not want them to lead their lives in fear through ignorance and scaremongering. What I want for them, I want for all children.

511
I have listened very carefully to the many organisations which specialise in the care of young people and which want to see Section 28 repealed. They do not want to see anything that will delay that repeal. The Children's Society, the NSPCC, Childline and the National Children's Bureau all want to see Section 28 repealed as soon as possible. Those are the very organisations in which we have entrusted the care of our most vulnerable people, and we should listen to them.
Lord Elder: My Lords, I would not normally have spoken in this debate, and I feel privileged to follow the previous two speakers. However, it seems to me that I should say that I am in favour of the abolition of Section 28, unencumbered by the proposals put forward in these amendments.
Listening to some of the arguments in favour of the amendments causes me to reflect on what happened north of the Border when Section 2A—the equivalent section—was abolished by the Scottish Parliament. The original intention had been to go ahead with abolition at the same time as Section 28 was abolished south of the Border, but the decision here by this House not to support abolition meant that Scotland went alone. There followed in Scotland a consultation exercise, and the main Churches did not object to the proposal to repeal. In particular, initially the Catholic Church made no move to oppose it. There were good reasons for that.
Section 2A had never been used in a court of law to protect children. The existing procedures achieved that. From the first announcement of the intention to repeal, a review of existing guidelines was offered to reassure those who had concerns. There was a feeling that the issue had become one of whether or not teachers and head teachers could be trusted to make sensible decisions. There was, and is, no reason to doubt that.
At the very end of the eight-week consultation period, a group of individuals, representing a rather narrow and far from liberal view of society, intervened and applied great pressure on others with a campaign based on fear and misinformation. Some of those fears and the misinformation have reappeared in this debate. It led to a period of great uncertainty.
However, the doubts raised by them were dealt with to the satisfaction of all the other groups. The working group, on which there was very broad representation, reached agreement on guidelines about the future teaching on this difficult range of subjects. Those guidelines have been very generally accepted. None of the largest Churches in Scotland—not the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland or the Episcopalian Church—is calling for the section, or one like it, to be reintroduced. Noble Lords should bear that in mind when they read the far more narrow views expressed by the Christian Institute.
Throughout the process of abolition in Scotland, many extravagant views were expressed about the disasters that would follow. Some of them have been
512
reflected here, but none has come to pass. The confidence in the good sense of the teaching profession and in the guidelines was well placed. I have no doubt that the same would be the case in England. And there were many benefits, of which I may perhaps raise one. The issue of homophobic bullying had to be addressed by teachers when it arose, and there were real doubts as to whether or not they could do so when Section 2A—or, here, Section 28—was in place. That cannot have been right north of the Border; it is not right here.
It is often claimed that the whole Section 2A experience was a bad one for the Scottish Parliament. That is not how I see it. A proposal was made. There was consultation. Agreement was reached on the way forward, and that allayed a number of greatly exaggerated fears which a small group had generated. That led to a general agreement, which has the support of a very broad consensus, and a wrong was righted. I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament should he in any way ashamed of that, and I very much hope that the same balanced decision will be made here today.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I want to raise one or two points. The first is that I seem to remember a definition in which it was stated that the only way to explain the difference between education and training was as follows. If your daughter came home from school and said that she had received sex education, you would probably be very grateful. If she came home and said that she had received sex training, you would be somewhat concerned. On a more serious point, I believe that one worry is that role play—an issue mentioned in some of the lobbying material—falls into the area of training. That is one concern in people's minds.
The whole matter of Section 28 is a complete red herring. The LGA briefing—discredited or otherwise—clearly states in its penultimate paragraph:
"The LGA is quite clear that the repeal of Section 28 will make no difference to how sex education is conducted in any classroom in any school in England and Wales".
That is interesting because it shows that perhaps we need some protection. I believe that such protection should be democratic and at the school stage. Conditions vary hugely in different areas. I am sure that there are deprived areas where very explicit education is required and that in other areas, where people are perhaps better behaved, such education does not need to be quite so explicit so early.
Therefore, I believe that discretion should be left in the hands of the parents, who can decide what is needed for their own children. Sending the material to parents may be a very good way to deal with the matter and may even revitalise some marriages—or perhaps. these days, I should say "partnerships".
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the Family Planning Association. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked us to discuss in this debate the terms of her amendment rather than, by implication, the whole principle of Section 28. I shall attempt to do that, although I say to her that I believe Section 28 and the

513
way that it set a context for sex education in this country over a number of years is very relevant to the amendments that she puts forward and the likely consequences of those amendments.
My own view is that Section 28 was ill-conceived and, I believe, a source of great confusion. Even though it did not relate specifically to schools and to teachers, it encouraged a climate in which teachers avoided dealing with issues of sexuality in schools because of fear, inadequate training or, indeed, homophobia. That then acted as a barrier to young people receiving help and support and created a situation in which homophobic bullying was far less likely to be challenged. I believe that it also led to an inhibition in bringing forward health promotion in relation to sexual issues.
I recommend t hat noble Lords read the report of the House of Commons Select Committee, produced only three weeks ago. It spoke about the alarming rise in sexual disease in this country and the inadequacies of many of our services in dealing with it. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Government will need to address that matter. The report also gives a very strong clue as to the need for more effective health and sexual education measures in our schools and in society in general.
I have four children in school and I certainly want them to be able to talk openly and honestly to teachers and to me and my wife about issues concerning sex, sexuality and relationships. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, has suggested, it is not always easy for parents to do that. We do not live up to the expectations that are often placed on us by official edicts from government departments, the Family Planning Association and other august institutions. It is very difficult to do so. That is why what schools do is very important indeed, and why Section 28 was a major mistake—it inhibited what teachers felt able to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says that repealing Section 28 will lead to problems because the current guidance is not sufficient. My experience is that the current guidance is very sensible, that schools understand what the guidance means and requires, and that the large majority of schools have been able to implement it to the satisfaction of the great majority of parents.
My noble friend Lady Massey, who is not in her place, made the very telling point that governing bodies have a critical role to play. These days, governing bodies are much more experienced and have to work much harder than they did 20 or 30 years ago. They no longer listen to a head teacher's report once a term and then rubber-stamp and endorse the head's decision. Governing bodies now take an active interest in the life of a school and have corporate responsibility for the decisions that they make. A large proportion of those governors are parents.
In the face of very little evidence that some of the materials mentioned by noble Lords opposite are actually used in our schools, the suggested ballot seems to me to be extremely heavy handed. I suspect that
514
those materials are rather more an urban myth than a reality. I know to my cost that the House is traditionally averse to the passing of unnecessary legislation. The potential ballot proposed by the noble Baroness is surely a very heavy hammer to crack a very small nut.
My noble friend Lady Massey talked very wisely about the problems for teachers who are confused and not confident about the teaching of relationships and sex education. Far from conveying parental rights, the Draconian sword of the potential of a poll could, in my view, lead to a continued loss of confidence among those teachers. Teachers need to teach sex education in a consistent and sensible framework, and I believe that the guidance that is available provides that very framework.
I have not always agreed with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on education. In fact. I rarely agree with her on education. However, she has championed the cause of taking responsibility away from the department of government and local education authorities and placing it with schools. I agree with her and I applaud her for that. But, at the end of the day, why on earth do we not trust teachers in schools, working in partnership with governing bodies and parents, to implement that guidance in a sensible way?
In my view, the acceptance of the noble Baroness's amendment for the potential of a poll would inhibit the sensible approach of teachers to the proper and effective teaching of sex education. I very much hope that the House will reject her amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said in respect of trusting teachers and governing bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Elder, was right to say that the question here is whether to repeal Section 28 encumbered or unencumbered by the two proposed new clauses. My reading of the new clauses is that the first, tabled as Amendment No. 25, would provide that where a group of parents is unhappy with the way in which sex education is being taught in schools, that group of parents, if it constitutes more than 10 per cent of the governing body, can trigger a ballot of parents about specific provisions relating to sex education.
The second clause, which is Amendment No. 91, maintains that Section 121 shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State is satisfied that parents know their rights under the new clause; that they know the name of the officer whom they should contact if they want to hold a ballot; that full consultation procedures are in place about the way in which sex education is delivered in schools, including a full statement of policy by the governors; that there should be full disclosure of all materials used in the provision of sex education, although "full disclosure" is not defined; and that there should be full vetting of all individuals involved in the teaching of sex education where such people are not members of staff.

515
The implication of those two amendments is not that parents are given control—a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made a great deal—hut that the Secretary of State would have more power. The Secretary of State—not the governors, as at present—would have to supervise what happens in schools, but the Secretary of State would have to make sure that all the provisions are satisfied. We would therefore have yet more direct supervision from the Secretary of State. I am very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The point of my amendments is almost the opposite. They wrest power from the Secretary of State and from local government. They place judgments as to what should happen to children in school in the hands of the parents.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, a reading of Amendment No. 91 indicates that the Secretary of State shall have those powers. It means more directives and more involvement—precisely what we do not want to happen—which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has on many occasions fought to prevent. Parents already have full rights to know about and view all the material that is used in teaching their children sex education, or any other form of education, and the right to express their concerns to heads, to the schoolteachers involved, to governors and to local education authorities. Those arrangements work perfectly satisfactorily at the moment.
My noble friend Lady Scott mentioned that, as a member of a local education authority for 12 years, she has received no complaints about the materials used in teaching sex education. In addition, if they are unhappy with the procedures, parents have full rights to withdraw their children from sex education classes.
First, the proposal put forwarded by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, introducing the possibility of a poll adds yet another layer of complications. Again, it takes away from the responsibilities that lie with governors and teachers and in that sense undermines yet further their authority. The threshold for the ballot is 10 per cent, half of the 20 per cent required when ballots were held for grant-maintained schools, although at that time, the government, which I remind the House was a Conservative government, set the figure at 20 per cent deliberately to avoid the capture by the parent bodies of a narrow interest group.
Secondly, the procedures about ballots are divisive. We will have a two-month period of elections which will tend to politicise the whole issue, feeding dissension among parents and polarising views.
Thirdly, it is not at all clear on what parents will be required to vote. There is talk of a specific proposition but that could be as narrow as the use of a particular textbook or a particular video for a particular class. Yet, it is the whole body of parents that is being asked to ballot on these issues.
516
The best way for schools to respond to the parents cannot be put into legislation. School staff must get to know the parents and confer over the school's curriculum, be it on sex education or on other issues. Such matters are best raised informally on occasions when each side has the time and the space to listen to each other. Hustings are not the place to raise specific issues about a school's curriculum.
Parliament has made several legislative attempts over the past quarter of a century to find how best to poll the collective views of parents on school matters. Depending upon one's point of view, they have either been a brilliant success or a dismal failure. Perhaps one thing that they had in common was that they imposed considerable bureaucratic demands on schools and took school staff away from their prime responsibility to educate children.
One exception to all that is Parliament's first attempt to give parents a voice and to put elected parents onto school governing bodies. Parents almost universally have confidence in their elected parent representatives and Parliament should have confidence in them by rejecting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In the newly reconstituted governing bodies that will be in place from September 2003 parent governors will have at least one-third of the seats on governing bodies. They will form the biggest group, the biggest stakeholder group, on school governing bodies.
Perhaps I can quote from a contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made to our debates on the Education Bill last year when we were talking about the role of parents within schools and the possibility of ballots on another issue. On that occasion she said:
"I know of no statute that states that one has to ascertain the views of parents and give due weight to them as regards the running of a school. It is the governing body that does that. Almost any school worth its salt knows its pupils".—[Official Report,, 9/5/02; col. 1386.]".
Parents have already elected fellow parents to make their views heard in the decision-making body of the school, the school governing body. Parliament should have confidence in the good judgment of those parents by rejecting the amendment.
Lord Moran: My Lords, one thing on which I hope that all noble Lords can agree is that on this matter the interests of children should come first. last and always. Anyone who seeks to put the rights of homosexuals or heterosexuals or any other group ahead of the need to protect children is deeply misguided.
I supported the late Lady Young on Section 28 and I greatly admired what she did. I was, and remain, sure that it is right that local authorities should not intentionally promote homosexuality. I believe that the clause was effective in deterring some councils from promoting the homosexual agenda, but it was defective in dealing only with homosexuality. It has now gone and we are considering a new approach.
Simply to repeal Section 28 and to put nothing in its place, in my view, would be quite wrong. I fear that to remove the prohibition on intentionally promoting homosexuality, by itself, will be a green light to those who want to corrupt children.

517
At the heart of the debate is the issue of sex education. I never had any sex education, at least I do not recall it. No doubt it is necessary to give children in maintained schools some simple explanation of the process of reproduction and the details of contraception, but it seems to me that sex education has got out of hand. Most ordinary people would he appalled if they were to see the material now used by a small minority as a basis for sex education.
Of the many letters that I have received on this subject 1 was particularly struck by one I received from a secondary school teacher in Wales from which 1 should like to quote. The lady wrote:
I am on the front line in the sense that I have to teach Personal and Social Education (which includes Sex Education) and I am involved in helping pupils pastorally. I have read some sex education resources being used currently by a minority of local authorities which have managed to slip through the net, and I am both appalled and immensely disturbed by what I have seen. If Section 28 were repealed then it would be highly likely that these resources could spread throughout the country, and I might have to end up using them in my teaching. I am no prude, but the information contained is highly explicit and encourages pupils to experiment with homosexuality … Furthermore, it seems that there is a false belief that more explicit sex education at increasingly younger ages will solve the problems of teenage pregnancies and the growing crisis of sexually transmitted diseases. I see no evidence of this at all. Indeed in my experience, many pupils are sexually active and promiscuous at a younger age than ever before. It is time some limits were drawn".
I welcome and support the amendments which have been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by my noble friend Lord Palmer, especially the need for parents to know what the materials used are, both for children and to brief teachers, and to see the material for themselves. I warmly welcome subsection (2A)(e)(i) of Amendment No. 91. There is also a need to stop, or at least closely to control, those other than teachers who come in to take part in sex education. 1 think that subsection (2A)(e)(ii) of Amendment No. 91 is also important. Our children deserve not the debasing of sex that is encapsulated in the injunction for 13 year-olds quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, "try experimenting with other boys and girls and see what you feel most comfortable with", recommended by Gloucestershire and East Sussex County Councils, but the experience, if they are lucky, of the magic of life-long love.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, influence on teenagers comes from a number or sources—from parents, from teachers, from peer group and from the media. In those contradictory influences we give to children choice, which is the most precious thing that one can give to a young person. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her Amendment No. 91 has attempted to elevate parents to a position of sovereignty in this web—and is therefore pulling the web apart.
Our teachers and local authorities are not the European Union—they do not deserve to be treated in that way. Parents come in all shapes and sizes. I knew one who said that there was no credit in loving her children, it was like loving one's big toe. That is a proprietary attitude which is not always in the interests
518
of the children. If it had chanced that my father had been the father of the noble Baroness, she might have wanted more to have been protected from his influence than by him. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, there is also a big problem with parents for children who are homosexual. I have discussed this with pupils who want to come out. The one matter that most terrified them was their parents knowing their state. If one works on teenage homelessness, as I have done from time to time, it is full of cases of people who have been thrown out because their parents discovered that they were homosexual.
Parents should have strong influence on their children. They should not have absolute power. No one should have that over another human being. It is because this amendment builds up the absolute power of parents that, thinking what the noble Baroness knows I think about Section 28, I even prefer Section 28 to this amendment. It is possible that the Secretary of State might think the same, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was right to say that this was a wrecking amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talks about the importance of giving choice to children. I accept that this is a hugely important part of parental responsibility. But it seems to me—and we are talking here about children of young and vulnerable age—that the most important thing we can give to them is guidance. That is exactly what my noble friend's amendment is about.
I had no intention of speaking today. Unlike other noble Lords, I have not participated in the debate so far. But the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made reference to a letter that was circulated to your Lordships on this subject. I fully understand that at times it is difficult for your Lordships to be in their places at the appropriate time. It is interesting to note that of the five people who wrote the letter, only one is in his place at the moment—my noble friend Lord Norton. The rest are not in their places. That does not mean that they do not feel strongly about the subject, hut, having gone to the trouble to write the letter, at the very least they could have attempted to be in their places during today's debate.
I have one other point. My noble friend suggested that we should address our remarks to the points she raised. I crave her indulgence and that of the whole House as I move on to one other item, which I think is incredibly important. It appears once again in the letter which your Lordships received. I find it extraordinary that the five noble Lords who put their names to the letter should suggest that the debates that have taken place on this subject, which they describe as,
"highly emotive and divisive debates",
should thus far have done the public reputation of this House little good. I am sorry, but I take extreme exception to that.
I believe that quite the reverse has happened. The letters that I have received—and there have been more on this subject than on virtually any other—have been

519
totally supportive of the actions of your Lordships over the years on the question of Section 28. And let us not forget that the duty of this House is to subject legislation to full and proper scrutiny in a way which sadly does not happen now in another place. That is what we are doing, and we should continue to do so. Anyone who suggests otherwise is in my opinion taking a very dim view of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I had not intended to speak because I felt that noble Lords had made many of the points I wanted to make. What I shall say focuses on two questions that I want to put to the noble Baroness. I begin by saying that it seems to me that all noble Lords have at the core of their hearts the protection and development of children. We may come at it from very different positions.
If we had been discussing Section 28, I should have been speaking on behalf of its repeal. As a Christian and a childcare enthusiast and worker for many years, I would have exactly the same standing as people whom I respect—and I do respect the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—for taking a different view on these issues. It is our responsibility to think through the issues. I have thought very carefully this afternoon because the noble Baroness's amendment has many attractions.
Having sat through the debate, I want to tell the House why I shall not be voting in favour of the amendment having thought about it during the afternoon; and I have listened very openly. I have two questions, which were encapsulated for me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The first question is: what happens in a classroom after the late night show or after a child has picked up the magazine I picked up in my hotel last night called Elle, which I thought was an ordinary magazine for females? I do not read many of those magazines. As I flicked through it I read story after story of lurid sex. I am sure that that magazine is on the coffee table of many middle class homes. I am sure that many children I have worked with actually listen to and watch those TV programmes. I, too, caught one recently: I learnt a great deal. But these things are there for children as well as for adults to see, which I do not think we can deny.
So what happens in the classroom on the Tuesday morning after the programme when the child asks the question: what is oral anal sex? What are these other things that they see on television? Does the teacher say, "I cannot engage in a discussion about this." What does that do in terms of mystique? I would much rather that a child for whom I was responsible had a direct answer to that question than for them to come home with real queries, even though someone in another place had voted against that happening. I would give them a reasonable answer. We know the level of child poverty. I do not have the numbers in front of me because this was not the speech that I was going to make. But there are many children who go back to homes where they could not even admit to the question.
520
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the many children who are worried about their sexual development. For many years I was the chief executive of Childline. Last year Childline counselled 16,000 children who were confused about their sexuality. This does not mean that they thought they were one thing or the other, they just did not understand about their sexuality. It says something about present sex education in this country if that is happening with children. If teachers are prevented from giving education, then it would be even more difficult.
They talked to 124 youngsters, mostly boys, who were concerned about being homophobic. The stories of children speak for themselves. I spoke to a youngster whom I will call Bill. He was 15 and very distressed. He had been called names and experienced homophobic bullying at school which, as we all know, is a result of Section 28. He could not talk to his teacher who told him to go home and talk to his parents. Bill's father was extremely homophobic. He knew he would be beaten. He had been beaten anyway. That child decided to run away. If he runs away, he ends up on the streets of London. We know what happens to young homosexual boys and men on London streets. They get into the sex industry. I worked with youngsters involved in that. Once in that industry, the children do not get out of it. That is the long-term consequence of not helping children to understand the nature of what goes on.
When I was younger I do not really remember my sex education, although I think I had it, but the world now is a very different place. If we are to protect our young people then we have to make absolutely sure that every child has proper sex education. I have the utmost confidence in teachers and in my very long experience I have never seen the material to which the noble Baroness refers. I feel sorry about that. It is something that I should have seen. I have great confidence that our teachers will convey to young people the right information. They will be able to answer their questions and therefore give them the protection and care that they rightly deserve. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I have taken a few soundings not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. There seems to be a feeling that perhaps we could move reasonably soon towards a vote.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Rooker: My Lords—
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must put on record our party policy to repeal Section 28. It was stated in our manifesto as:
"A section which gives legal sanction to discrimination, preventing schools taking effective measures against bullying and hampering responsible sex education."

521
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, has summed up very well the positions and the dilemmas. As the recipient of an absolutely hopeless sex education, I feel strongly that children should be given the opportunity to ask questions and to receive answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke of teachers who are "wrecks" when dealing with the subject. I suspect that that is in part because of the generation of children, now grown up, who are not able to deliver good sex education.
Amendment No. 91 imposes the element of conditionality that goes to the repeal of Section 28 and requires the Secretary of State to provide a certificate in respect of each school. On checking with the Library, I find that in this country there are some 34,538 schools. I do not wish to detain the House, but that conditionality is a fundamental point of the vote today. To agree to an amendment which many noble Lords have illustrated is impracticable and unworkable would mean that we would not be repealing Section 28 in the unencumbered fashion that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested.
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, 16 noble Lords have spoken in the past hour and a half, so the speeches have been brief and I shall try to be equally swift in my response. First, this is a free vote. Secondly, I suspect that there is not a soul in this place who will change their vote as the result of anything that I say in the next few minutes.
I wish to make a few brief points. First, let us not beat about the hush: this is about keeping Section 28 on the statute hook. That would be the consequence of the amendments. I say that because the Government have no intention of organising polls in 30,000 schools. That is out of the question. If the amendment is carried, Section 28 would stay. We need to get that point out of the way at the start.
As regards my own experience, I have nothing to declare. I am not a parent and this is the first time I have sat in a debate such as this. I have never spoken on the issue before, but the experience of friends of mine who are parents certainly bears out what has been said in our debate. However, as a Member of Parliament I did not encounter any problems from teachers, school governors or children following the legislation in 1987.
I can recall some of my own sex education at Handsworth Technical School for Boys in Birmingham. Basically we were told to be careful when going into public lavatories, mainly to make sure that the seat was clean as much as anything else. Our education amounted to gross embarrassment and we all thought "Thank heavens" when self-service chemists came along. That is the reality of it, but one criticism made in a document sent in is that children might be embarrassed when they go into a chemist to buy contraceptives.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is in his place. I recall his very courageous action on behalf of the government of the day on the HIV and AIDS campaign. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness,
522
Lady Thatcher, the former Prime Minister, for backing him. To distribute to every household in the country those warnings about HIV infection in such an explicit fashion was a very brave thing to do. More education came out of that campaign in terms of changing sexual practices than practically anything that has taken place in our schools. But much of it has been forgotten and it bears repeating.
Secondly, I regret to say that in some ways the atmosphere on this issue is almost the same as it was on 8th December 1987 in Commons Standing Committee A on the Local Government Bill. I was a member of that committee on the Opposition Front Bench. I did not reply to the amendment; that was the task of my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham. The atmosphere in that committee was one of suspicion, fear, accusation and the misquoting of various materials that were circulating at the time. Contrary to the myths that have been perpetuated, we did not vote on it. Noble Lords can check the record and see that the section went into the statute book in Committee without a vote. A vote seeking to amend it was taken later on Report—on an amendment that sought to improve sex education—but it was voted down. Earlier this afternoon I checked the record and found that the honourable Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, Simon Hughes, moved the amendment.
I do not want to argue about the number of schools in England. I think that there are around 20,000 primary schools and 4,000 secondary schools. That leads me to believe that there are at least a third of a million people functioning as school governors in England alone. With that many schools, there must be at least 50,000 parent governors. I have to say, in all honesty, that if there was a problem that was reasonably or even partially widespread, given the number of lay people involved in school governing bodies, which of course have legal authority in this matter—not the councillors on local education authorities—we would be hearing about it day in and day out. The fact is we do not. Less than one per cent of parents withdraw their offspring from sex education classes.
I shall respond to some of the points made in the debate. First, I shall take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in respect of taking sex seriously. The note that I have been given says that 11-year-olds would never be taught the issues identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The teachers' pack provided an approach to use if the children raise certain issues. That is part of the issue—how do the teachers respond? They are not there to be proactive—they are there to respond. Local authorities, head teachers and governors cannot ignore or contradict the guidance. The materials mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, were part of a reading list for teachers, not for pupils. It is crucial to bear that in mind.
Many of the children's organisations referred to by several noble Lords have asked for the repeal of Section 28. None has seen the need for additional protection with which to replace it. That is partly because there are other organisations that look after

523
young people in other areas. For example, Ofsted deals with youth clubs and reports on local education authorities. Anyone would think that outside the schools there is no mechanism. However, we would hear from Ofsted if there were a problem in youth clubs, because the LEA would be checked out in that respect.
There are indeed some myths about. I will not go through some of the quotes that have been read out, and I will certainly not return to the LGA memorandum, whether if was from the LGA or not, although I note that no one in the course of this debate has said that any of the points made in it were factually incorrect. That is worth noting. Sometimes we have been given a full sentence instead of the part of a sentence that was given in other briefs. It is also useful to note that.
This is not a government issue—this is a free vote—but I should point out that the amendments seek to introduce new mechanisms for consulting parents on specific issues. However, those issues are not set out, and it is clear that would be a minefield in itself. The amendments propose that local authorities would undertake polls. We would argue once again that the framework that is already in place that ensures that parents have a voice in what is taught in schools has been ignored. The role played by local authorities in sex education has been misunderstood. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred to only two authorities, and I do not propose to go into rebuttals that could come from either of them. One is Labour-controlled and one is Tory-controlled, so this is not an issue of political affiliation.
Decisions about sex education in schools are made by head teachers and governors. I will repeat that: decisions about sex education in schools are made by head teachers and governors, having regard to the Government's guidance, which they are not able to ignore. The sex and relationship education guidance specifically addresses the issue of parental involvement, making it clear that it should be ongoing. The guidance says that it is essential that parents be regularly consulted on sex education in schools, particularly when the contents are being reviewed.
As long as a school has regard to the government guidance by involving parents in devising policy, there should be no reason for parents to object to the content of sex and relationship education. However, if they do, they can raise their concerns with school and the Secretary of State for Education. They can withdraw their children from all or part of the sex and relationship education provided by the school, except for those parts included in the statutory national curriculum for science. In practice, as I have said, very small numbers—less than one per cent—choose to do so.
We submit that this is a robust framework that works well. It is fairly new in some ways—it was not on the horizon in 1987, so I am not making that comparison—but it works well. To propose parental
524
polling on sex education by local authorities is unnecessary, bureaucratic, potentially divisive and not the way to decide the content of an effective sex and relationship education programme for our children in their schools. So I shall be voting against the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that noble Lords are anxious to get away and I shall be brief, but the noble Lord almost accused me of being dishonest about the material in my reference to Taking Sex Seriously. So if noble Lords will forgive me, perhaps I may read a lesson plan for 11-plus children. The objective of the lesson plan is:
"To learn about the full range of sexual activities.
The time required is one hour. The materials required are:
"Lots of strips of card or paper (size about 8 inches by 4 inches). Marker pens. Bluetack".
The literacy level is expected to be medium. The plan states:
"Explain the purpose of the exercise.
"Ask people to move into groups of three and give them a bundle of strips of card or paper.
"Ask them to think about all the different sexual activities two people can do together. Ask them to write each one on a separate strip of card large enough so that it can be seen if put up on the wall. Tell them they can put down whatever they think of and that it is best if they do it in a specific way. E.g. rather than just 'oral sex' they might put 'sucking a man's penis' or 'licking a woman's clitoris'. (Some examples of sexual activities are given below. You"—
the teacher—
"may need to give a few examples to get the group thinking on the right lines".
I stand here as a mother and simply say that for 11 pluses in schools that is outrageous.
I have been staggered at the aggressive reluctance to trust parents. I have moved away from pontificating from on high about what thou shalt and shalt not do. Parents are best placed to know what is right for their children. I was also staggered at a point made earlier: that teachers would be appalled to put that trust in the hands of parents. All good teachers—most of them are good teachers—would welcome that partnership with parents, which would be strengthened by my amendments.
So much has been said that misinterprets what my amendments are about. They are not about keeping Section 28 in disguise. I expect Section 28 to be repealed. The aims of my amendment are simple: that in the light of the repeal of Section 28, the protection of children from the worst form of sex education should be strengthened, so that power is wrested from the Secretary of State and placed in the hands of parents.
I respect parents. They are best placed and the best people to make the judgments. I trust them to know what is best for their children. Tonight, I shall support them and ask other noble Lords to do the same. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 180.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ahmed, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Ampthill, L

Luke, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

McColl of Dulwieh,L.

Attlee, E.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Bagri, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Bell, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Blackwell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blaker, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.[Teller]

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Monson, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Bridges, L.

Montrose, D.

Brigstocke, B.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Brookman, L.

Brooks of Trernorfa, L.

Moran, L.

Burnham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Naseby, L.

Carnegyof Lour, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Chan, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbourne, L.

Cox, B.

Northbrook, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Davies of Coity, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dixon, L.

Palmer, L. [Teller]

Dixon-Smith, L.

Palumbo, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peel, E.

Elles, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

PlattofWrittle,B.

Elton, L.

Erroll, E.

Plumb, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Feldman, L.

Pym, L.

Ferrers, E.

Quinton, L.

Freeman, L.

Reay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Glentoran, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Sharpies, B.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Simon, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Slim,V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Inge, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strange, B.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kingsland, L.

Swinfen, L.

Laird, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Thatcher, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Tombs, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Trumpington, B.

526

Vivian, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wilcox, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Walpole, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Pottcrnewton, B. [Teller]

Addington, L.

Adcbowale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alderdice, L.

Greaves, L.

Alii, L.

Greengross, B.

Amos, B.

Grenfell, L.

Andrews, B.

Grocott, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Avebury, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Harrison, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayman, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Biffen, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bin, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bragg, L.

Jacobs, L.

Brett, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jeger, B.

Burlison, L.

Joffe, L.

Burns, L.

Judd, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Layard, L.

Carter, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chandos, V.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Christopher, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Listowel, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ludford, B.

Condon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Craigavon, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

McNally, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Desai, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dholakia, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs,L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Elder, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Nicol, B.

Northover, B.

Falkender, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Falkland, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ouseley, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pendry, L.

Filkin,L.

Peston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Flather, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Freyberg, L.

Prashar, B.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gavron, L.

Radice, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Razzall, L.

Goodhart, L.

Rea, L.

Goudie, B.

Redesdale, L.

527

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Rennard, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thornton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Tope, L.

Roll of Ipsden,L.

Tordoff, L.

Rooker, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Walmsley, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Warnock, B.

StJohn of Fawsley, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Sandberg, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Sandwich, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Sawyer, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Whitaker, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Whitty, L.

Sheldon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stallard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Stem, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Taverne, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 74, line 31, at end insert—
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in this section affects the duties and powers of the Secretary of State to make rules and issue guidance in connection with sex education under section 148 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) amending the Education Act 1996 (c. 56)."
The noble Lord said: It appears that the melodrama is over and a rather insignificant act follows.
I move the amendment for two reasons. The first is because there ought to be no controversy on the subject of education and children, and I wish the Bill to become one with reasoning behind it. Secondly, I hope that a resolution will be passed that finds favour in another place. That will accomplish two things. First, we will have escaped—if that is the appropriate word—the hammer of the Parliament Acts being invoked. Secondly, we will have achieved something by way of guidance to teachers in our schools.
Many of us remember the debates on this matter in the past. I believe I am right in saying that the bishops took a prominent part in trying to see whether a Bill could be enacted that would favour guidance being given to teachers in terms acceptable to everyone. I shall read exactly what transpired after that. Then, no doubt to your Lordships' pleasure, I shall sit down.
The Bill that followed from some of our discussions was the Learning and Skills Bill. Anyone who was seeking to know what happened with regard to our discussions on the matter of Section 28 would look up the Act under which it was being dealt—the Local Government Act 1988—and would find the word "repealed". That means that a number of people would not know what had happened and would think that Parliament had decided, after all, that what was behind that section was not the policy of Parliament. Parliament wanted clarity of view and that clarity was,
We have repealed it because we do not agree with what it says". In those circumstances, this fact was passed as an Act:
"The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to pupils at maintained schools—(a) they learn the nature of marriage and the importance for family life and the bringing up of children".
It continues:
"(b) they are protected from teaching and materials which arc inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.
1(B) In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance".
I should have thought that following on the vote which has just taken place—and indeed even if it had had a different result—that would be acceptable to the House and, one would hope, also to another place. Then we would have a clear view as to what Parliament had intended. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, Amendment No. 21, moved by my noble friend, seeks to provide an assurance that the repeal of Section 28, to which the House has just agreed, will not affect the duties and powers of the Secretary of State for Education to issue guidance in respect of sex education. I can without any qualification give my noble friend that assurance. Therefore, we do not believe it necessary to put the words on the statue book.
The Education Act 1996 as amended by the Learning and Skills Act 2000 clearly sets out the duties of the Secretary of State to issue guidance designed to secure that, where sex education is given to pupils in maintained schools, they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate. Those arrangements will be entirely unaffected by the repeal of Section 28. No changes are made to the Education Act as a result of the amendments associated with repeal of Section 28 that will in any way affect the role, powers or duties of the Secretary of State for Education. There is no doubt on that score. Therefore, we do not believe that any confirmation of it is required on the face of the legislation.
My noble friend's amendment has nevertheless been very useful by allowing the position to be so clearly stated in Hansard immediately after the preceding debate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of those charming remarks by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brightmanhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
"PROMOTION OF PARTICULAR SEXUAL LIFESTYLES
(1) Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported. a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle.
(2) This section does not prohibit the provision for young persons of sex education or counselling services on sexual behaviour and associated health risks."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at this hour, and in the circumstances, I do not think that it would be sensible of me to move my amendment. I shall therefore not move it and re-table it for Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
"MAYOR OF LONDON: OPENNESS
(1) After section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (delegation) there is inserted—
"Openness in relation to the Mayor
38A(1) Section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (access to information etc) shall have effect as if—

(a) the Mayor was a local authority executive,

(b) a reference to an individual member of such an executive referred to either the Mayor or to a person or body mentioned in section 38(2) to whom an authorisation has been given by the Mayor under section 38(1), and

(c) any occasion on which either the Mayor or such a person or body exercises any function of the Authority (whether such a function is exercisable by him solely or by him jointly with the Assembly on the Authority's behalf) was a meeting of a local authority executive,

but with the modifications contained in subsections (2) to (4) below.
(2) Any reference in section 22 of that Act to a committee of a local authority executive, or to a sus-committee of such a committee, shall be disregarded.
(3) A reference in section 22 of that Act to an overview and scrutiny committee, or to a sub-committee of such a committee, is a reference—

(a) to the Assembly;

(b) if the Assembly has appointed a committee or committees under section 54, to such a committee or committees (being ordinary committees within the meaning of section 55(1)) as the Assembly shall designate under subsection (4).

(4) The Assembly shall designate a committee or committees for the purpose of discharging an overview and scrutiny committee's functions under section 22 of that Act, provided that section 54 shall not apply to its functions under this subsection."
(2) In section 420(8) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (regulations and orders) after "section 25;" there is inserted "section 38A;"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 brings us to quite a different topic—access to information in relation to the Mayor of London. I should again declare an interest as a Member of the London Assembly and currently the chair.
The amendment is not attempting to impose detailed provisions at this point. It simply proposes a regulation-making power to enable the Mayor of London, currently the only local authority executive—a technically correct term, although I use it in the wider sense here—not subject to the access to information provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, to be made subject to them.
I wrote to the mayor when I tabled this amendment in Committee assuring him that it was not an attack on his style of government and I repeat that now. It is attempting to use a rare legislative opportunity to rectify what I believe is perhaps an oversight in the drafting of the Greater London Authority Act. There are so few opportunities for amending primary legislation that I could not let this opportunity pass.
The amendment is intended to be a regulation-making power. The application of legislation in the area of access to information is changing fairly fast. Freedom of information provisions will come into effect quite soon. At that point I believe that the Mayor of London, whoever he may be, will have to have in place arrangements to ensure compliance, which will include a flow of information, a particular context for reporting, and making the decision-making process open and transparent.
Although I appreciate that there are difficulties inherent in the access to information provisions which apply to executives now concerning when important key decisions are to be made, nevertheless, it does not seem appropriate that a single executive is exempt from the regime. There are provisions in the Act which enable the Assembly to require the mayor, the staff, the chairs of the functional bodies and their staff, to produce information and to appear before it and be questioned.
As a matter of practice, they are matters which the Assembly regard as being like a sledgehammer. It would be far more appropriate to have a routine arrangement in place which would enable the Assembly, elected to fulfil a scrutiny role, to have sight of those decisions and warning of them, and allow the public to have access to them.
I do not believe that I could ever be accused of crawling to the mayor so I have no fear of repeating it. This is not an attack on the way in which he conducts matters. He has committed himself to the GL A being the most open and transparent government that the UK has ever seen. I do not believe that this is the time to debate whether he has yet achieved that. It is not an attack on what he is doing at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have to put it on record that I have never considered the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to be a crawler. She knows

531
in her heart that the Government are not going to give on this, but we shall be more generous as regards a later amendment.
I am slightly puzzled by the amendment because the GLA and the mayoral system, as designed by legislation, is one of the most open and transparent bodies that legislators have provided compared with other forms of public authority. What the noble Baroness seeks to achieve is effectively already there.
Perhaps I may list the key openness provisions which are in place. There has to be a statement of executive decisions as soon as is practical after they are made. All the meetings are held in public, unless they are commercially sensitive. A forward plan has to be published for all the executive functions, whether it is from leading figures within the Assembly, the mayor or a council manager; they have to produce a plan each month.
There has to be a report on key GLA decisions—that is established in statute in Section 45 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. A mayoral question time is established under the same section. All Assembly meetings are in public by virtue of Section 58. The committees have to be held in public as well. They have to give proper notice and documentation has to be publicly available.
I turn to attendance at Assembly meetings. The Assembly can summon people, including the mayor, Assembly members, functional body board members, Authority staff, and functional body staff to give evidence at its meetings and to give evidence at its meetings and to produce documentation.
Section 47 of the GLA Act establishes an annual state of London debate, which has to be held shortly after the mayor's annual report. It has to be in public and there has to be an opportunity for the public to speak. There is also that great innovation, the people's question time, which takes place twice a year. I should say that my local authority launched that innovation. It took place at every council meeting. Twice a year the people's question time takes place—it is written in statute; it has to happen and the public can put any matter of interest, public concern or embarrassment to the mayor directly.
I do not think that the Authority or the mayor can easily hide away matters that should be in public. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in giving credit to the mayor. He is one of those people in public life who believes in openness and transparency. He has promoted them in his personal style and the Assembly has joined with him. He has been vigorous and clear-sighted in making good use and ensuring good use is made of the openness arrangements.
Much as I understand the spirit behind the amendment, I do not think it is necessary. What it seeks to achieve is already there. I pay tribute to both the mayor and the Assembly for the way in which they have operated and hope that the open and transparent
532
process of which they have made great use continues into the future. I do not think that the amendment would add anything to the processes already in place.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not so sure that I know in my heart that the amendment will not go anywhere, but I know it in my head because the Minister told me so before we came into the Chamber. Of course there are mechanisms. We have people's question time, which is good fun. It is particularly good fun with the current mayor because he is such a good performer. Those are occasions where large numbers of people—and they have been large numbers—are able to raise issues of concern, and it is right that they should, but that is not the same as finding out precisely what the mayor is doing and intends to do.
The state of London debate now takes the form of a television programme. It is good entertainment for those of us interested in these matters at 10.30 on a Tuesday night watching people whom we tend to know—they are often the usual suspects—using "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"-type voting methods by which they let the audience advise them. I shall leave that aside.
The access to information regulations to which I referred are about executive mayors having to publish in advance a proposed decision, having an agenda and reports and a record of the decision made in public. Ironically, the London Assembly, which has minimal powers, is exposed to 100 per cent scrutiny because all those regulations apply to the Assembly. The mayor, who has almost all the GLA's executive powers, is not subject to them.
I hear what the noble Lord says. I rather doubt that I shall be able to retrieve enough people to come back to the Chamber to vote on this amendment in order to obtain the outcome that I should like. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
"MEETINGS AND PROCEDURE OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY
(1) Section 52 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (meetings of the whole Assembly) is amended as follows.
(2)After subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) A meeting of the Assembly held under subsection (3) shall not be held within 21 days of the date when the last such meeting was held."
(3) In subsection (6)(b) for "28" there is substituted "21".
(4) Subsection (7) is omitted."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I know in my heart that this might go somewhere. I am not able to read the code signalled by the Minister and so I do not know whether I should speed up or slow down.
Amendment No. 24 concerns the meetings of the London Assembly. It seeks to rectify a technical but very irritating difficulty. At present, the assembly is not required to give notice of the Mayor's question

533
time until the previous Mayor's question time has taken place but it must give 28 days' notice. It is perfectly reasonable that Mayor's question times should not be bunched because if the Mayor and the majority of the assembly were ever of the same political party it would be possible for them to be in cahoots and bunch together all the meetings, possibly even over August when the press are not very active.
My amendment seeks to address that point and to make the notice period shorter so that there is more flexibility in the programme. Even though the diary would normally be set many months in advance, it would be possible to make a change without being caught by these very tight provisions.
I believe that the amendment meets the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in Committee. His view was that the Mayor should have time to report and that the public should receive sufficient notice to enable them to attend the meetings. Therefore, I hope that the amendment, or something very similar to it, will find its way into the final version of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at present the London Assembly is required to hold 10 mayoral question time meetings each year. There is a requirement that at least 28 days' notice be given of any such meeting. The practical effect of that is that the meetings will always be at least 28 days apart. Amendment No. 24 would reduce the notice period and the minimum time between each meeting from 28 to 21 days.
It is important for the effective scrutiny of the London Mayor that the mayoral question time meetings should continue to be spread relatively evenly throughout the whole year. We are also keen that adequate notice should be given of the meetings so that the Mayor and others attending the meetings have time to prepare and so that members of the public have time to make arrangements to attend if they so wish.
I listened carefully to the debate on this issue in Committee. We fully understand that the GLA has experienced some difficulties with timetabling the meetings. We appreciate that the amendment seeks to resolve those difficulties. As I explained when the noble Baroness raised this issue in Committee" there are a number of technical defects in her amendment, and therefore, in those circumstances, the Government cannot accept it.
However, having considered the matter very carefully since the Committee stage, we have considerable sympathy with the concerns raised by the amendment. Therefore, what I say today is designed to be helpful. We want to explore the issues further before Third Reading and, as part of that, we shall offer the noble Baroness an early meeting so that we can resolve the matter fully to everyone's satisfaction.
I have seen the various options laid out in the letter that the noble Baroness was kind enough to send to me and to the Mayor and others. Obviously. if the noble Baroness has identified a problem here, then we shall want to sort it out. It will help to ensure that the extra
534
layer of openness and transparency, to which I referred earlier, is available in the multiple ways that access to information, and so on, is provided for in the GLA and by the Mayor and that it is further enhanced. We want to ensure that we underpin and underwrite that. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that I have addressed the issue, and I hope that she will now be happy to withdraw her amendment with the promise of exploratory talks to sort out the problem.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, after 12 years in this place, I still cannot get the drafting right—as long as my clients never discover that. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Baroness Scott of Needham Marketmoved Amendment No. 26:
After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
"REDUCTION IN THE AGE QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY
In section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70), for "twenty-one" there shall be substituted "eighteen"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as long ago as 1970 the age of eligibility to vote in public elections was reduced from 21 to 18. However, the age at which an individual can stand for election remains at 21, and my amendment seeks to reduce the age of eligibility to 18.
The Local Government Information Unit recently commissioned an independent inquiry into local governance and recommended that the age of candidature for local elections should be reduced to 18. It felt that that was especially important in local elections, for which there is generally a very poor turn-out, particularly among those in the youngest age range. It believed, and I agree, that reducing the age of candidature would be a step towards encouraging young people to vote and to play an active role in local government in their areas.
The British Youth Council gave written evidence to the commission. It cited research showing that young people do not engage in the political processes, not because they are apathetic but because they see politicians as negative and unrepresentative of their views. That view is rather supported by the report of the Hansard Society, published in December 2001. It considered why people failed to vote in the 2001 general election and found that many of the young people who did not vote were very active in interest groups and that some of them were even members of political parties, but that they did not vote then because they felt that it would make no difference to their areas or their lives. I believe that the large number of people who turned out to march against the war demonstrates that they are not apathetic but that they care.
The Government have quite rightly introduced citizenship lessons for young people in schools, so it is possible that young adults will be quite politically

535
aware at the age of 16. Nevertheless, they will have to wait two years before they can vote and five years before they can stand for election to their local councils. I have been unable to find many activities in relation to which 21 remains the age of eligibility. The only one of which I am aware is the requirement to be 21 to hold a heavy goods vehicle licence. It seems to me rather odd that we can trust young people to be soldiers at the age of 18 but not to be members of the allotments sub-committee of their local district council.
I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the principle behind this amendment, even though I have not quite got the technicality right. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I would like to quote a passage from my grandfather's diary in 1864. He was standing as a parliamentary candidate in a by-election on behalf of the Leeds Radical Workingmen's Association. He said:
"Either the working class have a separate interest from the rest of the community or they do not. If they do, the injustice of denying them the suffrage is greater than even Mr Bright has ever maintained it to be, and, if not, why so much fuss?".
I believe that a large number of issues come before a local authority in which people between 18 and 21 have interests that tend to be different from those of others. One might mention, for example, leisure facilities. In particular, there is an interest in late-night transport. I remember very vividly from the days when I was courting that she lived in Notting Hill and I lived in Hornsey. The issue of late-night transport was ever present.
I believe, therefore, that there is a separate interest. I have no idea of the views of Mr Bright, but I think that to deny them the right to be councillors is a greater injustice than even the Liberal Democrat youth and students have ever maintained it to be.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have indicated my support on previous occasions for lowering the qualifying age for candidature for public office. It is right that lowering to 18 the age at which one qualifies for election would bring the age into line with the voting age, but there is no reason why the two should be the same. In many countries they are not. My view is that if one lowers one age, one can make a greater case for lowering the qualifying age for public office. The reason is that lowering the voting age to 18 empowers 18 year-olds. When one provides for 18 year-olds to stand for office, one empowers the electorate. The choice available to the electorate is widened.
The important point is not about candidates—they may be immature or they may not be—but about electors deciding whether they want candidates to speak for them. That is the fundamental point. My view is that the matter should be widened as much as possible and then it is up to the electors. If the electorate want someone who is not good, it is entirely up to them. I can see no argument against widening the
536
choice. Although 18 year-olds would be allowed to stand, they would have to go through a certain process before becoming candidates as it is not an open matter like using a vote. I believe that there is a very powerful argument for lowering the qualifying age for candidature for public office. I believe that that case is stronger than the case that was made for lowering the voting age to 18, which took place in 1969. I believe that this change is long overdue and I add my support to the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, there are some serious anomalies concerning the age of candidature. One could make the case that people should hold public office only if they have a certain amount of life experience. I believe that in the United States there are different qualifying ages for being a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate or even for being President. However, it is difficult to see what additional learning experience comes from saying that one has to wait three years after being entitled to vote before one can stand for public office. I believe that it is a matter that should be considered.
I would add a caution—not that any noble Lords have suggested that this would be the case—that somehow this will magically open the floodgates and that large numbers of young people will stand for office. I speak as someone who was at one time the youngest member of my local authority. I do not believe that very different kinds of people will come forward to stand for election. I believe that the signal that it will provide will be extremely important. I hope that the Government will give some indication that this matter is under active consideration.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a probing amendment to see what possibilities there are for lowering the age. I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I do not think that it is something that could simply be incorporated into the Bill without further consideration. It is true that people can do much at 18, including vote and one comes of age at 18, so there is a rationale behind this. Although I do not support the amendment being included in the Bill, it is worth consideration. If the Minister would give such an assurance I am sure that we would all be happy to make observations on it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendment would mean joining together the age of standing for election and the age for voting for local authorities. While saying that we believe that it would be wrong to accept the new clause now—I have some words to say that are good and positive—it would pre-empt the findings of the Electoral Commission, which is currently undertaking a review of the age of candidacy along with the voting age. The review commenced only on 27th February this year. The commission is planning to conduct consultation in the summer and will make its recommendations early next year. At that stage the Government will carefully consider any recommendations that the commission has to make. Given the fact that that work is taking place, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth,

537
said about who becomes empowered under such a change. I freely admit that I am a little conservative about the age in the other place.
I only once wrote a Bill, in 1995. I went to the Library one night and tried to write a Bill from a policy document. It is not the easiest thing to do as a humble Back Bencher, as I was at the time—I had never sat on the Front Bench. The Bill was to convert the Labour Party policy document about elections and changes, one of which was to bring forward the Electoral Commission, to convert the Plant report into legislation. I produced a Bill in March 1995. Part of that proposal was to change the age of being able to be elected. In order to make the change I had to go back and find out where it appeared in legislation. I found out that the current legislation—it shows what a disgrace this place is; it is unbelievable—requiring that one has to be 21 to stand for election to the other place, but it apples also to local government, is contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695. The reference is,
"7 AND 8 WILL. 3 CHAPTER 26".
There is only one section of that Act on the statute hook—Section 7. The side title is,
"Infants not to he elected".
It is worth repeating, and it states,
"And that no person hereafter shall be capable of being elected a member to serve in this or any future Parliament who is not of the age of one-and-twenty years and every election or return of any person under that age is hereby declared to be null and void. And if any such minor hereafter chosen shall presume to sit or vote in Parliament he shall incur such penalties and forfeiture as if he had presumed to sit and vote in Parliament without being chosen or returned".
That is currently the law of this land in 2003. The legislation is over 300 years old. There might be other parts that are older, but I hope that the Electoral Commission gets to work with this, as we certainly need to update our legislation.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it may amuse the Minister to hear that many people were elected under the age of 21 before that Act and became distinguished Members.
Lord Rooker: I am sure that they did.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I was about to make the same point. The Act to which the Minister referred was not fully enforced until after 1832. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. Many were elected under-age, including Charles James Fox, who entered Parliament at the age of 19. I gather that research carried out by the excellent History of Parliament has actually found some Members were returned at the age of 15. So there are precedents if one lowers the age. It might he that one may wish to choose someone below the age of 21.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should not have done that; it was totally out of order. Although we have changed the age of majority from 21 down to 18, in fact there is virtually no age between about the age of five and 21 where there is not some restriction. I remember dealing with the question when I was a Home Office
538
Minister. Someone set all this out for me. There are all kinds of odd age restrictions, even concerning buying chemicals. There is a whole series. There might be a couple of years between five and 21 when there is no restriction on what the individual can do. But all the way up the age range there is a huge number of limitations based on age. It shows just how pathetic this place is at modernising its legislation, if nothing else. To be positive, I hope that with the Electoral Commission's review we shall have a consultation and a report, which will be published next year, and then we shall be able to get our teeth into it.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have made a contribution. It is an unexpected gem at the end of a long afternoon. I am also grateful to the Minister for his positive replies. I am fairly happy to wait for the outcome of the Electoral Commission report—although I note in passing that having had the same legislation on the statute book since 1695 we would not wish rush into anything, would we? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Imposition of borrowing limits]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 5, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
"( ) No regulations may be made under this section unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has consulted such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate,

(b) he has laid before each House of Parliament a report explaining the reasons why he considers it necessary that the regulations be made, and

(c) the report has been approved by resolutions of each House of Parliament.

( ) Section 122(1) and (2) do not apply to regulations made under this section."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. The clause lays down restrictions on local authorities' ability to borrow. To borrow was one of the great flexibilities and freedoms that the Bill was intended to promote, and it is one of the areas upon which local authorities have hung their collective hats and hopes for the future.
Clause 1 gives local authorities the power to borrow. Clause 2 promptly reduces that and states that it can be limited. The amendment seeks to restrain the Secretary of State from rushing in too liberally to limit that power. We understand that the Secretary of State may have reasons—for example, macro-national reasons—that require all borrowing to be curtailed in some way. The power in the Bill would enable him to curb that borrowing.
However, we believe that before any such necessary curbing is brought forward, either for individual local authorities or in general, that there should be discussions with the local authorities—either with the Local Authority Association or individual local authorities—which might find this power reduced.
Under the amendment, we would also expect the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and explain why this borrowing power was going to be reduced.

539
We would further ask were it to happen that it should be introduced only by affirmative resolution, so the House has another opportunity to discuss the issue.
As I said at the beginning, this power to borrow has become a major feature of the freedoms and flexibilities which local authorities are looking forward to having. So any restriction of it will be—and should be—taken extremely seriously. It is for that reason that we move the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as in Committee, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness. As she said, the provision gives with one hand and takes away with the other which seems to be clad with a rather tougher glove in a tougher fist. It is a pity because the Government have made so much of building a good relationship with local government. That has been referred to throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
The Government's attitude is that they want to recognise local government's responsibilities; they want to allow it to take its own decisions; and they want to reserve to themselves the right to deal with authorities which are in difficulty or which are not doing so well. Of course we have our own interpretation of the possibilities allowed by some of these provisions. But, that is not the way to build the relationship, and certainly not the way to bring struggling local authorities up to scratch.
I have had difficulty throughout with Clause 4(2) to (6), including what still seems to me to be an inconsistency between subsections (1) and (2), that the whole of this is based on the Secretary of State being able to limit borrowing for national economic reasons. One understands the rationale for that, but under subsection (2) the Secretary of State is able to set limits on borrowing by a particular local authority. I do not find those two points lie comfortably or logically with one another.
The noble Baroness has covered both the philosophical and practical points well. We support her.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to add one further point in support of my noble friend Baroness Hanham. We discussed this in Grand Committee and I should like the Minister to clarify this point. We have a prudential borrowing regime that is accepted by the professional bodies. We spoke about this at considerable length in Grand Committee. This regime is generally supported by local government. That should be enough power for the Government. The whole point of the new system is that local authorities would not be able to borrow if they could not afford it. We all recognise that this regime could be a good way forward for capital borrowing in local government. This particular power is encapsulated in the prudential borrowing regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described the Minister's approach as "iron fisted". I believe it could be a slightly sinister approach where Ministers could target particular
540
authorities when they should already be covered by the borrowing regime. We shall come back to this again because we still have not had a satisfactory response.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment is identical to one put down by the Conservatives in Grand Committee. It was supported by the Liberal Democrats as they said this afternoon and reported in Hansard cols. GC90 to GC92. It partly reflects the recommendations in Paragraph 14 of the report on the draft Bill by the Transport, Local Government and Regions Committee. The amendment has integrity behind it. However, its main effect is to require the approval of both Houses of Parliament—and require local government to be consulted—before regulations are made setting a national borrowing limit under Clause 4(1). The ODPM response was that no statutory requirement for parliamentary approval was necessary, given that any national limit would be implementing policies on public expenditure that had already received parliamentary scrutiny.
If noble Lords opposite think about it, that is a very logical and sound approach. I am surprised that they have chosen to argue their case in the way that they have. I think back to the Conservative period of government. In local government we were concerned about the impact of the very tight capital and revenue expenditure limits to which we were subjected. Although I found them very hard to live with, they were a logical part of a national economic strategy and they were argued in those terms. We were told that local government should be no different from the rest of the public sector and that the public sector had to play its part in a particular economic approach. One can argue about the ideology and the principles behind it, but it rested on logic.
I am surprised at the way in which the Opposition have moved this amendment. It would have—will have—far-reaching economic implications. It is essential that the freedom to borrow is balanced by safeguards to protect both the national economy and local taxpayers. Clause 4 gives the Government reserve powers that I do not see as sinister. Governments often have reserve powers in these situations enabling them to impose borrowing limits which would override the affordable borrowing limits set by authorities themselves under Clause 3. But those powers are for national economic reasons—the state of the economy.
The amendment has other unacceptable side effects. By deleting Clause 4(2) it would prevent a limit being set for an individual authority to stop imprudent borrowing. This would remove a valuable safeguard for local taxpayers. By deleting subsection 4(3) it would prevent different limits being set for different kinds of borrowing. It would remove a flexibility that could benefit local authorities. By deleting subsections (4) to (6), the amendment would prevent authorities from transferring spare borrowing headroom between and among themselves, something which I am sure noble Lords opposite would see as a useful and valuable flexibility within the community of local government.

541
Moreover, the amendment also seeks to disapply Section 122 which allows different provisions to be made in regulations for different classes of authorities. We think that that could be needed to spread more fairly and properly the impact of any national limit. For all those reasons, we think that the amendment is unwise.
I turn now to the points raised about consultation. It needs to be said simply and honestly that of course we consult with local government on matters relating to financial regulation. We do so all the time. Indeed, many noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both the Opposition Benches are well aware of that through their long involvement in local government. We listen to and take such consultation seriously because we want to get things right. We accept the advice we are given by local government representatives because, after all, they deal with these matters day in and day out. They have a clear sight and understanding of what goes on in local government. Consultation is a given and we try to ensure that it is as open and transparent as possible.
Taking all these reasons together, I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that noble Lords, in particular those on the Conservative Benches, will understand why we feel that under the circumstances this amendment is exceptionally unwise.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am conscious of the response he gave in our previous debate in Grand Committee on 2nd June 2003 at col. GC 92 of Hansard. At that point he made it clear that, with regard to consulting local authorities, the Government had given a firm commitment to do that. However, as I understand it, that commitment applies to general local authorities and does not deal with what is set out in Clause 4(2) on the direction to a particular local authority.
I do not think it would be possible to impose a borrowing limit without some form of consultation, but having said that, perhaps it could be done. It may be a power that the Secretary of State will take to himself so that he could decide to impose it. That is not an unreasonable assumption. However, working as always on the assumption that, while Ministers in this House are nothing but reasonable and understanding, I am not so sure about the other place; and it would not be a Minister in this House who made the decision. Therefore under the terms of Clause 4(2), I hope to see that individual local authorities will be consulted.
Of course we understand that, in a national crisis, borrowing limits might have to be imposed. However, Clause 1 is very specific and has come to be regarded as a serious totem by local government: it will now have the power to borrow. That is a very new and fresh responsibility and it is one that has been warmly accepted. Then to put caveats on that freedom requires the most thorough justification—I think only for national economic reasons. Within those, there has to be proper discussion with local authorities.
542
I hear what the Minister has said and I have read his remarks made on the last occasion. I appreciate that he has given us a full response. For today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Control of credit arrangements]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 8 which deals with credit arrangements such as leasing and hire purchase contracts. It empowers the Government to make regulations about the cost of such transactions so that they can be treated like borrowing and brought under the prudential and any other national limits set in accordance with Clauses 3 and 4. All of that is essential to the new system. However, Clause 8(4) contains a further regulation-making power, allowing us to impose additional restrictions on the power of a local authority to enter into credit arrangements.
An Opposition amendment in Grand Committee sought to delete subsection (4). In resisting the amendment, we tried to allay concerns about the scope of the power. To explain how we intended to use the power, we drew the Committee's attention to regulation 7 in the draft capital regulations, which we have placed in the Library.
We had in mind one, specific objective—to retain the prohibition that has existed since 1990 on using credit for anything other than the acquisition of capital assets. Long-term credit like borrowing should be used only to meet capital needs and not to pay for services and running costs. At present, that restriction appears in primary legislation, but has given rise to some technical difficulties. We therefore felt that the rule could be more effectively dealt with by regulations, and that is the reason for Clause 8(4).
The debate in Grand Committee was most helpful. We fully understand the anxieties about the provision. It is drafted in broad terms and could conceivably be used in the future to achieve ends very different from our present intentions. Though we resisted the amendment on the day, the debate persuaded us to reconsider the means of implementing this policy objective.
It is a key aim of the Bill, and one that I know has general support, to base the capital regime as far as possible on standard accounting principles rather than on special rules devised by the Government. We have therefore been examining the accounting background and we are now satisfied that modern accounting practice offers sufficient safeguard against the use of credit for revenue purposes.
An authority receiving some form of service and having the fees deferred for several years would be required to make a charge to revenue during those years, so there would be no perverse incentive to acquire services on credit. We believe, therefore, that we can now do without the additional legislative safeguard. This means that regulation 7 can be deleted from the draft capital finance regulations and

543
therefore the power to make such a regulation is no longer needed. Accordingly, the amendment seeks to delete subsection (4), which I hope will meet with the support of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that it meets with the approval of those Members of the House who are left, who consist largely of those who spoke against this provision at the previous stage. I am delighted that the Government have taken this view of the matter. It was probably, although I have not gone back and checked Hansard, one of those occasions when at least one of us asked what might happen if the other lot were in control. I very much welcome what the Government have done. I hope that it does not sound patronising if I say that it is a very mature response to the situation—I do not mean that to be patronising.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister has made a welcome contribution to this debate. I thank him for his efforts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Budget Monitoring: Greater London Authority]:
Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we had a considerable discussion in Committee on the use of capital receipts. We discussed at length the difficulties of part of those capital receipts being clawed back, and we also discussed the problems associated with local authorities having to hand over capital receipts and then having insufficient money to maintain the stock that they still held. One of the serious things that has happened over the years is that where local authorities have been responsible for housing stock they have not had sufficient capital to maintain it.
The amendments are intended to deal with that, especially Amendment No. 32, so that where a local authority is to hand over capital receipts to the Secretary of State, 50 per cent of that should be either held back by the local authority or returned to it specifically to deal with the cost of any capital works to any building or land which a local authority has a duty to maintain, or for a local registered landlord to have access to some of the money to repair property that is being used, effectively, for social housing purposes. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the intention of my amendments, which are grouped, is similar, although they are couched differently.
Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the right to pool capital receipts—75 per cent of receipts from the sale of council houses and 50 per cent from other assets. We debated that in Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, argued that authorities' receipts from right-to-buy sales were a windfall and that the income does not arise from active asset management
544
but from tenants' decisions to buy their homes. To many of those involved, that does not justify sequestration of all the receipts for redistribution.
Local authorities are under constant pressure to provide new, affordable housing and to make the necessary investment to bring houses up to the decent home standards. The more homes that an authority sells, the greater the need for use of capital receipts. Our amendments are a compromise. They are intended to try to persuade the Government that if local authorities are going to use the receipts for housing purposes, they should not be sequestered by the Government and redistributed.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also argued that redistribution is an essential part of the housing capital finance system. It is a complex system that already incorporates an element of redistribution, but it is rather different: it does not take money from local authorities to redistribute it; it just does not distribute so much money in the first place.
There is concern about the matter. Even if the Minister is not minded to agree to any of our amendments—they may not be perfectly worded—I hope that he will agree to the principle. Even if he does not, those who will be affected want to know how the Government intend to roll forward their proposals. How will the pooled housing capital receipts be redistributed? We understand that those figures will not be available until the autumn. Many people also fear that the Government may take real money away from authorities and that any funds returned will be in the form of approval to borrow rather than actual grant.
The Government have made transitional arrangements. We understand that in the first year 75 per cent of what authorities pay into the capital receipts pool will be returned to them, provided that it is spent on housing; and that that will fall to 50 per cent and 25 per cent in succeeding years.
I am also grateful to the Minister for a copy of the letter that he sent to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, in which he outlines a little more of his thinking. He states:
"It is wrong that a local authority rich in receipts with a relatively low housing need uses those receipts to artificially reduce their council tax while a less fortunate authority with far greater housing need is starved of funds".
I do not think that any of us disagree with that statement, but I remind the Minister that we have built the fewest number of houses since 1924 in this country. It is not houses in the private sector that make up the reduction. We have been building similar numbers of homes in the private sector year on year. However, it is in the public sector that housing has not been built. The right reverend Prelate goes on to say that without pooling receipts for all authorities, the alternatives are either higher taxes, less investment and cuts in other programmes. The programme has been cut for at least the past 20 years.
If the Government are short of money, I would remind the Minister that since this Government came to power, house price increases have meant that their

545
take from stamp duty has been extra billions every year. Therefore, I do not find a shortage of money a compelling argument.
I hope that the Minister will look at this favourably. It seems to me that because of the cutbacks in social housing, every authority is having a problem providing affordable homes, particularly for key workers. They should be allowed to keep that money if they are investing it in affordable housing.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I appreciate we have turned to an issue that we discussed in Committee. However, that is not a complaint on my part because this is a very important issue for local government.
These amendments are concerned with the treatment of capital receipts and limiting the housing capital receipts that may be subject to pooling or removing the power to pool housing capital receipts altogether.
Perhaps I may briefly outline how it appears to us that each of the amendments would operate. Amendment No. 29 would remove the Secretary of State's power to pool capital receipts. This would result in many authorities not getting the resources they need to meet the pressing demand for housing. That would be unacceptable.
The redistribution of housing capital receipts has been, and will remain, a fundamental principle of housing capital finance. It is right that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of council housing is available for use in the areas of greatest housing need. The current arrangements do this by requiring local authorities to set aside a percentage of their housing capital receipts.
The flaw in this system is that debt-free authorities are exempt. They do not have to set aside any of the capital receipts they receive and therefore they do not contribute to the redistribution system that lies at the heart of housing finance. Unlike other authorities, they hold on to the receipts and they can use them for whatever purpose they want. As I said repeatedly in Committee, such authorities did not manage the acquisition of receipts. The receipts were a result of the decision of the tenants, not a result of prudent management by the council. These funds are generated not because of good management and planning.
Redistribution must apply to all if it is to be fair to all. It is unacceptable that some authorities should have more resources to spend than others regardless of their needs, but simply because they are debt-free and happen by chance to be rich in right-to-buy receipts. Other authorities—of all political persuasions—that have debt and lower capital receipts but greater housing investment need will lose out if they are denied redistribution. Their citizens will also lose out. That is indefensible.
It is right that the resources generated by the sale of council housing stock should be recycled and made available for the areas of greatest need. This amendment would remove our ability to do that. The alternatives are higher taxes, less investment or cuts in other programmes.
546
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said but we are putting things right with the sustainable communities plan that my right honourable friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, is taking forward.
Amendment No. 32 is a half-way house. It would oblige the Secretary of State to hand back 50 per cent of pooled capital receipts to local authorities, but again with absolutely no regard to their relative housing need This would, at a stroke, remove £600 million from the amount available for redistribution to housing authorities for investment in social housing. The effect would be the same as the amendment to which I have just referred. Those authorities who, through no fault of their own, do not happen to have large amounts of right-to-buy receipts falling in their laps will suffer.
That the funds would be ring-fenced for housing is neither here nor there. The redistribution of resources has to be targeted to housing need. The amendment does not do that.
As I have said on many occasions, it is right that the resources generated by the sale of council housing stock should be recycled and made available to the areas of greatest need. It is right that the proportion of capital receipts to be recovered is 75 per cent for dwellings and 50 per cent for land and other assets. That mirrors the level of set-aside that exists now and strikes the correct balance between the amount to be recovered to the pool and the amount that remains available to the local authority for capital use.
Amendment No. 30, like Amendment No. 29, seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to pool capital receipts, with the negative consequences that I have outlined. However, the amendment goes further than simply denying the authorities the resources they require to meet pressing housing needs. It would allow authorities to use all the receipts from the sale of council housing for any purpose they see fit. For instance, they could bank the receipts and use the interest generated to pay for the running costs of council services and so reduce the level of council tax. As a late eminent Member of the House once said, that is selling off the family silver—or, in this case, much needed social housing to meet ordinary day-to-day expenditure. It is just not fair.
Amendment No. 31 would omit subsection (5) from Clause 11 so that the Secretary of State could not set-off any amount payable under the clause against any amount he is liable to pay the authority. It has been suggested that subsection (5) is a power enabling abuse of the pooling system for political ends. That is not true.
As I explained in Grand Committee, subsection (5) is simply an administrative measure. It is designed to deal with the situation where a local authority is liable to pay the Secretary of State a sum of money and, at the same time, he is due to pay it a sum of money. Clause 11(5) simply allows us to give the authority the difference between the two. That then saves the authority the trouble of making a cash transfer. I emphasise the point that it would have no other financial effect on the authority and would not affect

547
the level of overall resources available to that authority. It is not a back-door method of penalising the authority in any way, shape or form.
Removal of the clause would not stop either the payment of capital receipts to the Secretary of State or the payment of subsidy grant to authorities, but simply make the process more administratively burdensome. I cannot believe that that is the intention.
I appreciate that I have used exactly the same arguments as in Committee. The trouble is that the same amendments have been tabled and we have not changed our arguments, except. of course, where we have accepted what was said in Committee—but in this case we have not.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. When we bring forward amendments for the second time, even more questions spring to mind in regard to the whole policy.
The right to buy has been strongly promulgated by some authorities and not very much by others. There is a big comparison to be made between those authorities which have right-to-buy receipts and those which have not. The question is whether those authorities which do not have receipts have followed the policy in a way which would enable them to have such capital receipts. As to those authorities which have capital receipts as a result of giving people the right to buy—and those people wishing to buy and doing so—there is a big argument as to why those capital receipts should be taken away from them.
There is still an argument in regard to the maintenance of property associated with affordable housing. Even within debt-free councils there will be properties that they still own and need to maintain.
1 hear what the Minister says. I have grave concerns still about the whole policy, but I shall not do anything further tonight. I thank the Minister for what he said, but 1 am not sure that we will not return to this issue at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Trafficking in People
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Elles Baroness Elles asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are considering in order to combat illicit trafficking in people.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in recent years the number of young people brought into the United Kingdom for prostitution has escalated exponentially, as have the financial gains for those who trafficked them. It
548
is alleged that the sums involved have now reached such an astronomical figure annually that it is about the same figure as that realised from drug trafficking.
In March last year, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, introduced a debate on trafficking in children. In a distinguished speech, he made four proposals touching on support services, reflection delay. victim protection and tackling trafficking at source. I shall be touching on those issues in the time available and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for taking part in this short debate tonight.
First, Her Majesty's Government should be congratulated on recognising the importance and size of this problem by the rapid introduction of Sections 143 and 145 into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act in November last year. Inevitably, however. they are limited by the scope of the Act.
Secondly, the introduction of Clauses 58 to 61 in the Sexual Offences Bill, now passed to another place for consideration, are also to be welcomed. The clauses, replacing and enlarging on those in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, go some way to meeting the obligations imposed by the European framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings. This decision is to be implemented into international legislation by July next year.
Many reports have been written during the past three years covering aspects of the problems and reflecting changes in the general attitude to those who were brought to the UK to be used as prostitutes. They were termed illegal immigrants and when identified were immediately sent back to their countries of origin, as they are still being sent back today. In many cases, they are inveigled into coming into the EU from conditions of poverty, with the hopes and aspirations of raising their standards of living, earning good wages and being employed in a variety of jobs. A more recent approach has been to recognise these people not as criminals, but as victims.
As we know, these young girls, who are mainly between the ages of 15 and 23, may come with legal documents, but these, including passports and other documents, which may be genuine of false, are removed from them by traffickers. Many of these girls are sold to people in this country. locked up for a period and often physically abused and ill-treated, before being set up in flats or other accommodation and forced into prostitution. The money that they earn is seized by their employers on the grounds of repaying travel expenses to the UK, rent of their accommodation, and domestic costs, and many have little option but to carry on the same work. The travel costs can vary from £1,500 to an enormous £22,000 in the case of girls brought from China. The chances of ever repaying such amounts are indeed remote.
Girls are sold on to prostitute rings or sent to a string of brothels in the suburbs. Soho is by no means the only area known for prostitution: it is a widespread phenomenon throughout other cities in the UK, including specifically Edinburgh and Glasgow, to where large numbers of Chinese have been trafficked.
The Metropolitan Police clubs and vice squad smashed some groups last year. Chief Superintendent Chris Bradford said:
"These women were shamelessly exploited for commercial gain"
Some provincial forces, however, have been withdrawing their officers from active participation in dealing with trafficking due to a lack of resources and an increase in local crime. They occasionally co-operate on a case by case basis. Sentences in such cases have ranged from three and a half years to a maximum of five years imprisonment. In practice, however, such sentences are halved, making them negligible. The maximum sentence has now been raised to 14 years under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act and the Sexual Offences Bill.
From March this year, a pilot scheme has been introduced to provide a safe house under the guidance of Eaves Housing. Various proposals from different organisations suggest ways of dealing with how to help victims of trafficking. The proposal under the European Framework decision refers to the safeguarding of victims who are willing to assist the authorities in the prosecution of the traffickers involved. The UN protocol on trafficking makes it clear that enforcement cannot be achieved only by legislation.
In Italy, there is another approach. In southern Italy, for example, victims are given permits to stay in safe houses for up to six months, regardless of whether they agree to assist in the prosecution procedures. That reflective period therefore does not insist on participation in the process, but is a means of extracting the individual from an intolerable situation without imposing legislative co-operation. I feel that that proposal should be encouraged and copied.
Belgium and the Netherlands have also introduced measures to safeguard and protect victims from their enforced trade, and it is understood that those are proving to be successful. The British Reflex programme, launched in 2000, is also to be welcomed. It tackles the problem both at source and in the transit countries. In the UK, however, it has been approaching the matter from a different angle. It seeks first and foremost not the protection of victims, but, first, to reduce the profits made by criminal gangs; secondly, to increase the risks they take; and, thirdly, to reduce the opportunities for exploitation.
Filially, as a further example, in December 2002, nine governments in south-eastern Europe, which are to be commended warmly, including Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Macedonia, supported a statement on commitments to legalise the status of trafficked persons.
A summary of recommendations set out in Anti-Slavery International's publication Human Traffic, Human Rights makes a valuable contribution to meeting the diverse ways of handling trafficking. Among the 45 recommendations I would point to just three.
The first is that government agencies should develop guidelines and procedures on treatment of trafficked person by law enforcement officials, together with the NGOs dealing with trafficked persons on a day to day
550
basis. Secondly, a range of measures of protection should be made available to victims and witnesses, including both informal ones, such as access to police, and formal ones, such as secure housing. Thirdly, for victims willing to return to their country of origin, immigration and police services should make available to trafficked persons contact information on NGOs, language and interpretation facilities and social welfare organisations which can assist them on their return.
In conclusion, I should like to put some questions to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—who I hope has already had a copy of the questions. First, has any decision been taken on the introduction of registration cards or entitlement cards? Secondly, how many victims have so far been housed with Eaves Housing as a result of the pilot project, from 10th March 2003, with provision of safe housing for women victims of trafficking? I know that the project has begun, but I am wondering how far it has got. Thirdly, are relations with governments and NGOs of originating countries being developed both bilaterally and multilaterally—which is greatly important for those being sent back to their original countries? Fourthly, are new measures being considered in handling traffickers and affected people from, for example, the Baltic states and central and south-east Europe following enlargement of the EU in May 2004? Finally, are Her Majesty's Government indeed opting out of any of the provisions in the European framework decision?
I look forward to the comments of noble Lords and to answers from the Minister.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for introducing this important debate.
Trafficking is a horrendous crime against human beings which, as the noble Baroness outlined, has become a global problem. Over the years, your Lordships' House has taken a great interest in the issue. Numerous Questions on trafficking have been tabled and important debates have expressed concern about this growing problem. Although I have been aware of the problem of trafficking, it was not until I attended the Third Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Parliamentarians last year in Madrid—at which I was accompanied by the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Thomas—that I realised what a global predicament it is. The law needs to be strengthened, and there are moves in that direction.
In November 2002, Bob Ainsworth MP, the Home Office Minister, said:
"Forming an accurate estimate of levels of trafficking in people is problematic due to the hidden nature of the act. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study 'Stopping Traffic' published in 2000, indicated that the number of women and children trafficked into the United Kingdom for the purposes of sexual exploitation, was likely to be in the range of 140 to 1,400 per year".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/02; col. 130W.]

551
But it is not only in sexual exploitation where trafficking occurs. An article on trafficking in the Observer in May of this year stated,
"Children are being trafficked into domestic service in Britain to clean houses and do chores without pay. The victims are mostly West African girls lured on the promise of a western education only to find themselves forced to do heavy chores for wealthy families … Ministers will now act to close a loophole identified by the UN children's charity UNICEF which is preparing a major study of child trafficking to be published this summer".
The Government's consultation document, published in February 2002, entitled Secure Borders, Safe Havens, states that,
"Trafficking for labour exploitation not only penalises the direct victim but also works against the competitiveness of decent employers who comply with employment law. We will strengthen our means of tackling this problem by introducing legislation which will make trafficking of people for the purposes of labour exploitation a specific criminal offence".
In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—I am looking forward to hearing his speech later tonight—asking whether the Government will publish a Bill in draft form criminalising trafficking in people for the purposes of exploitation, other than sexual, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said,
"The Government has promised to introduce legislation on trafficking for both labour and sexual exploitation. Offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation are contained in the Sexual Offences Bill.
"Legislation covering trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits".
Can the Minister say whether the Government have made further progress on this matter?
This topic is now high on the agenda of matters of great concern. Rarely a week goes by when there is not a new item or a radio or television article about the exploitation of people. Highlighting these issues; drawing the attention of Members of Parliament and Government makes us all much more conscious of the need to take action.
There are horrendous stories of what happens to women and children when they are the victims of trafficking. Perhaps I may give two examples. One appeared in the Independent last month. The headline was "Eight children destined for the sex trade". The article states,
"Eight African children have been taken into care by social workers who believed they were destined for the British sex industry. Child protection agencies have become increasingly concerned that children from African countries are being brought into the country to work as domestic slaves or prostitutes".
Wendy Shepherd, who runs the project Sexually Exploited Children on the Streets, said,
"These children are being used as sex slaves. It is sexual abuse, and they are having their freedom taken away … it is a wide ranging problem and these children are being used like a commodity. Those men who use them for child sex must be apprehended".
Another example in the Guardian in March of this year has the headline "Sex in Soho". It states that,
"increasingly, coercion, human trafficking and violence dominate the UK sex industry. This domestic human rights issue fails to arouse crusading zeal. Women in the sex trade however unwillingly they arrived there, don't attract any high-minded concern".
552
But I do not believe that that is the case in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the Minister will refute that allegation. It is of grave concern. I have looked through what has taken place in this House in the past few years. The subject has been raised on many occasions.
The journalist goes on to say:
"Many are kept captive, having been tricked, or even abducted and sexually brutalised. Police say women trafficked for this purpose are now a 'predominant feature' of Soho's off-street trade. Stories surfacing from these women are barely credible in 21st century Britain … Last year 'Natasha' gave evidence against a pimp. She was aged 15 and had been forced to have sex with customers for 20 hours a day"—
which is absolutely horrendous—
"earning her 'owner' £500 a day. She had come from a broken and impoverished home in Romania, been tempted by offers of a better life, and ended up trafficked, via the Balkans, to sex slavery in London".
Simon Humphreys, head of Scotland Yard's vice squad, said:
"This is a shocking subjugation of human rights, akin to slavery".
Anti-Slavery International says:
"Human trafficking for the sex industry is not the same as pimping, nor is it the same as people smuggling. This is enslavement, subjugation; people kept in captivity, and abused in extreme ways".
Some of those activities are going on literally only a short distance from Parliament. Many noble Lords speaking tonight will have much greater knowledge and experience on this topic than I. I look forward to their contributions and also to what the Minister has to report on the Government's progress.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we have discussed the menace of people-trafficking on a number of occasions. Most recently the subject came up in the debate on the report last month on Europol of Sub-Committee F, chaired by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. The Minister who replied said that an effective system of co-operation throughout Europe was essential in the fight against trans-national crime including people-trafficking, and that the UK has played a leading role in supporting Europol with resources and intelligence. What he did not say, however, was whether the Government think that Europe is getting to grips with the huge business of people smuggling, said to be worth an annual £8 billion throughout the world.
A story in the Observer last Sunday referred to the conviction in Holland of "Sister Ping", whose organisation is said to have been responsible for smuggling 200,000 Chinese into Europe, and was also alleged to have been involved in the deaths of 56 people who were found asphyxiated in a lorry at Dover two years ago. They say that although the woman is now behind bars, the business continues, and that employers in East Anglia are paying trafficked workers £2 per hour.
When that is happening on such a scale, and as blatantly as is alleged by the Observer, it should not be too difficult for the police and the immigration

553
authorities to pick up the migrants themselves, but getting the bosses is another matter. Does the Minister say to the House that the police have adequate resources to tackle such crime and, in particular, do they have proper resources to deal with the Chinese community, including Chinese language speakers?
Neither China nor the UK has signed the Migrant Workers Convention, which came into force on 1st July. Can the Minister say what our objections to it arc? Is it that we consider our existing legislation adequate to protect migrant workers from exploitation, although it may not always be well enough enforced? In occupations such as seasonal agriculture, and the hotel and catering industry, it is possible even for workers recruited in less affluent EU countries such as Portugal to face abuse and exploitation.
The Ethical Trading Initiative is co-ordinating a working group of stakeholders including Defra and the Home Office to look at the feasibility of a licensing and registration scheme for the gangmasters who recruit foreign labour for the food and agriculture industry. Could the Minister give us a progress report on that work, and tell us whether Ministers think that a statutory or voluntary scheme will be needed?
I turn to the appalling phenomenon of the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation. The US State Department produces an annual trafficking in persons report, assessing the efforts that countries are making to stop the business, and threatening withdrawal of US aid from those that are doing nothing. But some of them are already pariahs. Burma, for example, whose Government use forced labour internally, is a source country for women and girls forced into prostitution in the neighbouring countries. Some traffickers have been prosecuted, but corruption is a huge problem and many officials at local and regional level are suspected of turning a blind eye.
Clearly the UK does not have the resources to conduct a comprehensive survey of its own on what is happening in the source countries. But if we collaborate with others in the EU, we should be able to make joint assessments—trying to add to the information already collected by the State Department, rather than simply duplicating it. That would be a useful area of co-operation between Europe and the US which the Government might consider. In addition, Europe might pick up and resolve some of the criticisms identified by Human Rights Watch: that the State Department gives undue credit for minimal efforts, and that it ignores government practices, such as summary deportation and incarceration of the victims.
Much has been said in previous debates about the difficulty of persuading trafficked women to give evidence against the people who run this evil business. That may be an insuperable obstacle to prosecutions so long as the victims have no security. That matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. Such women may feel that, as illegal entrants, they will be shipped back immediately to their country of origin
554
if they come forward. Therefore, it is important that, if they seek protection from the authorities as victims of exploitation, they are given a period of grace to recover from the experience. The noble Baroness mentioned the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy as examples of countries which have such mechanisms. It would be useful to know from the Minister whether we have studied the procedures in those countries. And what is the view of the Government about working towards a uniform set of rules for the treatment of women victims throughout the EU?
I know that it has been suggested by some EU governments that grace periods would lead to false claims being made by women who were trying to get around immigration controls. In the three countries mentioned, that has not happened. Mention has been made of a draft EU directive on short-term residence permits, providing a very modest level of support for trafficking victims. However, I understand that thus far member states have not been able to agree to that. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether Britain is one of the objectors and, if so, why.
On the sordid and unbelievable offence of trafficking in children, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, much anecdotal evidence. She mentioned the particularly nasty story about the eight African children who were taken into care by social workers in Newcastle after they were discovered and were feared to be destined for sexual exploitation.
As has been mentioned, UNICEF says that children are also being brought to Europe for use as domestic drudges. The Climbié inquiry was told that entrusting children to relatives living in Europe who can offer financial and educational opportunities unavailable in the Ivory Coast—and presumably in other West African countries—was not uncommon. But, although the terms of reference of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, were,
"to establish the circumstances leading to and surrounding the death of Victoria Climbié",
he did not look at the risk to children of being brought here for exploitation. Have any fresh instructions been given to immigration officers on how to verify claimed relationships when returning residents bring previously unknown children with them? What are the arrangements for persons granted leave to remain here to declare any children in advance in their home countries? And what are the rules for dealing with unaccompanied children who are met at the airport by persons claiming to be their relatives?Both noble Baronesses mentioned the epic study by Anti-Slavery International, published last year, which made no fewer than 45 recommendations for combating people-trafficking. Your Lordships have made it clear on many occasions that they support the recommendations and that they want a more vigorous attitude from the Government. I hope that this debate will help to convince the Government that we should act promptly to stamp out the disgusting business of people-trafficking.
8.4 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I give my warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for inviting me to join this debate. I declare an interest as a council member of Anti-Slavery International, and I firmly support what the noble Baroness said.
My purpose in entering the debate is to draw attention to the continuing plight of the victims of trafficking, even after they have been identified. I also want to point out the inadequacy of the Government's present policies and the wide disparity between promises and practice. While governments such as ours now genuinely recognise the problem of trafficking and are going well beyond the signing of UN protocols, they do not in most cases accept the necessity for national legislation to guarantee the safety and protection of those victims. Worse, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, some European governments are allowing asylum considerations to override international law and natural justice.
I shall resist the temptation to describe the causes of trafficking; namely, the poverty that drives so many victims and even their families into the arms of criminals. Our own Department for International Development is attempting to address those causes. In Asia, for example, it supports the International Labour Organisation in Laos, Thailand, China, Cambodia and Vietnam. In the Balkans, it has supported the International Organisation for Migration in training the various agencies dealing with trafficked people, including police officers, social workers and members of the legal profession. The training of professionals is the key to all that. ASI itself is active in capacity building and training in many countries, and more recently in developing advocacy at a European level. In March, it adderessed a seminar in Paris organised by the Comité Contre l'Esclavage Moderne, attended by French officials, police and NGOs.
I shall give just one example provided by ASI, which demonstrates the problem we have in Europe, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, no one is really sure of its size. It is the case of a 17 year-old girl—I will call her Elena—who was abducted by a group of traffickers in Albania and kept in a flat for two months. During that time, she was beaten and raped. Another man came and made arrangements for her to go abroad with him. At the time, Elena thought that she had been rescued, but her new "boyfriend" was another trafficker who, once they were in the UK, forced her into prostitution. Whenever she tried to refuse, she was beaten. The money, of course, went to her trafficker.
After about a year, Elena was picked up in a police raid. She had been told to say nothing to the police, and she was worried about getting her family into trouble. She was held at Heathrow for two days while immigration officers arranged to have her sent back to Albania. No arrangements were made for her to be seen by an NGO either in the UK or after she arrived back in Albania.
556
Elena went back to live with her family, but soon received threatening calls from the traffickers. Her family wanted her to go to the police, but she did not trust them. Concerned for herself and the safety of her family, she decided to let the gang take her back to the UK. A few months after she had been trafficked back to the UK for the second time, she managed to escape. She made an application to stay in the UK, but that was rejected by the Home Office. She has since won her appeal, which has also been challenged by the Home Office.
Last month, ASI presented evidence to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Based on a 10-country policy study, the report of that sub-commission showed that, due to the failure of governments to take appropriate action, many trafficked people continue to suffer human rights abuses even after they escape from their traffickers.
The forms of assistance are spelled out in Articles 6 and 7 of the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000), which has been signed by 117 nations. They include residency status, housing, information and counselling, medical and legal assistance, and employment and training opportunities. They also cover areas of witness protection.
Under international law, as has been said, victims of crime such as trafficking require and deserve a period of initial protection and support. Many are forced into it. It is not their fault that they have crossed an international frontier illegally. In ASI's view, there must be a period of at least three months of reflection to allow for proper investigation.
The provision of temporary residence permits beyond the reflection period is equally important in ensuring the protection of trafficked people's rights. However, ASI says:
"In most cases access to the residency permit is made conditional on co-operation in criminal investigations against traffickers"—
already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—
"and is not available on the basis of serious harm suffered or the risk of harm upon removal".
That is a terrible indictment of our legal system and it shows what a contradiction there can be between criminal law and our interpretation of the law on human rights.
The EU Council framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings obliges all EU states to harmonise their domestic criminal legislation on trafficking by 2004, including adopting a common definition consistent with the protocol and establishing minimum penalties for trafficking. However, while the EU recognises that such harmonised definitions and penalties are essential in combating trafficking, it has not yet accepted that high standards of support and protection for victims are equally important.

557
In Italy the definition is broader, as has been mentioned. Under the Italian system residency permits are provided on the basis that a victim of severe exploitation is in danger as a result of an escape or because that person is co-operating in criminal proceedings. There is also some provision for employment for victims who stay in Italy. The Italian model is not comprehensive, but it does at least recognise that such support should not be conditional on co-operation in prosecutions. That approach apparently has the full support of prosecutors and has helped to ensure greater co-operation with the authorities in Italy because victims feel more secure.
Perhaps the Minister could confirm that this model is being seriously studied and emulated in the Home Office. There is no evidence that any victims of trafficking are seeking to evade asylum laws. There is, on the contrary, a clear link in ASI's view between the provision of services to victims and the securing of convictions of traffickers. That is a very important point. I submit that a greater emphasis on protection, as intended by the UN protocol but not yet legally binding, would appeal to many European governments in their search for the perpetrators of these appalling crimes.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for initiating this debate. I am pleased that in January of this year the Government introduced into the House of Lords the Sexual Offences Bill, which includes legislation to strengthen offences to deal with sexual exploitation. In addition to the new offences relating to sexual exploitation of children, there will be new offences relating to the sexual exploitation of adults and a new offence of trafficking people for sexual exploitation.
Children are frequently victims of trafficking for the sex trade. Many people will automatically associate that trade with the sexual exploitation of girls but too frequently it also affects boys. We as a civilised society should be determined to end this appalling way of life for all vulnerable children in the UK and throughout the world. I congratulate the Government on working with non-governmental organisations, including Anti-Slavery International, as well as law enforcement agencies, which look at ways of delivering support for victims.
I have worked very closely with Vital Voices founded by Senator Hilary Clinton and directed by Melanne Veveer. Vital Voices has been running programmes since 2002 in countries all over the world where women are vulnerable to such treatment. I welcome the Home Office's new pilot scheme with housing, which will offer support, counselling and assistance to women, in particular to those who are willing to co-operate with the police in order to track down the traffickers and they will not be in fear of being deported. There is a need for those who know about victims to speak out, confident in the knowledge that this will not lead to further victimisation of victims.
558
We should ask ourselves why, in 2003, trafficking remains a global problem, embedded in a web of poverty, conflict, population displacement, political transition, inadequate female education and economic opportunity and the low value placed on women and children. The criminal nature of this human trade makes it difficult to obtain accurate statistics on trafficking and therefore we cannot know the true extent of the phenomenon. However, it is estimated that each year world-wide 4 million women, children and men are trafficked into modern forms of slavery. The purposes for trafficking include not only prostitution, debt bondage, and domestic labour but also the trafficking of children as slave labourers, child soldiers, camel jockeys and sex slaves. The United Nations protocol on trafficking in persons, adopted in November 2002 now has 105 signatories including the United Kingdom. The protocol defines trafficking as,
"the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception of the abuse of power or of vulnerability or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude and the removal of organs".
This protocol represents a new approach in international law to trafficking. It serves as a legal framework for national legislation, setting standards on criminal characterisation of conduct constituting crime of trafficking and the severity of punishment, providing much needed benchmarks on anti-trafficking—preventive policies and effective human rights measures to protect the victims. I ask the Government not only to do all they can to stamp out the appalling trade in this country, but to keep it high on the international agenda. Trafficking is not only an abuse of human rights; it is an affront to all humanity.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for the way in which she has introduced this short debate. I shall concentrate on what happens in this country to children and young people who arrive unaccompanied, some of whom have been purposely trafficked.
We all know that responsibility for children generally has been transferred from the Home Office, first to the Department of Health and most recently to the Department for Education and Skills. Whatever the bureaucratic turbulence that this may have created, I emphasise that the interests of the child must still be paramount and the protection required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child must he given as a national obligation. Therefore I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for an assurance that the extra costs of caring for incoming unaccompanied children will be fully reflected in grants from central government to the responsible local authorities.
Regarding the arrangements at Gatwick Airport, I welcome the good level of co-operation that now exists between the Immigration Service, the police and social services. However, aftercare of identified children still

559
gives grounds for concern. West Sussex social services takes all such children, but between 1995 and 2002 no fewer than 75 children were lost or disappeared—that is about 10 a year—and one has disappeared this year. Can the Government say whether any of the missing children have since been found? Are they thought to be in Britain or have they been smuggled overseas? Have any died or been killed? What information has been received from Interpol and Europol?
Since 1999 West Sussex has been operating a safe house, providing only for six girls aged 16 to 18. Can the Government say whether that housing provision will continue? What provision is, or will be, available for boys and for other children aged under 16? West Sussex County Council have spoken of refocusing their services. What does that mean in practice?
I welcome the presence of a police child protection officer at Heathrow Airport. Is it correct that a permanent police child protection unit will be set up? If so, will it be national, regional or what? What will be the terms of reference for any such unit?
The London Borough of Hillingdon provides the childcare for all unaccompanied children coming to Heathrow. Have any such children been lost from that local authority? Are the Government satisfied with the Heathrow arrangements, or do they think that they can be further improved?
As for the rest of the country, because of the improved arrangements existing for Gatwick and Heathrow, it is probable that traffickers of children are increasingly using other ports of entry. What are the Government doing about them? Training and teamwork are clearly needed for statutory and voluntary agencies. Will the Government make budgetary provision for such training? I understand that there is already evidence from police forces—for example, in Bristol and Nottingham—of some internal trafficking of British-born children. Is this under study, and will the Government require and make sure that effective counter measures are put in place?
As to adults, can the noble Lord on the Front Bench give the House a report on the progress of the pilot scheme for safe houses in London for trafficked women, which has already been mentioned—that is, for women escaping from prostitution? It opened in March this year. Is it working well so far and is the degree of support and supervision provided seen to be sufficient? Can the noble Lord provide further details?
On safety and protection, I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Sandwich. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. Do the Government now accept that both children and adults trafficked into this country need and deserve a period of quiet reflection, if possible for as long as six months, before they can be expected to decide whether to give information or evidence against traffickers and whether they wish to try to return to their country of origin or to some other country?
Lastly, I agree again with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on the matter of labour exploitation. People, usually girls, trafficked for this purpose are
560
likely to arrive as part of a family, or looking like part of a family. Skill and experience will therefore be needed to identify them on arrival. That may not always be possible, so their plight should be made widely known, and they should be given every possible opportunity, both to escape and to lodge complaints.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for raising the debate so soon after the March 2002 debate of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
This shows the urgency of dealing with this disgraceful practice. Since that debate the Government, I am pleased to say, have taken steps to bring forward many measures for dealing with this abomination. I shall not reiterate those measures here as they have been adequately dealt with by previous speakers.
I shall confine myself to two issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and today referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her opening remarks, by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his presentation and by other noble Lords as we have gone down the list. That is, the reflection period and the safe housing for those caught in this awful trap. Anti-Slavery International confirms that victims of trafficking need a breathing space or a reflection period in which they can receive assistance, recover from their traumatic experience and make an informed decision about whether they wish to co-operate with authorities in prosecuting the traffickers. This time to receive support and advice and consider their position is of fundamental importance, given the risk to their own lives and those of their families in the country of origin. The families of girls who have been trafficked into the UK have been threatened and attacked in Nigeria.
However, the main problem we have in extending support to victims is the fact that the trafficked person will normally have irregular immigration status. They may have false documents, be an over-stayer with no passport and so forth. Irregular immigration status means that unless they immediately co-operate with the police, they will be subject to deportation. Similarly, other agencies that may have come into contact with victims will find it difficult to assist them if they are in this country illegally. The reflection period will regularise their status temporarily, giving them an opportunity to receive advice and assistance.
This system will not interfere with a police investigation because if the police come into contact with a trafficked person who is immediately willing to co-operate they can debrief them, pursue their investigations and apply to the Home Office for the victim to have exceptional leave to remain. However, if the victim is unable to overcome their fear of the trafficker or their reluctance to talk about their experience—the vast majority will not be able to—they can still be given a reflection period and referred to an agency for support and assistance.
This has a number of benefits. The trafficked person will receive advice and support services that should help them take back control of their lives and may help

561
them to break out of the trafficking cycle. During the period of reflection, those offering support to that person will have time to win their confidence and be able to gather information regarding how victims were recruited, transported and coerced and whether other victims are being held. This information can be shared with the police which will allow them to gather evidence on traffickers, profile possible victims and disrupt the traffickers' network. In some cases, the trafficked person may then decide that they want to testify against the traffickers.
Reflection periods already operate in other EU countries like the Netherlands and Belgium. The EU Council Directive on short-term residence permits currently under discussion proposes its introduction for all EU states. Anti-Slavery believes that the reflection period should last three months as in the case of the Dutch model. It is their experience that victims will often need this period of time to recover from their experiences, overcome their fears and begin to confide in those assisting them. The evidence from West Sussex—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—shows that children will need a longer period and that the reflection period for minors should be at least six months.
All relevant agencies—the police, non-governmental organisations, immigration officers and local authorities—should be able to apply for reflection periods when they encounter someone they consider to be a victim of trafficking. It will ultimately be up to the Government to grant or refuse a reflection period but Anti-Slavery would recommend that the Government take their decision in consultation with an independent agency specialising in assisting victims of trafficking. In this way the reflection period will allow assistance and support to be made available to victims and facilitate the collection of invaluable information regarding the modus operandi of the trafficker which can be passed to the police. The alternative would be that we continue to deport all victims who cannot immediately overcome their fear of traffickers and co-operate with the police. That will effectively assist the traffickers who, in most cases, will he able to "re-traffic" their victims as soon as they are returned home.
The long-term protection needs of victims—whether they need ELR or ILR because of the risk to them if returned to their country of origin—should be examined separately and should not be contingent on or linked to their co-operation with investigations or prosecutions of traffickers. This procedure will ensure that witness evidence or statements cannot be dismissed as being induced by offers of residency.
Housing and employment are self-explanatory and have been touched on by other noble Lords. Many trafficked people will have undergone the trauma of family poverty. Most research supports the need for temporary residency permits beyond the reflection period and safe housing could provide that respite. The proposed EU Council directive states that it is not concerned with the protection of either witnesses or victims. This could prove to be very unsatisfactory and would need a degree of understanding in order to secure co-operation with the authorities.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for introducing this debate. There is no political divide between the different parts of your Lordships' House. What is interesting is that when issues such as this are debated it reflects our civilised values and the way that we should be tackling such problems.
The noble Baroness and all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate reflect those decent values, but more than that, the Government are not the exception here: they have taken on board some of the issues rightly mentioned by the noble Baroness in terms of the provisions of the Sexual Offences Bill which, to a great extent, will seek to help this situation.
But the problem that I often have to face when discussing issues of this nature is summed up in a simple question. Years ago the civilised world abolished slavery, only for it to be replaced by the lucrative trade of trafficking in people. It is the worst form of human exploitation and in most cases the people trapped into it are those who are already victims of poverty.
The statistics world-wide are staggering and they vary from country to country. The US Government estimate that at least 700,000 people world-wide are trafficked each year. Home Office research undertaken in 2000 estimated that, in one year, between 142 and 1,420 women were trafficked into this country. Those are simply the recorded cases. No one is in a position to identify the true scale of the problem. Suffice it to say at this stage, however, that trafficking in people has replaced many other criminal activities designed for financial gain. I do not doubt that the figures for the United Kingdom could be much higher because the Home Office research is confined to reported cases. We just do not know the true scale of the problem.
We have a common understanding of the problem and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who was good enough to identify what we mean when we refer to the UN Protocol. Its words strike a clear chord. Trafficking is:
"The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion".
But if we take the definition forward, we are talking about a form of exploitation that includes.
"at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery … or the removal of organs".
At this point I pose the question again: let us cast our minds back to the days of slavery. What is different today from what happened then?
Much of the action taken to deal with trafficking has been reactive. Only recently has substantial evidence emerged about organised gangs exploiting every inch of human misery by trafficking people for, in this instance, the purposes of asylum. We have the sight of victims being caught on our shores. We know of cases of people who have died in refrigerated lorries and

563
those who are transported in conditions in which we would be ashamed to transport animals. It is impossible to estimate how many victims have lost their lives in the process of being transported.
An article that appeared in the Guardian in March 2003, entitled "Slaves in Soho" made an important point. My noble friend Lord Avebury spoke about this matter. The article said that the police are not set up to deal with people trafficking since it is a transnational industry and many of the girls come from backgrounds where there is suspicion of the police. The police are incapable of tackling its source, which is the disparity in wealth between the eastern European countries such as Moldova and western European countries. The article's other main point is that the sex industry in the Balkans has really taken off since the war there in 1999, due to the large number of troops and other workers operating in those countries.
During the debates on immigration and asylum matters, we have drawn attention to the matter of young girls from third world countries disappearing from the care of social services. Several noble Lords have referred to these issues. However, we need specific answers. We need to know why it is that the girls disappear from the care of the social services. Was an investigation carried out? Where are they now, and where is the report on their welfare? The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has repeatedly raised this particular issue during the debates on immigration and asylum matters. The Minister should impress on social services in general, and in this particular case West Sussex county council, the need for them to be able to give us an answer. If some good practice could emerge in preventing such vile crime, all of us would be happier for that.
My noble friend Lord Avebury highlighted some of the problems associated with prostitution. However, the Government tend to be more concerned with getting victims of trafficking to provide evidence against traffickers in order to secure prosecutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells was right when she said that many are afraid of the immigration authorities and police, which complicates the matter further, especially since traffickers sometimes use their victims' fear of the police and the authorities as the tools with which they threaten them. Many trafficked people, particularly women, have been told by their traffickers that there will be consequences not only for them in this country but for their relations back home. We need to be concerned about that.
One idea mooted by Asylum Aid is something that the Government should seriously consider. It would be useful for the seizure of traffickers' assets to be used to develop safe accommodation for trafficked women. The international people-trafficking industry is the third largest international crime after trafficking in drugs and weapons. It is worth an estimated £4.3 billion per annum to criminals. The sex industry is currently worth over £12 million in the United Kingdom. Financial penalties for this crime would be a significant deterrent for human traffickers.
564
A number of suggestions have been made in terms of giving space to victims so that they could provide evidence on the basis of which prosecutions could be brought. Those are good practices and we should take that on board. More importantly, we need to look at our immigration and asylum policy. We should regard trafficking as an offence to be prosecuted so as to give shelter to its victims.
I admire very much the work of Anti-Slavery International. According to that organisation it is clear that many European countries, including the United Kingdom, fall short of the standards required to eradicate this vile trade in human beings.
Perhaps I may pinpoint several issues that noble Lords have identified: the protection of trafficked people; as the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, mentioned, what sort of reflection period there should be; if that is possible and if not, why not? But, more importantly, how do we introduce legislation so that once and for all, we can stop the exploitation of such people? We can only put our hands on our hearts and say that we have abolished slavery when we give back dignity and respect to those who are victims of exploitation.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Elles for initiating this important debate, which she introduced with great clarity.
When we are considering the subject of trafficking, the overwhelming proportion affects women and children. There is often a shadowy dividing line between the two. An example from Gatwick illustrates that. Young persons arriving at Gatwick will sometimes say that they are under 18 when they are clearly not in order, as it were, to work the Children Acts. On other occasions, they will say that they are over 18 when they clearly are not in order to avoid being taken to a safe house—an illustration of the skill with which victims are programmed by their traffickers.
I hesitate to list the dangers to trafficked people in company as distinguished as this House, but there is no better summary than that to be found in the 2002 National Criminal Intelligence Service UK threat assessment. It highlights a number key points:
"Violence is not the traffickers' only weapon. They also exploit economic, social and cultural vulnerabilities … Traffickers control their victims by removing identity documents … Women who are trafficked are often unaware of the nature of their situation until they arrive … The women will not have the financial means to escape their abusers".
My noble friend's Question is especially timely, coming, as it does, shortly after the Sexual Offences Bill has left your Lordships' House for consideration in another place. The Bill creates new offences for trafficking respectively into, within and out of the United Kingdom, each carrying substantial maximum prison sentences.
The abuses to which children can be subjected are, sadly, well known. They include all forms of physical and sexual coercion and frequently make the child a drug addict—all to keep the child terrified and under

565
control. The relationship between trafficker and child varies in each case: some are induced to believe that the trafficker is to be their boy friend; others are tied through debt bondage; and children from west Africa are often under the impression that a voodoo spell has been placed on them and that great harm will come to them and their family if they step out of line.
The NCIS report also points out that exploitation of illegal immigrants by organised crime groups does not necessarily stop at bonded or tied labour. It cites incidences involving Chinese and Albanian organisations, in particular, where victims have been kidnapped on arrival in the UK and money extorted from the immigrants' relatives or the immigrants themselves and, in the case of the Chinese, even the hijacking of whole shipments of migrants by a competitor with the usual extortion demands. Then there is the exploitation of immigrants in the commission of various types of low-level crime, such as aggressive begging, pickpocketing and, of course, the all too familiar use of illegal immigrants, especially from the Caribbean, as drug couriers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the work done by West Sussex County Council. I, too, am informed that that programme is being restructured. One problem is that it is having difficulty filling its safe houses. Most occupants have been from West Africa. Sadly, that is probably not due to a fall-off in illegal immigrants from West Africa; it is much more likely, as the noble Lord said, that Gatwick and Heathrow are now perceived as difficult ports of entry for the trafficking industry and it is increasingly turning its attention to softer targets or using methods of entry that do not bring them to the attention of immigration authorities at all.
However, West Sussex has gained valuable experience and I hope that that can be shared with other centres where there is now a problem. My noble friend mentioned Edinburgh and Glasgow, but Newcastle and Nottingham have also recently been in the news.
I echo my noble friend Lady Elles's tribute to the work being done by the Eaves Project in the provision of hostel accommodation for women at risk. I know she has some questions for the Minister on that.
I, like many noble Lords who have spoken, would like to see a greater period of reflection for children at risk. All too often the child is sent back too soon—some cynics would say as soon as the child has provided any necessary intelligence. We have all been shocked by the appalling story of Elena, which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has told us about based on his experience with ASI.
Evidence from West Sussex social services has shown that the children need this reflection for at least six months. They have found that children who suffer abuse and trauma disclose their experience only after months and years rather than days and weeks.
The experience of Italy has been mentioned by many noble Lords. I echo the wish that the Minister will assure the House that the Italian experience is being studied. It is that many victims become more willing to
566
testify against their trafficker towards the end of the six-month period as they work through counselling and begin to recover. This happens irrespective of whether they are involved in the prosecution. The small number of residents' permits issued also refutes concerns that such a system would open the doors to a flood of applications.
In conclusion, there are two points I would make to the Minister. Can he give an assurance that the Home Office will give a lead in ensuring that the valuable experience gained by those in the frontline in West Sussex is disseminated as widely as possible to those authorities for which the problem is relatively new and where, in some cases, we are told that other forces are turning a blind eye on account of alleged priorities?
Is the Minister able to assure the House that arrangements are in place to tackle the problem at source by establishing the closest intelligence links possible in the countries where trafficking originates. This would include having a deep understanding of the culture. Let it not be forgotten that west Africa has a tradition of slavery and bondage going back many centuries, indeed, well before the commencement of the slave trade to the New World. An understanding of current practice, which can only come from an extended and substantial presence in the countries concerned, will do much to enable and encourage the authorities in the United Kingdom, who do such excellent work in this field in so many ways, to keep abreast of this huge, sinister, but hugely resourceful, practice. It is a practice which more often than riot is rooted in cultures very different from our own. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to put on record my profound agreement with an expression used by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, at the beginning of his comments. He said that this had been a most distinguished debate—distinguished by all its participants. I absolutely agree with that and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, on putting this matter before the House in the way in which she has.
I have been privileged to listen to and participate in a number of these debates—at Question Time, on Unstarred Questions, and during the passage of legislation. I am grateful to noble Lords for their concern on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made the point that politics does not divide us on this issue. There is a shared commitment and a shared concern.
Trafficking in people is an appalling business. It is an appalling form of exploitation with a harmful, debilitating and demeaning impact on the lives of individuals, families, communities, countries and generations. To set it in the context of slavery and the history of slavery is right and proper.
I also want to put on record my firm conviction that this Government have perhaps done more than any other government in recent years to tackle this problem. It is not an easy problem and certainly the

567
solutions are not easily found. Through the White Paper Secure Borders Safe Haven the Government set out a clear four-pronged approach—legislation, enforcement, international co-operation, prevention at source and provision for victims.
Let me deal, first, with an issue of terminology. There is a clear internationally agreed distinction between trafficking and smuggling which is expressed in the United Nations Trans-national Organised Crime Convention. According to the UN Protocol on Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking, trafficking in people involves ongoing exploitation—be it labour exploitation or sexual exploitation. It is important to distinguish between trafficking and smuggling but also to recognise that boundaries between the two are not clear-cut. While legally we can make a clear distinction, operationally we have to recognise that the criminals involved in trafficking and smuggling are often interchangeable.
The scale of smuggling is becoming clearer, with an estimated 75 per cent of those arriving in the United Kingdom to claim asylum having been facilitated by criminal groups. But trafficking is a much more elusive problem to pin down. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Dholakia, referred to the Home Office research contained in Stopping Traffic, published some three years ago, which estimated that anywhere between 140 and 1,400 women were trafficked to the UK every year for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It is an obvious point, but that is a very wide range of estimation. Who knows? But that is the scale.
Despite its hidden nature, trafficking is now recognised as a serious organised criminal activity on an international scale. The United Kingdom Government, in common with many other governments, have announced our determination to crack down on this evil trade. Our approach is consistent with the UN Protocol on Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking, which is the cornerstone of effective international action against it. It recognises that trafficking requires a multi-faceted response, combining elements of legislation to criminalise the activity, effective enforcement and international co-operation to tackle its trans-national nature and to provide for victims.
A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the Government for taking tough action, particularly through legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, congratulated us on that and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, echoed her congratulations. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to our work, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
However, the lack of trafficking legislation was cited as a stumbling block to encouraging proactive police investigations. In response to this, the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act was introduced and a new criminal offence of trafficking for control over prostitution, with a maximum penalty of 14 years—which is on a par with the penalties for drug
568
trafficking—was introduced. A new offence as a stopgap measure to close an existing loophole was also introduced. The Sexual Offences Bill introduces more wide-ranging offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Work is also under way on offences for trafficking for labour exploitation, a point raised by a number of noble Lords, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
These measures take into account the UK's international obligations under the UN Trafficking Protocol. We intend to ensure that our Government, in common with other EU member states, will implement by July 2004 the EU Framework Decision which has been recently adopted. That is very good progress indeed.
It is estimated that the profits from people trafficking are equal to those from drug trafficking and the effect on the lives of those involved can be just as damaging. The UN lists it as one of the three most lucrative types of organised criminal activity, alongside drugs and firearms.
Recognising this, the Proceeds of Crime Act has been brought in line with the new trafficking offences and so provides powers to seize and confiscate the criminal assets of those involved in this appalling crime. Together these provisions will provide another way of dismantling and disrupting traffickers.
The key issue will be enforcement. We need to tackle the criminality that is allowing the trade to continue. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and its vital and valuable work. Trafficking affects communities throughout the United Kingdom, so exercises such as Reflex bring together the key agencies including the Immigration Service, the NCIS and police forces most affected, such as the Metropolitan Police, the Kent Constabulary and the British Transport Police. The Reflex project aims to build up the intelligence picture, co-ordinate operations and provide a focal point for the operational response to human trafficking and smuggling.
During the current financial year there have been eight disruptive operational campaigns and 150 operational new developments. In 2002–03, Reflex exceeded its targets with 16 organised crime groups disrupted or dismantled.
Joint working is the key to good enforcement and good practice. A more recent scheme has been the introduction of the child protection pilot based at Heathrow, which is another joint project, this time between the Immigration Service and the Metropolitan Police. Operation Maxim is a new initiative targeting organised criminals who are in the UK illegally. It was launched by the Metropolitan Police and the Immigration Service in April, under the Reflex banner. It is an ongoing series of operations targeting criminals in a whole range of illegal activities including identity theft and human trafficking.

569
Several noble Lords referred to the importance of international co-operation and crime prevention. I wish to put on record our commitment to that. We will ensure that work in those countries where the problem is being exported to the United Kingdom proceeds at a pace through our network of immigration liaison officers and is entirely in line with the work outlined in the EU framework decision.
Our overseas network has been enhanced with liaison officers based at Europol and with joint working teams in key transit countries such as Bosnia and Romania. We intend to expand on those.
I would like to talk about protection and support, but I can probably best achieve that by turning to some of the questions asked by noble Lords. There were many questions and I am appreciative of the advance information that was given to me about them. I know that in the time allowed I will not be able to respond to all of them, but I will ensure that the responses that have been prepared will be circulated to all noble Lords who have participated in this evening's debate.
Particular attention focused on the work that the West Sussex social services department has had to undertake because of the problems of having Gatwick within its boundary. It is correct that between 1995 and 2002, 71 children, who had arrived on their own at Gatwick claiming asylum, disappeared from West Sussex social services. Thankfully, only three children have been recorded as missing in the current year. We should emphasise that the majority of children that are missing from care in the UK will have decided to leave for various reasons. They would probably not want to return to their country of origin on their 18th birthday and perhaps have found work elsewhere or moved to another area. The majority of those children are not suspected of having been trafficked.
It is also important to note that social services departments do not have the power to prevent a minor from leaving their care. That is an interesting observation that raises many difficult issues for social services and I am sure that noble Lords will be mindful of it. It is up to social services to decide how best to provide support services for children in need in their area, including accommodation for children who are the victims of trafficking. Although there is no current specific ear-marked funding for such services, we allocate funding for councils with specific social services responsibilities on the basis of the need of their population. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine that need. Obviously, it reflects the pressure on those services of particular problems such as this one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked a specific and useful question about the number of victims who had come forward through Eaves Housing. I can advise her that some 29 have been received by Eaves Housing and are receiving services through that organisation.
570
Many other questions were asked in the debate. I wanted to try to respond to one or two but I do not think there is sufficient time. However, as I said, I shall respond to those very specific questions. I respect entirely the wish for additional information which many noble Lords expressed. Under cover of letter, I shall ensure that all those points are covered.
This has been an important debate which has focused on the key and crucial issues. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who participated. This debate will need to continue. We need to do the maximum possible to prevent this appalling international trade and to counter it in every way possible.

Nottingham City Council Bill [H.L.]
Returned earlier from the Commons agreed to.

Mental Incapacity
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 13th June relating to a Joint Committee to consider any draft Mental Incapacity Bill and that they have made the following orders:
That a Select Committee of eight Members he appointed to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Mental Incapacity Bill.
That the committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report form time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

Civil Contingencies
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 13th June relating to a Joint Committee to consider any draft Civil Contingencies Bill and that they have made the following orders:
That a Select Committee of 11 Members be appointed to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Civil Contingencies Bill.
That the committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report form time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

Gambling
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 2nd July relating to a Joint Committee to consider any draft Gambling Bill and that they have made the following orders:
That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Gambling Bill.
That the committee shall have power—
572

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii) to report form time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (Eighth Day)
  Thursday 10th July 2003.
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood) in the Chair.]
  Clause 78 [Bars to extradition]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 191:
  Page 42, line 36, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) injustice and oppression;"
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendments is to bring back into Part 2 of the Bill a defence to extradition that is present in the Extradition Act 1989 and was present, as I understand it, in all earlier extradition Acts. The issue was raised by the organisation Liberty, and the defence that is to be brought back is that the extradition is unjust and oppressive.
  Amendments Nos. 191 and 194 are based on Section 11(3)(c) of the 1989 Act, which provides for extradition to be refused, if the accusation that is the subject of the charge leading to the application for extradition was not made,
  "in good faith in the interests of justice",
  and if the extradition would cause injustice and oppression. We are, of course, dealing with Part 2 of the Bill; Part 1 is based on the assumption that we can trust the legal systems of the category 1 states. There is no such assumption in relation to category 2 states. There have been two recent cases involving states that are not intended for inclusion in category 1, in which extradition has been refused by the court on the grounds that the accusation was not made in good faith. Those are the cases known by the names of Saifi, from India, and Murat Callis, in which the person concerned was from Turkey.
  Without the amendment, the judge will not be able to refuse extradition, and the case would have to go for a decision by the Home Secretary. If the judge is satisfied, after hearing the evidence, that the accusation was not made in good faith, he should be able to refuse extradition. In the Commons, the Government said that the judge could reach such a conclusion on human rights grounds, relying on Clause 86. I believe that that is not true, arid that is how I am advised by experts on extradition. The European Convention on Human Rights would apply only if the court hearing the extradition application believed that the person would not get a fair trial. That is a different question. If the court believes that the accusation was
  GC 106
  not made in good faith, it should be able to discharge the person, whether or not it believes that that person will get a fair trial, without having to send him or her back by making an extradition order subject to the final decision of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It might be appropriate if I spoke next, as I have my name to the amendment and I can be brief. I support the amendment fully. It picks up on a proposal that was brought to us by Liberty. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, Liberty briefed him too, as it does with all groups in the House. The importance of the issue was also emphasised to us by Mr Clive Nicholls QC, who is one of the most famous practitioners in the field in the world. In his opinion, failure to make the amendment could lead to some serious miscarriages of justice.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I also support the amendment. What have the Government got to fear from it? If Clause 86 were to apply—there is some ambiguity about that—a provision of this kind in the Bill would do nothing to subtract from the purpose that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, outlined, which I support. What have the Government got to fear? Would there be any conflict between the amended section and Clause 86? I see no reason to think that.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like other noble Lords, I support the amendment. It is right that there should be power to refuse to extradite, if the judge feels that the application will lead to injustice and oppression. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I cannot see why there should be any objection to putting it in terms in the Bill at this stage.
  I have one question. I had assumed that the matter could be covered by the words "extraneous considerations". What are "extraneous considerations"? Would the fact that it was felt that the application was oppressive or unjust amount to an extraneous consideration?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate—
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise. It has been pointed out to me that there is a definition. I had better read it.
  Lord Filkin: The amendment gives the Committee a good opportunity to test, in a sense, whether the protections that we have put into the Bill are, as we believe, full and adequate. I shall start by giving an overarching view. The way that we have constructed the protections—all members of the Committee recognise that they are important—is different from the way in which they were constructed for the 1989 Act. I shall explain why and, in doing so, address the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, who wondered why we could not make the amendment.

  GC 107
  In this part of the Bill, the protections relate to the double jeopardy test, the extraneous considerations, the passage of time and hostage-taking considerations. The extraneous considerations are particularly important in this regard. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, suggested, they cover a situation in which a request has been made for improper motives or a trial may be prejudiced for those reasons. They are added to the further provisions concerning convictions in absentia, the death penalty, speciality and, in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, signalled, ECHR compliance in terms of the right to a fair trial. That adds up to a substantial package of protection for the individual against any form of illegitimate extradition. In a sense, the purpose of the discussion on the clause, in Committee and later, if needed, is to see whether there is any chink in what we believe to be the adequate and comprehensive armour against inappropriate extradition.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the wording of the amendment comes from Section 11(3) of the Extradition Act 1989. On the face of it, it is a reasonable challenge to the Government: if it was good enough in 1989, why not now? Our response is twofold. First, the 1989 Act was, essentially, a consolidation of legislation dating back to 1870. Not only does it reflect the wording of that era, it conveys the spirit of that time—revolution in many countries, suspicion and mistrust between neighbours, infrequency of international travel and so forth. Obviously, the 1989 Act was passed before the Human Rights Act was passed, and ECHR legislation came into force. Both were more than 80 years after the Extradition Act 1870. For those reasons, we feel that the world has moved on since 1989.
  The Extradition Act 1989 is all about generalities and discretion. It includes a section—Section 6—headed "General restrictions on return", and Section 1 I invites judges to take decisions,
  "having regard to all the circumstances".
  Our experience is that it is that scheme of generalities that has allowed the system of extradition law to be abused and choked up by lengthy and, at heart, spurious delay as a means of delaying or obstructing the return of a person to face trial when he ought to do so.
  The current Bill does not approach those matters in the same way. It is clear to the judge what decision he is to take and the factors on which he is to base it. It is clear to him that extradition should be barred in specified circumstances but not in others. The bars and protections provide significant and appropriate protection against any abuse of the extradition process. As they are set out in such detail and with clarity, there is no need for a general, catch-all provision.
  I should draw attention to two provisions in the Bill, both of which I have already touched on. The first is Clause 80, which provides that extradition is barred, if the extradition request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person on the grounds
  GC 108
  of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or if he will be prejudiced at his trial for those reasons. Those are strong safeguards—necessarily so. Then, there is Clause 86, which prevents extradition if it would be contrary to the person's human rights. At an earlier stage of our proceedings, my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal read the details verbatim. I shall not repeat them now.
  Article 6 provides a clear guarantee of a fair trial. We discussed that on a previous day in Committee. If the district judge takes the view that the person will not receive a fair trial, he will not order extradition. It is as clear, as strong and as simple as that. The district judge has total discretion. If he is not convinced that there will be a fair trial, he will say, "No". So he should.
  We cannot easily see what circumstances the amendments would deal with that are not already covered by the Bill. In other words, given the protections in the Bill, is there any chink in the armour? I invite officials to consider the Saifi and Murat Callis cases to see whether we have specific and direct responses to the concerns that they raise. We can point to chapter and verse in the Bill that says that extradition would be blocked in such cases. Without signalling for a second that we are conceding, I am happy to use that test to see whether we have an adequate and comprehensive set of protections against inappropriate and wrongful extradition.
  At an earlier stage, we considered examples of countries, such as Singapore and Malaysia—perhaps I should not mention them—that might seek to abuse the extradition system to deal with political opponents of the current regime. Such cases would fall foul of Clause 80, as such requests would be politically motivated. Extradition would not be possible. If a judge in a requesting state had a personal animus against a person and sought to use the extradition process to take him back, there would be significant doubt as to whether that person, if extradited, would experience a fair trial. That, again, would be caught by the ECHR provision.
  My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked what was the harm in making the amendment. I think that I have signalled why we see harm in it. Such a broad and, apparently, open-ended provision would invite fugitives to seek to invoke it in just about every case. If I were suspected of a major crime that was likely to lead to incarceration, I would expect my barrister to act in that way and do everything possible to delay, prevent or frustrate my extradition. For those reasons, we think that the current Act has, in practice, proven to be defective in that respect and has led to frustration and excessive delays in extradition requests.
  I shall not go on at any more length. I have sought to set out why we have approached the protection regime in a different way and why we believe that the range of mechanisms is adequate and satisfactory. The door is open to any specific examples in past practice or future about which members of the Committee would like to say, "What about X or Y?". If a chink in our armour is exposed, we shall examine it.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Words might perhaps be included under paragraph (b), referring to,
  "extraneous considerations including injustice and oppression".
  The words "injustice and oppression" are highly significant. When my noble friend the Minister suggested that his officials would consider the whole situation, I hope that they will look benevolently at the amendments that have been proposed. A strong case has been made for not including the amendment in the paragraph under "the passage of time". However, the words may well fit in to another part of the clause.
  I referred to a particular situation that could apply, by including it under paragraph (b). In any event, I ask my noble friend the Minister to examine carefully what has been said in the debate. It is not as though any of us want to weaken the situation—we want to see it strengthened, and we want the judge to be under no sort of inhibition. The wording in the amendment is highly germane, so I hope that the Minister will be rather more forthcoming when we return to consider this point. He has already been slightly forthcoming, but I hope that he will be rather more forthcoming on Report.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We all want Part 2 to work well. This is a legal matter, and I am not a lawyer, but I am very interested in the point. Clearly, the House of Commons took the Government's view on it, with advice. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, based his argument on the human rights provisions on which he is something of an expert. I do not believe that the Minister actually picked that up in his reply—although he may have done so, and I may have missed it. When the noble Lord replies, I would be interested to know whether he feels that the answer is satisfactory or whether the point that he made about the human rights position is still valid.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a thoughtful reply to the amendment. However, I cannot accept his answer. This is certainly a point that concerns the experts on extradition. I am not an expert—it was never part of my practice at the Bar—but I know that Clive Nicholls feels strongly on the matter. I went to a conference last Saturday on the subject of the European arrest warrant where another QC, Mr Paul Garlick, spoke strongly on the subject.
  If one could be absolutely certain that the defendant would receive a fair trial, there would be something to be said for stating that the accusation looked unfounded and not made in good faith. I mentioned two cases. In one of them, there was a lot of evidence to suggest that the person had been framed by the people who actually committed the offence. In the other, there was strong evidence that the person concerned was being blackmailed over an offence that he had not committed. If one could be absolutely certain that there would be a fair trial, one might perhaps consider that it was certain that the court would consider the evidence, that the person would get a fair trial and that, if things were as they appeared to be, he would be acquitted.
  GC 110
  The problem is twofold, however. First, in the case of some category 2 countries, there must be doubt about the quality of justice that will be delivered at the other end, even if those doubts are not sufficient to satisfy the courts that the person would not get a fair trial. Secondly, there is a hardship involved in someone being sent back to face a trial, even if it is assumed that the trial will be fair, if it appears to the judge hearing the application that there will be injustice and oppression and that the accusation is not made in good faith. There are significant advantages in allowing that defence to be raised.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I take it from what the noble Lord says that he has no objection to the words being inserted in paragraph (b), so that the clause reads,
  "extraneous considerations including injustice and oppression".
  Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord is absolutely correct, although the words might be included in paragraph (a) rather than paragraph (b). I was making a note on my Marshalled List that if we brought the amendment back, that might be a way in which to do it.
  The matter of injustice and oppression is just as much a legitimate extraneous consideration as those that the court must already consider. The issue will require further discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Rule against double jeopardy]:
  [Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Extraneous considerations]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 80 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I raised the question whether "extraneous considerations" might cover the point made, in the earlier debate. Surely the Minister, having seen the definition of "extraneous considerations", which is limited using the specific terms in the clause, would have to agree that the words "injustice and oppression" would go much wider and would deal with circumstances other than those arising from,
  "race, religion, nationality or political opinions".
  Lord Filkin: As I signalled when we had the discussion on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I am seeking to set out a broad approach. I want to put in place specific bars to extradition without opening up the legislation to the defects that we have experienced with the current Act. We have already agreed to extend the clause to add on gender and sexual orientation as further measures, as a result of some good representations made at an earlier point.
  In good faith, I believe that the Committee generally recognises that we do not want to go in a circle and come back to where we are, with the current defects of

  GC 111
  the system. We all share a view that the Bill should have adequate protections. Without wanting to trail a coat too adventurously, I was signalling that I was open to specific examples of where the Bill as currently drafted would not provide adequate protection. That was a genuine statement, and I am sure that there will be ways of communicating on that matter in the summer, so that we can consider it. I implied that if we were convinced that there was a hole in the legislation, we would investigate it, but that if we were not, we would not, for the reasons I gave.
  Clause 80 agreed to.
  Clause 81 [Passage of time]:
  [Amendments Nos. 193 and 194 not moved.]
  Clause 81 agreed to.
  Clause 82 agreed to.
  Clause 83 [Case where person has not been convicted]:
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 194A:
  Page 44, line 11, at end insert—
  "(2A) In deciding whether to treat a statement made by a person in a document as admissible evidence of a fact, the judge must in particular have regard—

  (a) to the nature and source of the document;

  (b) to whether or not, having regard to the nature and source of the document and to any other circumstances that appear to the judge to be relevant, it is likely that the document is authentic;

  (c) to the extent to which the statement appears to supply evidence which would not be readily available if the statement were not treated as being admissible evidence of the fact;

  (d) to the relevance of the evidence that the statement appears to supply to any issue likely to have to be determined by the judge in deciding the question in subsection (1);

  (e) to any risk that the admission or exclusion of the statement will result in unfairness to the person whose extradition is sought, having regard in particular to whether it is likely to be possible to controvert the statement if the person making it does not attend to give oral evidence in the proceedings."

  The noble Lord said: While moving Amendment No. 194A in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland I should like to speak to Amendment No. 202A, which is for all practical purposes identical to Amendment No. 194A. It might be convenient if I said something about the amendments in this group tabled by the Official Opposition—Amendments Nos. 195, 196, 203 and 204.
  All the amendments are concerned with evidence given in written and summary form. The Government believe that this is a necessary provision, though we recognise the importance of proper safeguards which is what our amendments seek to put in place. We need to be clear about what we are dealing with here. The Bill—and Clauses 83(2) and 85(2) in particular—allows for written evidence to be admitted in particular circumstances. Those circumstances are limited, so we are only talking about evidence originally given to a police officer or other person responsible for investigating crimes.
  Where a police officer or other person responsible for investigating crimes has taken a statement from a witness, that statement is admissible as evidence for the hearing, provided that, were the person who made the statement to come to the UK and give evidence in person, that oral evidence would be admissible. A written witness statement made to a police officer will be admissible for the extradition hearing, rather than requiring the witness to come to Britain to give evidence in person.
  Given that the purpose of requiring prima facie evidence from certain Part 2 countries is to establish that a sufficient case exists against the person rather than to hold a complete mini-trial, I hope that Members of the Committee will see that this is a worthwhile and necessary process. It really is not in anyone's interest to devote the time and cost of bringing over foreign witnesses to this country, particularly when they will be obliged to give their evidence at the actual trial when that occurs. Another fact to bear in mind is that the particular witness statement may not be contested or challenged by the fugitive.
  I should describe the safeguards that already exist to make sure that the use of documentary evidence does not result in injustice, even at a hearing that is about establishing whether there is a prima facie case, not about whether a person is guilty or not. The first and most obvious one is that the district judge always has discretion not to admit evidence where he has doubts about its authenticity or reliability. That discretion is with the judge, and it should be. He will be best placed in each case to determine where the interests of justice lie and to ensure that the fugitive is not disadvantaged.
  Secondly, nothing in the Bill obliges the person whose extradition has been sought to give evidence in written or summary form, nor will it prevent the person from challenging evidence given in such form on behalf of the requesting state. However, following concerns raised in another place, we amended the Bill on Report to make it even clearer that the judge was not obliged to accept evidence in that form. We recognise that concerns still exist, as evidenced by the amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition. Accordingly, we have looked at what further safeguards might be possible. In doing so we have turned our attention to domestic legislation.
  Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is concerned with documentary evidence in criminal proceedings. Section 25 of that Act sets down principles to guide the court as to whether it should admit such documentary evidence. We believe that such provisions have worked well and accordingly Amendments Nos. 194A and 202A in the Government's name very largely replicate Section 25 of the 1988 Act.
  These amendments will provide very specific guidance to district judges in deciding whether to admit written evidence. The fifth point is one to which I would like to draw the Committee's particular attention since it will require the district judge to pay special attention to the possibility of any risk of unfairness to the person whose extradition has been

  GC 113
  sought. I very much hope that that extra clarification in the Bill will be helpful to the Committee. As promised, let me say something briefly about the Opposition amendments.
  This leads me to the related area of Clauses 83(3) and 85(3). I have already explained that Clauses 83(2) and 85(2) allow for written evidence to be admitted. Clauses 83(3) and 85(3) go on to say that evidence in summary form can be admitted. Let me explain why this is desirable and necessary. One can imagine a case of complicated financial fraud. Several accountants may have studied the books in question and produced statements attesting to their opinion that those books have been, to use the colloquialism, "cooked". These statements may go into minute detail and run to several hundred pages which is more than the district judge may need or want. We are not dealing here with a full trial: rather, the district judge needs to be satisfied that sufficient case exists against the person to send him for trial to answer the charges. In this case the fact that several qualified accountants have confirmed that in their opinion fraud has taken place and that the person before the judge is believed to be responsible is more use to the judge than the content of what could he extremely detailed statements explaining exactly how the fraud has been committed. Accordingly, Clauses 83(3) and 85(3) allow for summaries of written evidence to be admitted for the purpose of establishing whether a prima facie case exists against the person.
  These provisions might be similarly useful where there are many witnesses all giving broadly the same evidence, for example, telephone company employees who produce itemised bills. Again, in many cases this evidence may be uncontested.
  It will, of course, be open to the fugitive and his lawyers to challenge the summaries at the extradition hearing and the detail of the statements at the trial itself, if the person is extradited. We would not expect this facility to he used often. In most cases we would expect the full written witness statement to be put before the court. However, I am sure the Committee will see why, in the circumstances which I have described, Clauses 83(3) and 85(3) are useful and necessary.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble friend departs from this part of his remarks, has the possibility been expunged, by reason of the amendment which is proposed, for the defence and prosecution to come to some agreement before the trial—before the matter reaches the judge? In my experience the prosecution and the defence almost invariably act very honourably in this regard. In fact, I cannot think of an occasion when the possibility of agreement is overlooked.
  Lord Filkin: I am advised that nothing stops that happening in these circumstances. If defence counsel and the CPS are in agreement on certain points, they can signal that and therefore save the court and the judge time on those issues.
  GC 114
  I return to my speech. I regret wearying the Committee with the length of it. I hope that I have explained why Clauses 83(3) and 85(3) are useful and necessary.
  Amendments Nos. 195 and 203 seek to remove the facility for summary evidence altogether. As I described with regard to a prima facie case, we believe that that provision assists justice rather than frustrates it.
  Amendments Nos. 196 and 204 seek to change the conditions on which summary evidence may be admitted. In particular the word "must" is changed to "may" and there is a requirement for corroboration. I support the principle of what is being attempted there but we believe that it is already provided for. If the Committee looks at Clauses 83(3) and 85(3), it will see that they operate for the purposes of 83(2) and 85(2) respectively. In other words, they are governed by the general provisions of those earlier subsections. In the opening lines of 83(2) and 85(2) the word "may" appears. Therefore, the admissibility of any document in summary form is governed by "may". The discretion exists in the legislation, which is exactly what is being sought by the amendment.
  If the Committee looks at the government amendments, it will see that subsection (c) of each of them deals with corroboration and requires the judges to have regard to corroboration or otherwise in deciding whether to admit written and summary evidence.
  I emphasise that nothing in the Bill obliges the person whose extradition has been sought to give evidence in written form nor will it prevent the person from challenging evidence given in written form on behalf of the requesting state. As I signalled earlier, the judge will always retain full discretion in deciding what to admit. The judge will always be mindful of the interests of the fugitive and of justice.
  I believe that we should allow for the possibility of documentary evidence at what is effectively a prima facie hearing just as we do in limited circumstances in domestic cases. Strict controls apply to domestic cases and we believe that adopting those strict controls is the best way forward.
  I hope that explanation is helpful and I invite Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wish to speak to my Amendments Nos. 195, 196, 203 and 204. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has added his name to Amendments Nos. 195 and 203.
  As the Minister said, concerns remained after discussions in another place. Consequently, we tabled these amendments with the encouragement of the Law Society and Liberty which remained unconvinced by the arguments put forward in another place. As the noble Lord said, the argument revolves around what should comprise the summary statement. Concerns remained that that was a way of reducing the threshold of quality that one would expect of prima facie evidence.

  GC 115
  I hear what the Minister says about the Government not wanting there to be too much pressure on witnesses in the production of statements whereby they have to come here twice for the initial hearing and subsequently for the trial. I certainly understand the Government's intention to try to reduce bureaucracy without in any way reducing the power of the judge to make the right decision at the right time. We are working within the same parameters as the Government in tabling these amendments.
  We thought that we should table Amendments Nos. 196 and 204 to reflect the fact that the Law Society of Scotland took a slightly different approach from others in this respect. We tried to cover all the bases.
  I am delighted to see the Government's response in the form of their Amendments Nos. 194A and 202A. We certainly accept that they are an improvement on our Amendments Nos. 196 and 204. Therefore, we shall not press those amendments.
  Between now and Report I certainly undertake to go back to the Law Society and Liberty to see whether they are now content with the Government's redrafting through their amendments or whether they still have concerns. At first blush when I saw the Government's amendments I thought that we would not have to take the matter any further. However, I cannot give that commitment until I have taken advice from those organisations.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord spoke to his amendment I believe he said that the wording of Amendments Nos. 194A and 202A was taken from an Act. I am not sure what Act he mentioned but I believe that it was an English Act. I wonder whether the Bill will be satisfactory within Scots law as a result of those amendments. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord but I wanted to check that point.
  Lord Filkin: I referred to Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The amendments have been crafted from Section 25 of that Act.
  With regard to the point on Scotland, we have checked with Scots colleagues who, I am advised, are content with the matter.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord for those comments.
  Lord Goodhart: My name is added to Amendments Nos. 195 and 203. I certainly strongly welcome the Government's Amendments Nos. 194A and 202A which are of considerable assistance. As regards Amendments Nos. 195 and 203, I certainly accept that there may be a case in very long fraud cases, for example, for having some sort of executive summary which the judge can read. However, it seems to me essential that the judge having read the summary should always be able to say, "So far, so good, but I should like to see what the defendant actually said". The Minister indicated that in his view that would be possible by virtue of Clause 83(2). I am not entirely
  GC 116
  convinced of that. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I would like to see what those who briefed us on these amendments have to say about the new position before a decision is taken as to whether to bring this amendment back.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I, too, have added my name to Amendment No. 195. What was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is eminently appropriate. The amendment was suggested by very reputable organisations. The noble Baroness was entirely right to suggest that those organisations should be further consulted on the matter. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that that is entirely appropriate.
  I pointed out in my intervention that in practice what happens—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, agrees with this—is that the prosecution says to the defence, "Have a look at what is agreed". The defence can make suggestions for something to be included or for something to be omitted. Invariably, that suggestion is complied with. I am not very worried about the practice. But, on the other hand, my noble friend put forward a proposal which the Committee should consider. So far as I am concerned, the proposal which he advanced is entirely appropriate.
  Lord Filkin: I thank all who spoke to the group of amendments. I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for welcoming the two amendments introduced in response to the debate in another place, and for the conditional interest expressed in my remarks, albeit they did not, quite rightly at this stage, say that everything was perfect.
  I also thank my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his comments. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, brought forward a new point. Clearly we recognise that the judge has discretion to accept summary evidence if he thinks that serves the interests of justice. He has the discretion to say "No". A third option, rather than those two extreme options, is whether he is in a position to say that he would like to see the full evidence. That is a good question as there may be circumstances where one would not want the judge to adopt either of the first two options as that might frustrate the course of justice. I am advised—we shall certainly double-check that this is the case—that the judge has that discretion. It is important that he has it. It avoids him perhaps inappropriately saying "No" to an extradition case that otherwise might have had merit and gone forward. I put that on the record. We shall seek to demonstrate that that is the case.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 195 to 198 not moved.]
  Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 84 [Case where person has been convicted]:
  [Amendments Nos. 199 to 202 not moved.]
  Clause 84 agreed to.
  Clause 85 [conviction in person's absence]:
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 202A:
  Page 45, line 18, at end insert—
  "(2A) In deciding whether to treat a statement made by a person in a document as admissible evidence of a fact, the judge must in particular have regard—

  (a) to the nature and source of the document;

  (b) to whether or not, having regard to the nature and source of the document and to any other circumstances that appear to the judge to be relevant, it is likely that the document is authentic;

  (c) to the extent to which the statement appears to supply evidence which would not be readily available if the statement were not treated as being admissible evidence of the fact;

  (d) to the relevance of the evidence that the statement appears to supply to any issue likely to have to be determined by the judge in deciding the question in subsection (1);

  (e) to any risk that the admission or exclusion of the statement will result in unfairness to the person whose extradition is sought, having regard in particular to whether it is likely to be possible to controvert the statement if the person making it does not attend to give oral evidence in the proceedings."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 203 to 205 not moved.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 206:
  Page 45, line 33, leave out from "person" to ""for" in line 34.
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment has an English base but a Scottish question attached to it. It focuses on Clause 85(7) and was tabled on the advice of the Law Society of Scotland to probe the issue of uncorroborated evidence. I suspect that we will have a very clear reassurance from the Government—at least, I hope so.
  When we looked at the Explanatory Notes to find out why Subsection (7), which provides for a different form of wording in Subsection (1) in relation to Scotland was necessary, we found that it was not even mentioned at all. This particular clause was mentioned by the Minister in the helpful briefing that was sent out after our meeting dealing with the special provisions for Scotland. He explained in this letter that Subsection (7) would provide that,
  "in Scotland, the Sheriff is required to decide the question of sufficiency of evidence requiring an answer as if the proceedings were summary proceedings in respect of an alleged offence by the person, on the basis of a single source of evidence. Normally in Scotland corroboration would be required in criminal proceedings but this would not be consistent with the evidential standard for the rest of the UK".
  Our understanding of this explanation is that the subsection is necessary to ensure consistency in the treatment of evidence in extradition cases in England and in Scotland. However, we are advised that it could create inconsistency in the treatment of evidence in Scottish law and in Scottish extradition law.
  Our amendment would ensure that there must be sufficient corroborated evidence before the judge can proceed under this section. If the person has already
  GC 118
  been convicted in absentia, then corroborated evidence of the offence should be capable of being exhibited. In these circumstances, the Law Society of Scotland can see no reason for departing from the standard principles of sufficiency of evidence and believes that evidence from two sources should be available before the judge can proceed. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I will say but one sentence in support of this amendment. I believe that the Bill is attempting to continue an unsatisfactory precedent, and I would very much like corroborated evidence to he required.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I thank noble Lords for the way in which the amendment has been presented. The noble Baroness has stolen a good deal of my speech by describing our response to the Law Society of Scotland.
  Let me make the obvious point that the issue relates to a request from a Part 2 territory for the extradition of a fugitive in circumstances where he has been tried for and convicted of the offence for which his return is sought in his absence.
  I understand that the Committee has discussed in absentia cases at some length when Part 1 was considered, so I do not intend to spend too much time on the general issues. Clause 85 is concerned with cases where the person has been convicted in absentia but is guaranteed a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial.
  As the Bill stands, Clause 85(7) provides that when the judge in Scotland is deciding whether the evidence supplied to him is sufficient to make a case requiring an answer, he proceeds as if the proceedings in Scotland were summary proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the person, but may do so on the basis of a single source of evidence, which is the bone of contention between us. The amendment would remove the provision about evidence from a single source.
  I have the greatest respect for Scottish law and its traditions, and I recognise the important point of principle which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has introduced into the debate. But it is a rule of Scots law that evidence from two separate sources, or corroboration, is necessary before there is legally sufficient evidence to convict, which is a very important consideration.
  If the amendment were accepted, it would mean that since the proceedings are, in effect, ordinary summary proceedings, the normal rules of law in relation to evidence would apply. The judge in Scotland would therefore have to have evidence from two separate sources before there was sufficient evidence to make a case requiring an answer. I know that that is what the noble Earl wants, and it is an issue to which the noble Baroness has alluded.
  Our aim with this legislation is to ensure that so far as is possible, the same regime for extradition applies across the three jurisdictions in the UK. We do not want a fugitive to be subject to different evidential standards in different parts of the United Kingdom. When the judge in England and Wales or Northern

  GC 119
  Ireland is considering the sufficiency of evidence in similar circumstances, he may do so on the basis of a single source of evidence. The effect of the amendment is that a judge in Scotland would require to consider the issue of sufficiency of evidence to a different and higher standard of evidence. In the Government's view, that would be undesirable.
  Most of our extradition partners do not require corroborated evidence for a conviction, but this amendment would effectively require them to seek out evidence that they would not need for their own domestic conviction.
  The Scots rule of law requiring corroborated evidence is a safeguard against a miscarriage of justice. We all recognise its value and there is much merit in that provision. But the fugitive is not on trial in Scotland and will enjoy the safeguard of being entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial on his return to the country that sought his extradition.
  For these reasons of consistency across the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and because the countries to which we would extradite an individual would have a single basis for their judgments on these matters, we hope the Committee will recognise that consistency suggests that the amendment should be withdrawn.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: If I might respond with another single sentence, this is an example of the tiresome way in which United Kingdom law ends up in the Scottish courts. I will say no more about that at this moment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition. We on these Benches are so used to hearing the Government wax lyrical about flexibility, yet suddenly here they want consistency. We are going from one extreme to the other.
  I appreciate entirely the basis of the Minister's argument. I will go back to the Law Society of Scotland and see if it wishes to take the matter further. The Minister has highlighted the most important point—the person will not then be on trial on Scotland so the evidential standards cannot there be undermined because that person will be tried overseas. Therefore, when we return to the issues of retrial throughout the Bill's proceedings, it is even more important to ensure that retrial has as high a standard as is possible within the context of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 86 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
  Clauses 87 to 89 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 207A not moved.]
  Clause 90 [Physical or mental condition]:
  [Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
  Clause 90 agreed to.
  Clause 91 [Case sent to Secretary of State]:
  [Amendment No. 209 not moved.]
  Clause 91 agreed to.
  Clause 92 agreed to.
  Clause 93 [Death penalty]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 209A:
  Page 48, line 8, at end insert "or if conviction of the offence will result in a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release"
  The noble Lord said: This brief amendment raises a point which is a matter of some concern to us. Clause 93 provides that a person must not be extradited to a category 2 territory if he could be sentenced to death unless the Secretary of State has received a written assurance that the sentence of death will not be imposed or not be carried out.
  There may, however, be a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of release. There are, of course, some crimes of murder which are so dreadful that it is apparent that the murderer must never be released during their natural life. In this country there is power to direct a whole life tariff, but that is not mandatory—it can be decided upon the basis of the facts of the individual case. But there is at least the possibility that in some jurisdictions there may be crimes which carry a mandatory life sentence with no possibility of release. That would concern us greatly because it could be described as a sentence to a kind of living death. We do not think it is appropriate that that should ever be mandatory and that no person, neither the judge nor any outside authority, could have power to review the case.
  This is a fairly modest amendment. It does not require that no sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release should ever be imposed. It merely requires that that sentence should not be mandatory because we think that it is, in some senses, so close to a death sentence that it should never be applied unless the cases make it overwhelmingly clear that nothing short of that will do. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I have little to add, save that the idea of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment signals the failure of the sentencing authority. I do not want any provision in the Bill that would achieve that purpose. For that reason and others I support the amendment.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not know whether the Minister is about to say that he has sympathy with this proposal, but is this not exactly what the Home Secretary is trying to achieve in the Criminal Justice Bill at the moment?
  Lord Filkin: I am very grateful indeed that, where there had been any risk that I should find myself out of step with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that was not in fact the case. For reasons

  GC 121
  that I shall seek to explain, we believe that Clause 93 is essential, but we are not persuaded that an amendment seeking to take it substantially further is right.
  I believe that the Committee will be aware of why we have included Clause 93 in the Bill. In short, that has been our practice: we have not extradited people anywhere in the world without a clear assurance that we believed we could trust that the death penalty would not be imposed in the case of someone extradited who was then found guilty of an offence which potentially carried the death sentence. Therefore, we have put that beyond doubt by formalising it in legislation in this respect.
  We believe that to go further and to bar extradition in the circumstances proposed by the noble Lord goes too far. For a start, there is nothing in the Extradition Act 1989 which bars extradition in these circumstances. That is not a knock-down argument, but we are talking about the status quo: that is currently the situation and nothing has been brought to our attention that makes us feel that the provision is defective in that respect.
  The 1989 Act operates under the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore in certain circumstances arguments can be made that that might engage in certain situations—and, of course, the ECHR will still apply in the future in all these circumstances as a defence.
  In practice, situations where there is no possibility of appeal seem to be extremely rare. I will not say that it never happens, but there is usually some form of appeal for clemency that can be invoked in other jurisdictions.
  To take the example of a convicted war criminal, we believe that it should be the prerogative of a convicting country to decide whether a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of release should be imposed. However, as I have indicated and for reasons that I do not need to rehearse as I am sure they are well known to all Members of the Committee, we believe that the death penalty is a different matter. We believe that it should never be used as a punishment for a criminal offence.
  We do not believe that there is the same matter of principle in the case of mandatory life sentences. Indeed, we have life sentences in the UK, but "life" means a period of time which is not necessarily until the end of the convicted person's days. We may discuss these issues in the future.
  There is a further reason why I do not believe that we can go down this route. Without talking about this at length, justice requires that people who flee from justice in our country or someone else's can be brought to trial.
  At heart there are two options for establishing a system of international law which we have discussed in relation to other Bills. One either goes down the route of mutual recognition, or one goes down the route of effectively seeking to harmonise fully judicial procedures and sentences. As we have indicated previously, we do not believe that that latter route makes sense. We believe that there are very strong
  GC 122
  reasons why our own legal traditions and sentences should be respected. The corollary, however, is that we have to respect those of other states.
  That is not a statement at large. We are talking here about states with which we choose to make a specific extradition agreement. The decision to make such an agreement with country X, as we have previously indicated, will come before the House as an affirmative resolution. Therefore, there will be the possibility quite properly to inquire into whether that state is a suitable partner for extradition in the circumstances that we are advancing. So designation orders will be subject to the affirmative resolution.
  With a moment's thought, one can see where this proposal might lead. If we went down this avenue, it would be open to someone else to say, "We will extradite to you in Britain only if your sentencing system or even your judicial procedures match ours exactly". That is a route that would lead to the collapse of effective international extradition. We believe that that would frustrate justice. We make an exception for the death penalty, for reasons that I need not set out at length. But for these reasons, it is not possible to agree to this amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: On the Minister's final point about the question of mutuality, I point out that Article 5 of the European framework decision states:
  "The execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority may, by the law of the executing Member State, be subject to the following conditions".
  Paragraph 2 then states that,
  "if the offence on the basis of which the European arrest warrant has been issued is punishable by custodial life sentence or life-time detention order, the execution of the said arrest warrant may be subject to the condition that the issuing Member State has provisions in its legal system for a review of the penalty or measure imposed, on request or at the latest after 20 years, or for the application of measures of clemency to which the person is entitled to apply for under the law or practice of the issuing Member State, aiming at a non-execution of such penalty or measure".
  As regards category 1 states, it is clear that other members of the European Union may impose such a condition on extradition to this country under the terms of the European framework decision. So I do not regard that argument as a particularly serious one.
  The amendment, which applies to category 2 territories, is less far-reaching than that which would be permitted under Article 5 of the European framework decision. Therefore, I do not believe that it is unreasonable on the grounds that other countries might take a different view. However, I shall consider what the Minister has said on the subject and decide whether I wish to bring the matter back for further debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 210:
  Page 48, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to remove subsection (3) from Clause 93 of the Bill, which states that subsection (1)—that is, the ban on extradition to a country where the death penalty might be imposed—

  GC 123
  "does not apply if the person has consented to his extradition under section 125".
  I believe that, in principle, the United Kingdom should never assist in the sending of someone to face a trial that might result in the death penalty. It is clear that if a person is determined to go home to face trial there is nothing that this country could, or should, do to stop him doing so. That is both his decision and his action in removing himself to that country. I therefore believe that subsection (3) is, first, unnecessary and, secondly, inappropriate—because one would have to consider the nature of the consent that had been given. As I said, I believe that, as a matter of principle, the Government of the United Kingdom should not assist a person who has consented to being extradited to face the death penalty and should leave that decision and its implementation to that person himself or herself. I beg to move.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My noble friend Lord Bridgeman has added his name to the amendment. He is not present because he is bravely taking the Unstarred Question on the Floor of the House and is preparing for that. That is one of the problems that we have when a Grand Committee clashes with other business.
  I can be brief. I support the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I am always concerned when there is a question of consent, because consent can be given for many reasons. It may be that the person has not arrived at the decision in the proper or most advisable manner. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we should not in this Bill be assisting people to be removed in those circumstances. If it is entirely their decision, then obviously they have to face that; however, I believe that subsection (3) should be removed from the Bill as currently drafted.
  Lord Filkin: As I signalled privately to one or two Members of the Committee previously, in discussions and preparation for today's debates we were considering the potential mischief and the potential benefits of removing the provision. Such matters are never black and white. I was minded to see a situation in which someone might consent to his removal while still being of sound mind. People could, for example, be in a situation where they were so depressed that they thought that it was not worth pursuing the matter any further. We had a debate with ourselves as to whether in that situation the state should support such a process. We then considered the reverse—circumstances in which guarantees might not be given and where the person himself wanted to go. It is possible to construct an argument where there might be some such person, but it is a fairly remote set of circumstances.
  Therefore, I have signalled that we are minded to take the amendment away and to reflect positively on it. We will examine the situation further to see whether there would be any significant mischief as a consequence of the removal of the subsection. There
  GC 124
  are many arguments which, if I had not signalled them, would have been made in fuller detail as to why there are risks with the proposal as it stands.
  I hope that, given what I have said in good faith, the three noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment will be minded to withdraw it at this point.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the noble Lord sits down, if he is to reconsider this matter, I do not know whether it might be helpful to remind him of what is in some ways almost an analogy; namely, when we had the death penalty in this country a prisoner could not consent to his own death by pleading guilty unless the judge was satisfied. In other words, the judge had the power to overrule a guilty plea and say no, he must be tried. If there was a doubt, a prisoner could not consent to his own death.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I added my name to this amendment, but my noble friend has been very fair as regards the Committee. He said, without any obligation, that his civil servants—I assume that he, too—will look very carefully at the position. I do not think that anything divides members of the Government or the Opposition as far as the intention is concerned. I thank my noble friend for what he said. He is being entirely fair with this Committee.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for what he said. We welcome his undertaking to look at this matter again with a likelihood of taking some action. Therefore, in due course I hope that this amendment will be replaced by a government amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 93 agreed to.
  Clauses 94 to 97 agreed to.
  Clause 98 [Time limit for order for extradition or discharge]:
  [Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 not moved.]
  Clause 98 agreed to.
  Clause 99 [Information]:
  [Amendment No. 213 not moved.]
  Clause 99 agreed to.
  Clauses 100 and 101 agreed to.
  Clause 102 [Court's powers on appeal under section 101]:
  [Amendments Nos. 214 and 215 not moved.]
  Clause 102 agreed to.
  Clauses 103 to 123 agreed to.
  Clause 124 [Competing extradition requests]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 216:
  Page 64, line 2, at end insert—
  "( ) the date on which each offence was committed (or was alleged to have been committed);"
  The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 216 was inspired by the Law Society of Scotland, yet again. Simply, it extends the consideration of the Secretary of State when completing an extradition request by one extra factor; namely, the question "when". The Bill calls for consideration of how serious, where, the date of the request and whether the person is being convicted in absentia or merely stands accused. The amendment adds a fifth consideration; that is, when was the offence, or the alleged offence, committed? As there are limits, that seems to be a relevant consideration. The limits are, of course, both statutory and common sense.
  When at school I was taught to answer history questions with the formula: who, what, when, where, why, how and results. The Minister will recognise why I am attracted therefore to this amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this amendment. It seems that the Law Society of Scotland may have a point, although it is not a specifically Scots point. The quality of evidence that can be received may grow less with time. For that reason, it may be important, if there are competing requests for extradition, to go for the oldest first. Alternatively, it could operate the other way around. A second or further offence, committed after a person has been charged for a first offence, could be more heinous. It would he more extraordinary to be committing a second or third offence if a first has already been committed. There seems to be some sense in putting the date of each competing offence before the Secretary of State when he makes his decision. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for this short debate on an interesting concept. I was an historian too, but I cannot remember being able to answer any of the question which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, so correctly identified as key issues for the historian. Of course, I recognise that the question of time is important in certain contexts. With regard to this issue, I shall try to establish that nothing precludes the judge, if it is Part 1, or the Secretary of State, if it is Part 2, or a combination, from taking any relevant factors into account. In fact, it is quite 'the opposite. We would expect all relevant factors to be taken into account. Within the framework of the Bill, we have sought to specify four factors. I should like to identify why they are there, as well as to indicate why it is quite difficult to see how the concept of time can be put foursquare with existing factors and adds to the Bill.
  Competing requests—where we receive two extradition requests for the same individual—are, mercifully, relatively rare. None the less, we need to be able to deal with such circumstances. That is why the Bill contains provisions in this respect. Where two Part 1 requests are received, the district judge deals with those. Where two competing Part 2 requests are received, the Secretary of State makes the adjudication. If one request is under Part 1 and the other under Part 2, the Secretary of State adjudicates.
  GC 126
  In each case the Bill specifies the factors that have to be borne in mind. But I reiterate that other relevant factors can and should be taken into account.
  The four factors identified can be readily understood. I do not need to detain Members of the Committee a great deal on them. Surely, the single most important factor is whether one offence is significantly more serious than another. That is bound to be the most important consideration in competing cases. Similarly, there is a good reason why the place where the offences took place should be considered. The United Kingdom preference always has been that people should be tried in the place where they committed the crime. Again, that is a good reason, which is why the UK has always been willing—unlike some EU countries—to extradite its nationals.
  If there is a choice between a territorial request and an extra-territorial request, we believe the territorial one—the place where the crime took place—should take priority. That is particularly important if, as is theoretically possible, both requests could relate to the same person. Imagine that a German commits a serious offence while on holiday in France and then comes to Britain. France might request the person's extradition, but equally so might Germany, as it takes extra-territorial jurisdiction over the acts of its citizens. In such circumstances, we would give preference to the French request because we prefer people to be put on trial where the crime has been committed.
  The third factor to be taken into account when deciding competing requests is when the respective requests are received. That is important because one request might be well advanced in procedures before the second is received. One case already might have had its full extradition hearing and even possibly the appeal hearing at the High Court before the second request is received. All things being equal, the request which is well advanced along the judicial system should take precedence, rather than starting the whole process from scratch for the new request. Finally, the fourth factor to be taken into account is whether the requests are accusation cases or conviction cases. I am sure that Members of the Committee will understand why that should be so.
  Extradition is a significant step which has profound consequences for the person who is subject to it. It is preferable to extradite in a case where the person has already been tried and found guilty in a court of law than in a case where the person has yet to be put on trial and, perhaps, may be found not guilty. That is what the Bill currently states.
  The amendment would add another factor to he considered in every case where there were competing requests—the date on which the offences in question are alleged to have taken place. There may be some circumstances in which it would be entirely irrelevant, but the amendment would make it obligatory in every case. I have some difficulties on this. I am not sure how the dates for the offences should be taken into account. Should priority be given to the most recent offence, or to the less recent offence? On the one hand, it could be

  GC 127
  argued that the most recent offence should take priority because those responsible for the other requests might have been dilatory in their proceedings. On the other hand, it could be argued that the less recent offence should take priority because there is a greater danger that the memories of witnesses to the crime will fade unless the person is brought rapidly to justice.
  When faced with two requests which are otherwise roughly equal, one of which relates to conduct two years ago and one which relates to conduct six months ago, which should be given priority? I do not think that there is an easy answer to that question. But unless we are prepared to answer it and put instructions clearly on the face of the Bill, I do not think that we can support the amendment because that is what the amendment actually requests. It puts this concept foursquare with the existing four specifications in the Bill.
  The list of factors which I have just gone through is not exhaustive. Of course, if it is appropriate, the concept which the noble Earl introduces in his amendment could and should be taken into account. In a case where the dates of the respective offences clearly point to one or other of them being given priority, the person concerned can take that into account. But, for the reason I have given, I do not see that we should require the person making the judgment, in every case of competing requests, to have regard to this factor foursquare with the ones listed in the Bill. That is the reason why there is some merit in the proposal made by the noble Earl, which, on some occasions, would be relevant and should be considered. But we do not think that it fits foursquare with the four major considerations in the Bill
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I have tried to listen to the argument made by the noble Lord—I always have a problem listening to other people's arguments. At times, I thought that he was making my point for me. I would have preferred him to like this amendment. I do not think that it would have harmed the process at all. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 124 agreed to.
  Clause 125 [Consent to extradition: general]:
  [Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 218:
  Page 64, line 42. at end insert—
  "( ) In the application of this section to Scotland, "counsel" includes a solicitor who has a right of audience in the High Court of Justiciary under section 25A of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 (c. 46) (rights of audience in various courts including the High Court of Justiciary)."
  The noble Baroness said: With the permission of Members of the Committee, I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 218, although it has been discussed previously. This amendment relates to a question of whether in Scotland a solicitor advocate is
  GC 128
  able, under the Bill, to appear in the High Court of Justiciary when someone is appealing against extradition. The Minister must not be too frightened that I am speaking to this amendment and I shall have one question at the end.
  I was slightly confused when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, replied to this amendment. He kindly wrote a very helpful letter to explain that the Bill allows the solicitor advocate to appear in the High Court of Justiciary. I am grateful for that. That was the point of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, also pointed out that in this clause the Scottish court in question is the sheriff court, where a solicitor and not an advocate appears. So the amendment is actually misplaced. I accept that.
  Having said that, I should like to ask the Government one question. In Clause 125(9), the English court, about which we are speaking, is the magistrates' court. I wonder why counsel is mentioned at all. The noble Lord might like to write if he cannot obtain advice about that. It is a small point, and perhaps a rather naughty one. but the point does not fit with the letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I do not think that there is anything naughty about moving the amendment: the naughtiness may lie in the inadequacy of the reply. As the noble Baroness indicated, my noble friend Lord Bassam hoped to clear up the matter.
  We think that the amendment is misplaced. My major task is to defend the Bill against amendments. I understand that the noble Baroness may not press her amendment so far. On the technical question of whether the reference in this crucial clause is accurate. the noble Baroness may not be quite foursquare with the Scottish experience. A barrister in England can appear in the magistrates' court: therefore, we can refer to "counsel" quite accurately.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I confess to have had great ignorance on that matter. I thank the noble Lord very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 125 agreed to.
  Clause 126 agreed to.
  Clause 127 [Consent to other offence being dealt with]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 219:
  Page 65, line 31, leave out "section 93" and insert "sections 78, 93, 94 and 95"
  The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 219, 220 and 223—focuses on Clause 127, which covers consent to other offence being dealt with. When making a decision under the clause, the Secretary of State must decide whether the offence is an extradition offence. If it is, he must then decide whether extradition would be barred by virtue of Clause 93, which deals with the death

  GC 129
  penalty. We have tabled the amendments to probe why, at this stage, that is the only bar to extradition which the Secretary of State should take into consideration.
  Amendment No. 219 ensures that the Secretary of State must also take into account the other bars to extradition contained in the Bill—for example, the rule against double jeopardy; extraneous considerations; the passage of time and hostage-taking considerations—before giving consent to another offence being dealt with in a category 2 territory.
  The amendment was brought to our attention by the Law Society of England, which believes that in the interests of parity and fairness the other factors should be considered for the purposes of Clause 127. I emphasise that the amendment is tabled as a probing matter and would be so even on the Floor of the House. It is simply a matter of asking why there is different treatment. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 220 is tabled in my name. It is in the same form as that which has just been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with one exception: it adds to the grounds on which the Secretary of State must refuse consent on speciality grounds the fact that a trial for the second offence would be rejected on an application for extradition from the United Kingdom on grounds that a trial would he in breach of the human rights of the defendant. It therefore adds Section 86 to Sections 78, 93, 94 and 95 as a section that bars the consent of the Secretary of State to the trial of the defendant in the country to which he or she has already been extradited for a second offence.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful for the way in which Members of the Committee moved their amendments. Quite rightly, the amendments have been identified as probing. For once, I suggest that such probes have been accurately deployed, so I may be able to offer considerable sympathy with the issues raised. We may need to look at the matters further. We are certainly willing to reconsider whether Clauses 127 and 128 could be redrafted to make clearer the matters that the Secretary of State must consider.
  Clauses 127 and 128 are concerned with what happens after a person has been extradited from the UK to a category 2 country. Clause 127 is concerned with requests for waivers of speciality; that is, where the country to which the person was extradited wants to prosecute the person for an offence other than the one for which he was extradited. Clause 128 is concerned with onward extradition from the country to which he was originally extradited to another category 2 country.
  The Bill provides that, where we get such requests, the matter goes to the Secretary of State for him to consider whether they should be acceded to. The Committee will recall that the Government have already indicated that we are happy to consider whether it would he possible to include some form of provision to ensure that the person concerned is made aware of all such requests so that he can make such representations as he wishes.
  GC 130
  The provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are somewhat different from those in Part 1. Part 1 sets out clearly each and every bar that the district judge must consider. The reason for that distinction can he found in Clauses 54(6) and 56(6). In such cases. if none of the bars to extradition apply, the district judge must give his consent. By contrast, in Clauses 127(7) and 128(7). the Secretary of State may give his consent. That is the key point.
  As under current legislation, the Secretary of State has almost complete discretion in those matters. It follows that he can take account of every relevant factor in reaching his decision without the need to spell it out in the Bill. If, for example, further extradition would infringe the fugitive's human rights—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that point—or the further offence for which the other country wants to put him on trial is one for which he has already been tried, the Secretary of State can take those matters into account when deciding whether to give consent. One can probably go further and say that if, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State failed to take account of those factors, he would he subject to challenge very quickly.
  Having said that, it follows that, if it is our expectation in Part 2 cases that the Secretary of State should consider all the normal bars to extradition, there is likely to be no great harm in making that explicit in the Bill. That is why I am prepared to give an undertaking to look again at Clauses 127 and 128 to see whether we can make them more explicit to take account of the points made by Members of the Committee.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to the Minister for that offer to look at Clauses 127 and 128 again. It was our intention to ensure that it was clear that we were not trying to fetter the work of the Secretary of State and the decision to which he or she may come. I am grateful that the Minister will reconsider whether there is no harm in being able to direct the Secretary of State's attention to the variety of bars that might apply in a particular case. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 220 to 222 not moved.]
  Clause 127 agreed to.
  Clause 128 [Consent to further extradition to category 2 territory]:
  [Amendments Nos. 223 to 225 not moved.]
  Clause 128 agreed to.
  Clause 129 [Consent to further extradition to category 1 territory]:
  [Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 not moved.]
  Clause 129 agreed to.
  Clause 130 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:
  [Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 not moved.]
  Clause 130 agreed to.
  Clause 131 agreed to.
  Clause 132 [Costs where discharge ordered]:
  [Amenthnent No. 230 not moved.]
  Clause 132 agreed to.
  Clause 133 agreed to.
  Clause 134 [Documents sent by facsimile]:
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 230A:
  Page 69, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

  "(1) This section applies if a document to be sent in connection with proceedings under this Part is sent by facsimile transmission.

  (2) This Act has effect as if the document received by facsimile transmission were the document used to make the transmission.

  (3) The document received by facsimile transmission may be received in evidence accordingly."

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
  Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 135 agreed to.
  Clause 136 [Persons serving sentences outside territory where convicted]:
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 231A, 231B and 231C:
  Page 69, line 31, after "is" insert "alleged to be"
  Page 69, line 33, after "offence" insert "specified in the request"
  Page 70, line 14, at end insert—

  "(e) section 84 has effect as if, in subsections (1)(c), (2)(c) and (3)(c), after "entitled" there were inserted "in the convicting territory";

  (f) section 1 17(4) has effect as if "a category 2 territory" read "the convicting territory" and as if "the category 2 territory" in both places read "the convicting territory";

  (g) section 138( I ) has effect as if "a category 2 territory" read "the convicting territory";

  (h) in section 138, subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (7) have effect as if "the category 2 territory" read "the convicting territory"."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 137 and 138 agreed to.
  Clause 139 [The appropriate judge]:
  [Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 not moved.]
  Clause 139 agreed to.
  Clauses 140 to 145 agreed to.
  Clause 146 [Dealing with person Jar other offences]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 234:
  Page 77, line 9. leave out paragraph (d).
  The noble Lord said: Part 3 of the Bill concerns extradition to the United Kingdom. Amendment No. 234 focuses on Clause 146, dealing with persons for other offences. As I understand it, the clause deals with the speciality issue as regards Part 3 of the Bill; that is to say, the United Kingdom's obligations under the speciality issue as regards persons extradited to this country. Clause 146(2) provides that a person may be dealt with for an offence committed before his extradition only if the offence falls under subsection
  GC 132
  (3) or the condition in subsection (4) is met. Under subsection (3), there is a list of seven categories of offences.
  As we move to the detail of the amendment. I ask the Minister whether he could clear up the confusion on paragraph (b). I apologise that it is at short notice, so I shall understand if he wishes to write about the matter afterwards. As a non-lawyer, I find the ramifications of speciality difficult to think through. particularly given the intertwined and overlapping nature of much modern crime.
  As I understand it, speciality rules are designed to prevent a country extraditing a person for one offence and then charging him for another, or possibly passing him on to a third country having obtained him. The example that I have in mind of where paragraphs (b) and (d) overlap is as follows: Mr X robs a bank in this country and goes to France. He is sought, detained and his extradition begins. But, to provide background information to their decision to grant extradition, the French authorities gain access to his bank account, which reveals that he had been trading in drugs before the bank robbery. Taking into account Clause 143(b), can he then be charged for the drug-related offences? On the one hand, they are very different offences from the bank robbery and occurred before the offence for which his extradition took place. But, as stated in paragraph (b), it would be,
  "an offence disclosed by the information provided to the category 1 territory in respect of that offence".
  That will be an increasingly common problem as we deal with modern crimes where there is such an overlapping and intertwining of various offences. I would be grateful if the Minister could talk about the matter, as it is relevant to paragraph (d).
  Paragraph (d) refers to,
  "an extradition offence in respect of which consent to the person being dealt with is treated as given on behalf of that territory".
  The words "treated as given" have given us quite a lot of cause for concern. I find it difficult to see why it is "treated as given". It is either given or not given. Perhaps the Minister could give us an example of where "treated as given" would be different from "given". We believe that it may be a drafting error, left over from the former provisions for speciality that were removed on Report in another place. They allowed prior blanket statements of "presumed consent" to remove the speciality rule in respect of a territory.
  The Government's amendments on Report in another place removed paragraph (d) from Clause 17, the speciality clause in Part 1. It had read:
  "an extradition offence in respect of which the appropriate judge is treated by section 53 as giving his consent to the person being dealt with".
  That paragraph is almost identical to the paragraph (d) that our amendment would remove from Clause 146.
  In the other place, the Minister, Mr Ainsworth, explaining why the Government wished to make the amendment to Clause 17 said:

  GC 133
  "Government amendments Nos. 49, 51, 52 and 74 relate to the speciality waiver and further extradition to a category 1 territory. Under the Bill as drafted, the UK was able to adopt a higher position on speciality, which means that we could agree on a reciprocal basis with a part 1 extradition partner that they, and we, can, after extradition, presume our consent to the person being prosecuted for offences committed before extradition took place. However, grave concerns were expressed about this issue, and we listened to the worries expressed by members of the Standing Committee and of the Home Affairs Select Committee. We have therefore decided that the reference to the use of the higher position on speciality and re-extradition should be removed from the Bill, and these amendments achieve that aim".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/03; col. 186.]
  We welcome that significant concession. However, we feel that the "presumed consent" concept will not have been completely removed from the Bill, unless the relevant change is made to Clause 146—the removal of paragraph (d)—and we get some idea of how subsection (3)(b) will operate. Our amendment would simply remove one paragraph from the clause. If the Government subscribe to the removal of paragraph (d) from Clause 17, they should support our attempts to finish off the job and remove paragraph (d) from Clause 146. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: As I shall explain in a moment, I shall be all sweetness and light with regard to paragraph (d), but, unfortunately, before that, I must say that the noble Lord has introduced a problem with paragraph (b) on which I can be neither sweet nor light. "Light" would suggest that I knew what I was talking about. and I cannot be "sweet" unless I understand the issue sufficiently.
  We are not sure that paragraph (b) covers the case that the noble Lord gave in his illustration. We know that paragraph (h) is concerned, for example, with a case in which a person is extradited for murder and the charge is then reduced to manslaughter. It is a different offence, but it is covered by the same facts. That is what paragraph (b) is there for. I will have to write to the noble Lord on the other matter that he raised. I have not got the wit to interpret it and produce a satisfactory answer at the moment.
  I can give a satisfactory answer to the issue to which the amendment refers—paragraph (d). In common parlance, the noble Lord has got us bang to rights. We have made an error, as he has rightly and generously acknowledged. We made concessions in the other place, and we re-drafted the Bill. We got it right throughout the Bill and interpreted the concessions and that change accurately. In that one instance, we did not, so I congratulate the noble Lord on spotting it with his eagle eye. He will save the Government considerable embarrassment. I am not sure that that was intentional, but we both gain. I thank him for that and, accordingly, will consider the amendment and re-draft the Bill bearing in mind his point. I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific matter raised in respect of paragraph (b).
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that the point on Clause 146(3)(b) was a fast ball slightly short of a length. I
  GC 134
  look forward to receiving the Minister's letter in due course. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clause 147 agreed to.
  Clause 148 [Extradition offences]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 235:
  Page 78. line 24. at end insert "or, if the conduct constituted an offence under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003, any sentence of imprisonment or detention has been imposed in the United Kingdom in respect of that conduct"
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 235 and 236 stand in my name, that of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, who will speak to the amendment in a minute or two. It is a subject about which the noble Baroness has a great deal of experience.
  We tabled the amendments to get clarification from the Government of their attitude to the extradition of persons who have committed offences under the Female Genital Mutilation Bill, if it is enacted. The Bill is a Private Member's Bill and is currently in the other place. I understand that it has the support of the Government and is due for consideration on Report in another place tomorrow, Friday 11th July.
  The Female Genital Mutilation Bill relates to some truly awful conduct. The House of Commons Library has produced a long research paper, but I cart do no better than to quote from the Explanatory Notes prepared by the Home Office, with the consent of the Member in charge of the Bill in another place, Ann Clwyd:
  "Female genital mutilation (FGM) involves procedures which include the partial or total removal of the external female genital organs for cultural or other non-therapeutic reasons. The practice is medically unnecessary, extremely painful and has serious health consequences, both at the time when the mutilation is carried out, and in later life. FGM is a criminal offence in the UK under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Bill repeals and re-enacts the provisions of the 1985 Act and gives them extra-territorial effect as was recommended by an All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health reporting in 2000. It also increases the maximum penalty, on conviction on indictment, for FGM from 5 to 14 years' imprisonment".
  I shall not elaborate on the Bill's provisions, but I commend to the Committee the speeches that were made in another place on 21st March, when the Bill received an unopposed Second Reading and support from all parts of that House. I trust that, when it reaches your Lordships' House, it will receive a similar level of support.
  The House of Commons research paper reveals that FGM is most frequently practised among the populations of Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria. There are two important facts that bring us to the Extradition Bill. First, there are believed to he between 3,000 and 4,000 new cases each year in this country, involving families who may or may not remain here. Secondly, there is a

  GC 135
  tendency for families to travel to their country of origin to inflict FGM on their daughters. Those two facts explain the relevance of the matter to this Committee.
  The amendments explore the issue of extradition back to the United Kingdom—hence the discussion in Part 3—under the provisions of the Extradition Bill of persons who will have been convicted of crimes under the Female Genital Mutilation Bill, assuming that it is enacted. The FGM Bill as I said, would confer extraterritorial jurisdiction on the UK courts in relation to acts of female genital mutilation done abroad by United Kingdom nationals or permanent United Kingdom residents. That would mean that, under Clause 148(2) of the Extradition Bill, persons who took part in acts of female genital mutilation abroad could be extradited to face trial in this country. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to approach the provisions in practice. Do they envisage making extradition requests in such circumstances?
  Finally, I ought to say something about the effect of the amendments. They would create an exception to the requirement under subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 148 that, for conduct to constitute an extradition offence for which a person could be extradited back to the United Kingdom, a sentence of at least four months' imprisonment must have been imposed. The amendments would allow a person convicted of an offence under the Female Genital Mutilation Bill to be extradited if any custodial sentence had been imposed. Do the Government expect that, with the increase in the maximum penalty under the FGM Bill from five to 14 years' imprisonment, sentences of less than four months will routinely be imposed by the courts for such offences? In that case, the changes proposed by the amendments might need to be re-considered.
  We accept that it would not be right to create such an exception for one category of offence only. To that extent. the amendments are before the Committee today simply so that the Government's position on the matter can be made clear. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on how the Government intend to proceed on the extradition of persons who have committed such appalling acts. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before speaking to the amendment, I must declare an interest as a patron of FORWARD, the Foundation for Women's Health Research and Development. For that reason and because of the debates that we have had in your Lordships' House on the subject, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns.
  The noble Lord has outlined the purpose of the amendment, which, as he said, is a probing amendment. It would allow extradition back to the UK after conviction, if a sentence has been imposed for a crime in the UK under the Female Genital Mutilation Bill. The amendment specifies that FGM
  GC 136
  should be a specific offence and should be classified as conduct that constitutes an extradition offence, if it occurs in the UK. If the conduct—FGM, in this instance—occurs outside the country, it would still amount to an extradition offence. if it constituted an extraterritorial offence and was, therefore, punishable in the same way. We had hoped that Ann Clwyd's Private Member's Bill would have completed its passage through the other place by now. However, it is encouraging to know that it will be completed, we hope, this Friday and that it has government support.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, FGM is already a criminal offence in the UK, under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. Legal action against FGM is also possible under the Children Act 1989. Even now, a court could take steps to prevent the removal of a child from the UK for the purposes of carrying out the mutilation abroad. To date, however, there have been no prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act. I appreciate that it is difficult to obtain evidence to support prosecutions, but another reason for the lack of convictions may be that the law can be so easily evaded. People can circumvent the law by taking girls out of the country.
  The FGM Bill would repeal and re-enact the provisions of the 1985 Act and give it extraterritorial reach. The specific clauses of that Bill are Clause 3, which makes it an offence for a person in the UK to aid, abet, counsel or procure the performance outside the UK of a relevant FGM operation, and Clause 4, which provides that any of the prohibited acts done outside the UK by a UK national and permanent UK resident will be an offence under domestic law and will be triable in the courts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Bill does not apply to Scotland.
  Full credit must be given to the Government for their support for this important Bill. I know that long discussions have gone on, in order to make the Bill complete and workable in the UK. In a letter on the subject in April 2002, it was made clear to me that the Home Secretary was determined to make the taking of girls abroad for FGM illegal. The amendments would give added strength to that commitment.
  The Committee may wonder why FGM has been singled out as a subject for cross-party amendments. There are two reasons: first. it is a serious crime: and, secondly, if the practice is to be stopped, we must send out constant messages to the practitioners that it will no longer be tolerated. I do not intend to delay the Committee, but it is important that there be a clear understanding of what female genital mutilation means. I introduced a debate on the subject in the House on 10th November, 1998. I did so because, as I said then,
  "The realities of FGM are grim. Reading about it makes you shudder; watching videos of the practice makes you sense the horror".—[Official Report, 10/11/98: col. 731.]
  The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, outlined a little of the procedure. I shall elaborate a little, but not too much, as I do not want to horrify the Committee. There are three related, distinct

  GC 137
  procedures. The first is the removal of the clitoris; the second is a partial removal; and the third is the removal of all of a woman's external genitalia, followed by the stitching-up of the tissue over the wound. One can imagine the consequences of doing that. How would a woman lead a normal sexual life in those circumstances?
  It is an unnecessary and very painful mutilation of the body—a horror that can affect the girl for the rest of her life. The long-term consequences can be particularly severe. There can be difficulties in pregnancy and childbirth. Women who have been mutilated are twice as likely to die in childbirth and three or four times more likely to have a stillborn child.
  It is estimated that between 130 million and 150 million women have undergone FGM worldwide. With the increasing movement of people in Europe to countries where the practice is endemic, such customs and practices often travel with them. It is difficult to be accurate about the extent of practice in this country. Forward estimates that 74,000 first generation African immigrant women in the UK have undergone the operation, with as many as 7,000 girls under the age of 16 still at risk.
  These amendments have been tabled to register what I hope is the cross-party support for the need to take the matter very seriously indeed. We await the Bill's passage to your Lordships' House, where it will be sponsored by my noble friend Lady Rendell. We hope that when it comes to this place it will receive full support from the Government as it has done in the other place.
  We must repeatedly stress that such practices must cease or the consequences will be severe on those who inflict such horror on a young and innocent girl. That is why FGM has been singled out to be included as conduct that can result in extradition.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I am very happy to place on the record that the Government are glad that the amendments have been tabled, and to explain why. Female genital mutilation is a sickening crime, and it is absolutely right that we have the appropriate legislation to enable us to combat it. The Government fully support the Private Member's Bill being considered in another place. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has gone further and said that, had the Private Member's Bill not been brought forward, he would have looked to introduce a government. Bill for the same purpose when and if a suitable opportunity presented itself.
  The case has been made clearly as to why it matters, and why extra-territoriality is necessary in those circumstances. I therefore pay tribute to the two people who are championing the Bill, Ann Clywd in the other place and, in due course, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, in your Lordships' House.
  As a result of discussions on a cross-party basis on the issue, we also thought that it was convenient and useful to seek to use the opportunity of discussing an
  GC 138
  amendment on the Extradition Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, spoke clearly as to why it was relevant rather than a mere procedural device. But there is a purpose for that also. As I am sure Members of the Committee know, if the Private Member's Bill were amended in your Lordships' House, it would go to the bottom of the list when it returned to the other place and its chances of survival would be slim or remote.
  The happy opportunity to debate the issue today therefore gives Members of the Committee the chance to raise any concerns of detail—one hopes not of principle—about the issue. That would allow those discussing the Bill in another place to consider those concerns, and, if they were minded to do so, to consider whether any points of detail needed to be addressed. That would reduce the risk that an amendment in this place—however well intentioned—might have the unintended consequence of effectively destroying the Bill. There have been some discussions and understanding about the matter around the House.
  For those reasons, I reiterate the Government's view that it is an important issue. We strongly support the measure and think that extra-territorial powers are needed. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether we would use the powers in practice. Undoubtedly, we would seek to use them if we felt that there was evidence to support it. We hope that the police would pursue such matters vigorously. As with any extradition case, there can be no guarantee that the request will be successful. However, that is not a reason not to have the power in statute to allow us to pursue it. The penalties that FGM already attracts mean that it is already extraditable, as I have indicated.
  In response to the noble Lord's second question. we very much doubt that there would be cases where a person is given a custodial sentence of fewer than four months. So, in our view, there is no risk in that respect. For those reasons we support the Bill, but I understand that the amendment is likely to be withdrawn later in our discussions on this clause.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and his support for the prohibition and discouragement of this terrible practice. I am particularly grateful for his reassurance that the Government are prepared to use the extra-territorial powers—assuming the Private Member's Bill is enacted—and the powers in this Bill in support of the work to try to stamp out FGM. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 236 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 148 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It would be a mistake to let Part 3 of the Bill pass without opportunity for comments from all sides of the Committee. Clause 148 defines extradition offences for Part 3. It is perhaps, therefore, the easiest clause in Part 3 on which to have a general discussion about extradition to the United Kingdom and the offences

  GC 139
  for which we would request extradition. We had a long, interesting debate on the corresponding clause in Part 1—Clause 63—and the appropriate thresholds. There is still some juice in the subject to be extracted at Part 3 in looking at the threshold for extradition offences for those being extradited to, rather than from, the United Kingdom.
  It will not have escaped the notice of all noble Lords who have been involved in the Bill for some time that 90 per cent of the briefing and input to amendments from outside organisations has concerned Part 1. Perhaps 8 per cent of such briefing related to Part 2 and a small proportion concerned Parts 4 and 5. For my part, I have not had a single comment from any outside group on provisions in Part 3. That is perhaps not surprising, but it is slightly concerning, because we welcome any proposals to make extradition to the United Kingdom as quick and efficient as possible so that those who have committed crimes here and then escaped overseas can be brought back to face justice.
  Obviously, we do not have the same concerns as we would do under Parts 1 or 2, because the eventual prosecution resulting from extradition will take place in this country within a criminal justice system with which we are familiar and that, for the most part, we trust. The lack of amendments to this part of the Bill is therefore no reflection on the lack of scrutiny from our Benches or those elsewhere in the Committee. But the concern is that we may inadvertently overlook some aspect that, although non-contentious to us, is none the less considered highly controversial elsewhere.
  The Minister has frequently reminded us at previous sittings of the Committee that we must not assume our superiority in matters judicial, and that each country believes that it has the best judicial system.
  "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!"
  One wonders whether, when the practical implications of Part 3 are faced, it will run as smoothly as planned.
  Having expressed general support for the Government on the proposals outlined in Part 3, I wish to probe the Minister further on one area. Clause 148 defines an extradition offence for the purposes of Clauses 142 to 147—that is, extradition from category 1 territories. The question that I wish to raise is similar to that posed by the Liberal Democrat amendment, Amendment No. 115, which we discussed several Committee sittings ago. On Part 1, we argued that the threshold for extradition offences should be three years and not 12 months. That argument, the Committee will recall, was based on two points. The first was that we should follow the threshold of three years, as set out in the framework decision. The second was that we should provide further protection for our citizens from extradition for minor offences that fall within the framework and, therefore, are not subject to the dual criminality requirement.
  The Government's only response was to say that the 12-month threshold is currently employed and there is no reason to change it. We are now looking at the other
  GC 140
  side of the coin; that is, the threshold for offences for which we want to extradite people back here to the United Kingdom to face trial. I was particularly struck by the argument that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, put forward when we discussed thresholds in Clause 63 under Amendment No. 115. He remarked in Grand Committee on 1st July:
  "Those who have promoted the desirability of this whole system have done so on the basis that, 'Well, you must not think only of our people being taken there, you must think of the desirability of us getting people back here'. Surely, in that case, we should go below the three years but only for countries that have done the same for us. There is an argument for saying that the three years could be reduced to a lesser period by Order in Council where the requesting state in question had also reduced similarly. It would be very wrong if we sent people back to a country for 12-month offences when that country would not return people to us except for three-year offences".—[Official Report, 1/7/03; cols. GC 210–211.]
  The question here is one of reciprocity. The Minister has argued that to have a three-year threshold for Part 1 and a 12-month threshold for Part 2 would lead to complications and a lack of consistency. I think that more confusion and lack of consistency will be created by some countries sticking to the three-year threshold of the framework document while we downgrade to 12 months. What will happen if we request the extradition of someone from France to be prosecuted for an offence which warrants 14 months but France has followed the framework decision and enacted that, in its equivalent to our Part 1 procedures it cannot extradite someone to face prosecution for anything less than a three-year offence? How does that lack of reciprocal arrangements fit with the spirit of mutual recognition and harmonisation which, as I understand it, the European arrest warrant was designed to produce?
  I, therefore, want briefly to return to what I believe is the essential crux of this argument. Extradition requests between category 1 countries follow a procedure which is meant to implement the framework decision of the European arrest warrant. However much we may dislike the provisions of the arrest warrant, it is a decision which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, was agreed under the intergovernmental pillar and therefore with unanimity. Will the Government seek to cause more problems by altering the threshold which was agreed at that time? We have not yet had a satisfactory answer to the gold-plating issue that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised before.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said in reply:
  "The Government remain of the view that there is no reason why in implementing the European measures the United Kingdom should always do the bare minimum and only that. Our positive approach to implementing the European arrest warrant will, we hope, set an example to other member states to take a similarly constructive attitude".—[Official Report, 1/7/03; col. GC 211.]
  I accept what the noble Baroness said but the words "the bare minimum" constitute an emotive phrase. It is not the bare minimum; it is what is laid down in the European arrest warrant. I am sure that the Minister travels round the country and finds that the issue of gold-plating comes up again and again and again. In

  GC 141
  industry and commerce and in farming people feel that we in an effort to be "good Europeans" run far ahead of what the other EU countries do. While one can perhaps admire the sentiments put forward by the noble Baroness, I as yet have not heard from her—perhaps I shall hear from the Minister this afternoon—that her approach will in any way be rewarded.
  Expressing hope that something may happen among our European partners when we are going to impose extra stringent regulations on our own citizens seems to me to be a mistake. What we need to know is where is the beef? Where is something definite that we arc going to get back for this country in return for our gold-plating this particular piece of European legislation?
  On the grounds of justice being done, do we set the threshold at three years and provide protection for our citizens against unfair extradition but accept that that may result in allowing others to escape being extradited for offences which fall between 12 months and three years? Or, conversely, as the Government argue, do we expose our citizens to what may often be unfair trial proceedings overseas where their civil liberties may well be infringed for trivial offences which we might not regard as crimes?
  It is important for us to have a further debate at this stage on thresholds because in Clause 148 we are looking at the problem from a different angle—that is, from the point of view of extraditing people to the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that that important aspect has full discussion and scrutiny before we pass on to consider Part 4 of the Bill.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for explaining clearly the issues that he wished to raise. He took us back to some earlier debates. There is no harm in that as these are important issues.
  I wish to make a few remarks initially about the Part 3 warrant and then I shall seek to address the specifics of some of the points that the noble Lord made. As the Committee will know, Part 3 warrants are to be used only when making requests to Part 1 countries. For all other extradition, partners' requests will, as now, be made under the Royal Prerogative. Because we have traditionally relied on the Royal Prerogative for all outgoing cases there has never previously been a provision of this kind in our law. As the Committee can see, the definitions in this clause are quite clear. They provide that the offence must be one over which the UK takes jurisdiction and attract a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment or more. That is the traditional extradition threshold and the one that features in all of our bilateral treaties. There is nothing new. There is also nothing new about it as regards the European Convention on Extradition.
  Where we are making a departure is by providing that in cases where the person has already been convicted and sentenced, a sentence of four months' imprisonment or longer must have been imposed by the court. Let me explain why we have done that. The Government believe that where a court of trial has
  GC 142
  considered a case and passed a sentence, that should be the bench-mark used to determine the seriousness of the case. Traditionally in UK extradition law the threshold for extradition has been whether the conduct attracts a maximum penalty of 12 months' imprisonment or more in the requesting state, and that it would attract the same maximum sentence it' it had occurred in the United Kingdom. That threshold has applied in both accusation cases and conviction cases.
  The effect of that has been that it has been theoretically possible for us to extradite or seek the extradition of a person who was sentenced to a week's imprisonment provided that the court could have sentenced him to a year or more in prison. That does not seem very sensible and the Bill seeks to rectify it. Clearly, in an accusation case, the only measure of how serious the crime is and, therefore, whether it justifies extradition, is the sentence that will be available to the court if the person is convicted. For that reason the Bill retains the traditional threshold in accusation cases.
  However, the situation is different in conviction cases. In these cases the case has gone before a court and all the facts of the case have been properly examined. In these cases we can form a judgment of the seriousness of the offence on the basis of the sentence that has been imposed. Accordingly, the Bill provides that in conviction cases the threshold is determined not by the theoretical maximum sentence that could be imposed in the requesting state but by the sentence that the court which has considered the case has actually seen fit to impose. That is why the Bill provides that the threshold in a conviction case is that a sentence of four months' imprisonment must have been imposed.
  I should point out that Clause 148 says nothing about dual criminality because for the purpose of extradition to the United Kingdom the conduct in question must clearly be an offence in our law. Whether it is an offence in the law of the requesting state and what difference that might make is a matter for that other country over which we have no direct control.
  I appreciate that some Members of the Committee may not want Part 1 in the Bill or, alternatively, may want it solely for terrorist offences. But if the Final decision of Parliament is that Part 1 should remain and be of general application, as I hope, I am sure the Committee will recognise that we need to set thresholds for outgoing requests and that these, we believe, are the appropriate ones.
  I turn to some of the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. The threshold of the framework decision is one year. It is only three years for the removal of dual criminality. The framework decision provides for extradition in the one to three year bracket provided the dual criminality requirement is met.
  The noble Lord made a number of general remarks about the Government's stance on Europe. I do not wish to excite or provoke a long debate but just to speak briefly from my own experience of being a combined interior and justice Minister, as it were, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The stance that

  GC 143
  I and other Ministers took was to have an open mind to the possibility that collective action in Europe could he beneficial to the United Kingdom, but not to take the view that automatically moving towards harmonisation was necessarily a good thing unless there was clear evidence that a specific measure was likely to be of benefit, either directly or indirectly, to British citizens. That was the test that I frequently put to officials and to other justice and interior Ministers when we debated those issues; that is, where is the benefit that would apply to our citizens and, conversely, to their citizens? The view that harmonisation in itself is good is an argument that I and others frequently challenged as being specious and without foundation. From my biased viewpoint it had to be justifiable on the specific evidence that it would be of benefit to citizens of the United Kingdom.
  I shall not respond to the argumentation about unfair trial procedure as it will weary the Committee to rerun that debate. All I would say in response to why we have taken a view of retaining our current practice of one year—that is in a sense a discussion around minimalism—is to amplify what my noble friend Lady Scotland said. Measures which seem to us to be in the interests of promoting justice, whether in this country or abroad, aim to bring people who have committed an offence to trial and then to sentence after a proper process of law. That seems to the Government to be in the interests of British citizens. I refer to measures which increase, domestically and internationally, our means of bringing people who have committed crimes to trial and sentence. That is in the direct and indirect interests of British citizens, which is why we believe it is right to set the limit at the level that we have.
  I do not wish to weary the Committee. I am certain that I shall not convince the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on those points but I wish to put them on record.
  Clause 148 agreed to.
  Clause 149 [The appropriate judge]:
  [Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 not moved.]
  Clause 149 agreed to.
  Clauses 150, 151 and 152 agreed to.
  Clause 153 [Return of person acquitted or not tried]:
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 238A:
  Page 80, line 32, after "from" insert "—

  (i) a category I territory under law of the territory corresponding to Part I of this Act, or

  (ii) "

  The noble Lord said: I shall be brief in speaking to the amendment as I hope that no Member of the Committee will object to what we are trying to do. As the Bill is currently drafted, a person who is extradited to the United Kingdom from a category 2 country and then not put on trial or acquitted is entitled to be returned to the country from which he was extradited at public expense. This is very similar to Section 20 of the Extradition Act 1989. However, Clause 153 applies only to people who have been extradited from Part 2 countries. There is no corresponding provision in
  GC 144
  respect of extradition from Part 1 countries. One can speculate about what might have been the historical reasons for that in terms of the relative cost of travel, but we can see no good reason in principle why there should not be parity of treatment. We do not believe that the distinction between Part 1 and Part 2 countries in this respect can be justified. Accordingly, these amendments allow for people to be returned to Part 1 countries when they have been acquitted or not charged, at public expense. I hope that Members of the Committee will welcome this proposal.
  Lord Lamont of Lerwick: If a person had been in a third country but was extradited, would he be returned to his home country—that is, this country? Supposing he was in Norway and was extradited to Germany, would he be returned to this country?
  Lord Filkin: What an interesting question; I think I would be wise to reflect on it. My off-the-cuff response is that one would return him to whichever of the two he requested in those circumstances. However, it would be better if I reflected further on this point to see whether there is an underlying principle to guide us in those circumstances. I will write to the noble Lord accordingly.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We support the amendments for the reasons the Minister has given. The only conceivable justification for treating Part 1 countries differently from Part 2 countries was geography. It was not so far away. By the time the Minister had added Iceland, it was going to be more expensive to get back from there. So we are quite happy with these amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 238B:
  Page 81. line 4, leave out from "back" to end of line and insert ", free of charge and with as little delay as possible. to the territory from which he was extradited to the United Kingdom in respect of the offence."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 153, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 238C:
  Before Clause 154. insert the following new clause—
  "RESTRICTION ON BAIL WHERE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY SECRETARY OF STATE
  (1) This section applies in relation to a person if—

  (a) the Secretary of State has given an undertaking in connection with the person's extradition to the United Kingdom. And

  (b) the undertaking includes terms that the person be kept in custody until the conclusion of any proceedings against him in the United Kingdom for an offence.

  (2) A court, judge or justice of the peace may grant bail to the person in the proceedings only if the court, judge or justice of the peace considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify it."
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 238C I shall also speak to Amendment No. 267ZA. I can be brief, as I think the Committee will see merit in them.

  GC 145
  As will be recalled from previous discussions, the Bill will allow us temporarily to extradite serving UK prisoners in order to stand trial abroad. One of the conditions we can impose is that the other country keeps the person in custody for the duration of his trial. Clearly, it would be quite unsatisfactory if we were temporarily to extradite someone who had been convicted of a very serious offence in the United Kingdom courts and been given a long sentence, only to see him granted bail abroad and then abscond.
  However, that cuts both ways. If we are temporarily to extradite our serving prisoners, we may also want to seek the temporary extradition of those serving sentences in other countries. For exactly the same reasons, the countries concerned may want an assurance that we will keep the person in custody—
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.13 to 6.23 p.m.]
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The issue cuts both ways. If we are to extradite our prisoners temporarily, we may also want the temporary extradition of those serving in other countries. For the same reason, the countries concerned may want an assurance that we will keep the person in custody for the duration of his stay.
  The Bill enables the Secretary of State to make the necessary undertakings to the country concerned, and the amendments are designed to give those undertakings some teeth. The amendments recognise that the questions of bail or remand in custody are the prerogative of the court, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case. The amendments provide that the person should not be given bail unless the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances that justify it.
  I suggest that the provisions apply only to those who serve sentences abroad who have been temporarily extradited to the UK. In every other case, the normal hail rules apply. I remind Members of the Committee that, for the first time, we are creating a presumption in favour of bail in extradition cases. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We find these sensible amendments, but there are a few issues on which we would appreciate a little more detail. There appears to be no mention in the framework decision of any provision for withholding bail at the request of the issuing country in circumstances involving the extradition of someone already serving a sentence. In fact, there is not much about bail anywhere in the framework decision. Perhaps the Minister could explain how that would fit in, as it presumably provided the basis on which the Government decided to include the provision in the Bill.
  Do other countries have similar provisions in their domestic legislation? Otherwise, we are in another one-way street, where they are doing the bare minimum and we are not doing the bare minimum but rushing ahead of our colleagues to provide them with things that we will not get back. Will the Minister explain
  GC 146
  whether there is anything in the present extradition procedure under the existing Act that provides for these situations? I presume that there is not.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, wrote a very helpful letter, but it contained a strange anomaly. It said in one paragraph that the Secretary of State could give an undertaking that a person would be detained. Later on it said that, as the Minister pointed out, the courts decide about bail and not the Secretary of State. I am not sure how the Secretary of State is going to give an undertaking when it is not in his power to enforce it.
  Bearing in mind that exceptional circumstances exist, it would be helpful for the Minister to give the Committee an example of the Government's intentions. I hate vague words such as "exceptional circumstances", and it would be helpful to have an example.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, will be aware, we are struggling our way through the Criminal Justice Bill. We are finishing Part 2 dealing with hail, so it would be interesting to see how that ties in with the Government's intentions, given that the provisions for the granting of bail are being quite radically changed.
  In principle, we believe the amendments to be sensible, but it would be helpful to have some background information before we reach a final conclusion.
  Lord Goodhart: We also believe the amendments to be sensible, and we are happy to support them.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the broad measure of support, although the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has asked me some precise questions on which I may have to write to him in due course, if I cannot think on my feet sufficiently.
  The noble Lord will recognise that the principle on which we are working is quite clear. We want 10 ensure that when we are involved in the issue of extradition we can expect certain undertakings to be met with regard to the category in question—namely, those serving sentences. We therefore expect and anticipate that we need to meet the same requirements for people who are from other countries in our prisons.
  The issue is not covered by the framework decision, so we are free to make our own decisions. The noble Lord referred to other aspects of the criminal justice system and the other Bill. We are in a position to make our decisions according to our own judgments. Other countries have different bail rules, and not all of them have the same presumption in bail as us, so there are discrepancies. The noble Lord is right to point out that we cannot achieve in every circumstance the concept of total reciprocity. There is nothing in existing legislation about temporary surrender so there is no equivalent of these provisions at present.
  As regards whether the Secretary of State can give an undertaking which may not prove to be 100 per cent valid, that would be for the Government to decide, but

  GC 147
  the amendments should ensure that the undertaking is normally honoured. Under the Part 2 framework the Secretary of State has a crucial role to play.
  The question of exceptional circumstances would be a matter for the court to decide. I suppose the most obvious example is a prisoner falling seriously ill and the place in which he is detained not being adequate to meet his needs. In a spirit of humanity we would have to ensure that different arrangements were made. That would be an exceptional circumstance. It would not happen very often. Therefore, we need to make provision for exceptional circumstances. If we made the matter absolutely cut and dried, we could find ourselves applying the law in a way which conflicted with basic concepts of humanity. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that explanation.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): The Question is that Clause 154 stand part of the Bill.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Did the noble Lord say Clause 154?
  The Chairman of Committees: Clause 154, I said. Does the noble Lord wish to speak to Clause 154? No notice has been given.
  On Question, Whether Clause 154 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: No notice has been given that I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 154 shall stand part of the Bill, for which I apologise. However, I want to ask the Minister about service personnel. The clause is very widely drawn. The Secretary of State may by order provide for the part to have effect in relation to those who are subject to military law.
  Bearing in mind that we are talking about extradition to the United Kingdom, in what circumstances will the measure have effect and what kind of cases do the Government have in mind? As the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees pointed out, we did not give notice of the matter. Therefore, I understand that the noble Lord may wish to reply in writing.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The essential reason that we want Clause 154 in the Bill is that it is already possible under the 1989 Act for the UK services to make extradition requests for those who have committed military offences. As the clause clearly states, those requests can be made only for those who are subject to military law, air force law or the Naval Discipline Act 1957. Extradition requests for military offences have rarely been made.
  Any such arrangements would require the Secretary of State to make an order to provide that Part 3 provisions of the Bill should apply. As has been said, outgoing requests to category 2 territories would be
  GC 148
  made only via the Royal Prerogative. So we are talking about a very limited number of cases. I hope that explains Clause 154.
  Clause 154 agreed to.
  Clause 155 [Search and seizure warrants]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 239:
  Page 81, line 27, at end insert "and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is located in the premises specified in the application"
  The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 239 and to have a general debate on Clause 155, with which it is grouped. Amendment No. 239 seeks to add extra detail and clarification to the specifications for an application for a search and seizure warrant. At the moment an application must state that the extradition of a specific person is sought, that the warrant is sought in relation to specific premises and that the warrant is sought in relation to specific material.
  Our amendment extends this to add extra detail. We feel that for a warrant for search and seizure to be legitimate it must be stated on the application for the warrant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material sought is in the premises specified in the application.
  This amendment was suggested to us by the Law Society of Scotland and we believe it has some merit. Police used to apply to me, as a magistrate, for a warrant in the ordinary course of straightforward criminal proceedings in this country. One of the questions one asked was: what were the reasonable grounds for believing that the items concerned were in the relevant premises? The application for the search warrant would include information concerning why the police thought that particular items or particular persons were on the relevant premises. Therefore, I considered it appropriate to table the amendment.
  When I looked more closely at the Bill, I noticed that it might contain other provisions which covered the point in full or in part. I seek clarification on the matter. I note that subsection (8)(d) of Clause 155 may cover the point in terms of requiring a reasonable belief that there is material on the premises which is specified in the application. That is also mentioned in paragraph 2.7(f) on page 31 of the draft codes of practice. This is a probing amendment. As I say. I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter.
  I wish to speak also to the Question. Whether Clause 155 shall stand part of the Bill as I have a few questions about the police powers as outlined in Part 4 of the Bill. I must say that I found the Minister's comments on this clause in another place extremely helpful. It was made clear that Part 4 of the Bill is modelled on certain sections of PACE and of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 after the Rottman case cast doubt on the power of the police to carry out a search for evidence under PACE or using their common law powers where the offence was committed abroad. The Minister in another place explained that to include the necessary provisions in Part 4 of the Bill for extradition proceedings was the simplest way of putting the matter

  GC 149
  beyond doubt so that police from the UK could exercise their power to search for evidence in extradition cases.
  On that basis we welcome the proposals set out in Part 4 of the Bill which should ensure that the police have legitimate powers to search for evidence in cases involving extradition. This is an important provision which is in the interests of justice and co-operation with our extradition partners.
  I do, however, have a few queries. How, if at all, do these provisions fit in with the changes in PACE which are being proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill? Is there any synchronicity? Does there need to be? Does Part 4 give to police all the powers they have in relation to search and seizure in domestic law; that is, all that PACE provides them with, or just some essential powers for evidence gathering alone?
  Is there any view on whether these extra powers for police will need extra funding? If so, how has that been addressed? I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: The name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is added to Amendment No. 239. I hope that I may speak in his place as he has returned to Scotland.
  I have no points to make on Amendment No. 239 but I should like to ask a couple of questions about Clause 155 and the following clauses. I am afraid that they are to a large extent due to my ignorance and to the fact that I have not, unfortunately, been able to do the necessary research. I should like to know a little about the background to this part. Is it new in relation to extradition or is it a power that already exists in some form or other under the Extradition Act 1989? If it is new, the powers themselves seem to be quite similar to powers that I have seen before, for example, in the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. But where there is a request from an overseas country for the search and seizure of evidence, that request comes from the overseas country which wants the evidence. In this case, evidence is being seized by the police for use in a trial which will take place in a foreign country following the extradition. However, Part 4 says nothing about the evidence having been requested by the country which is requesting the extradition. If there is no such requirement of a request from the foreign country, what is the basis on which it is decided what evidence is being looked for and what is to be done with the evidence?
  I may have missed something, but I should simply like to know more about the background to the measure. I would be somewhat concerned if it turned out that there was no need for any request from the country that sought the extradition.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: As regards Amendment No. 139, the noble Baroness is pushing at an open door. We cannot quite see our way to accepting the amendment but we recognise the thinking behind it. We certainly want to make sure that there is no ambiguity in the clause or any potential for abuse. We regard the amendment as not making any great difference of substance, but we certainly see the value in spelling out
  GC 150
  more explicitly what an application should contain. As the noble Baroness rightly indicated, it is hard to see how a Justice of the Peace could issue a warrant to search for material which granted access to premises other than those where the material in question was believed to be. The noble Baroness mentioned her own experience as a magistrate in that regard.
  The Bill makes clear that a search and seizure warrant can be issued only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the requisite material will be found on the premises specified in the application. I assure the noble Baroness that we have taken on board the message that it might be advantageous to be more explicit with regard to what an application should contain. As I say, we cannot accept the amendment but we shall reconsider the matter and produce a suitable amendment.
  The noble Baroness asked a number of questions on Clause 155, as did the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall do my best to respond to them as adequately as I can. We are, indeed, mindful of the changes in the Criminal Justice Bill to which the noble Baroness referred, but we do not believe that they will require changes to this Bill. However, we shall, of course, keep the situation under the closest possible review.
  The powers in this Bill are the same as in domestic cases in respect of search and seizure warrants. Therefore, we are foursquare with the way in which normal search and seizure warrants are sought and applied domestically.
  The noble Baroness asked about the financial implications for the police. All we are doing is making the police's job in extradition cases explicit. I am not quite sure where the additional costs come in, although there would certainly be additional costs if there was a vast increase in police work because of the number of such cases. I am happy to assure her that this falls within the framework of normal police work.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the background to the clause. It was believed that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act applied to extradition cases. The case of Rottman cast some doubt on that—it held that the offence could not mean an offence committed abroad. So we have been obliged to clarify the position in this Bill by giving some specific police powers for extradition cases. Our new clauses are mostly modelled on the equivalent provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, but because of the Rottman case, which cast doubt on the powers exercised through that Act, we have felt obliged to make Clause 155 and associated provisions in this Bill quite explicit regarding powers for extradition.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am a bit concerned about this. While I understand why it is necessary to introduce provisions corresponding to those which are already in PACE, I worry whether it is desirable to have something of this kind, which is not triggered by a request from the country which is also seeking the extradition. Otherwise, there is something of a lacuna

  GC 151
  as to who decides that it is desirable to look for the evidence and what evidence should be looked for. In practice, I daresay, the requesting country would pass the information on to the British Government, but I wonder whether something should be put in the Bill to give legal standing to the provision of that information.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The problem thrown up by the Rottman case was that the investigating officers on extradition matters would not be investigating the offence in question—they would be bent on another objective. As a consequence, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act does not look as if it provides for that. That is why we have sought to be specific with regard to this Bill. However, I understand the noble Lord's anxieties.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government will look again at the issue raised by Amendment No. 239. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 239A:
  Page 82, line 13, leave out "judge" and insert "justice of the peace"
  The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak briefly to Amendment No. 239B. They clear up minor drafting errors. By virtue of Clause 155(1), any justice of the peace may issue a search and seizure warrant. The reference to "judge" in Clause 155(7) is therefore wrong and needs to be corrected, which is what these amendments do. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 239B:
  Page 82, line 40, leave out "subsection (1)" and insert "subsections (1) and (7)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 239C:
  Page 82, line 44, at end insert—
  "(e) subsections (8)(e) and (9) are omitted."
  The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment to take account of established Scottish practice. Clause 155 deals with search and seizure warrants and under subsection 8(e), one of the conditions in subsection (9) must be fulfilled before a search and seizure warrant can be obtained in England and Wales. Thus the provisions of subsection (9) reflect procedure for obtaining warrants under English law, as provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That procedure does not normally apply in Scotland, and this amendment would disapply the relevant subsections in Clause 155 to bring search and seizure warrant procedure into line with established practice in Scotland. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 155 agreed to.
  Clauses 156 and 157 agreed to.
  Clause 158 [Computer information]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 158 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I have put down my objection to Clause 158 standing part to tease out one or two details which might be minor but are important to those whom they might affect.
  The clause deals with computer information. Subsection (2)(b) provides that if the order requires a person to produce the material to a constable for him to take away, the material has to be produced in a form,
  "in which it is visible and legible or from which it can readily be produced in a visible and legible form".
  Subsection (2)(a) refers to the material being produced in a form in which it can be taken away by a constable.
  What kind of format are we talking about? Are we talking about floppy disks, for example, or a print-out? A CD-ROM or floppy disks are more easily portable and the information might run to many volumes if one was talking about international fraud or swindling, or whatever one might call it in other European countries.
  I appreciate that there is a problem about volume and accessibility. However, the words "visible and legible" always throw up a query in my mind. If the information is on a CD-ROM or a floppy, will it be in such a format that, when it is printed out to be visible and legible, it is accessible to those who use Braille? Otherwise, it could be meaningless. What language is this information to be in? Or is it intended for a legal adviser rather than the individual concerned?
  I know that these are rather narrow questions but this issue was not covered in another place. As the Minister will know from the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill, I always think about accessibility to information by individuals.
  Lord Filkin: That certainly wins the prize today for the question that we were least expecting. I will do my best.
  Clause 158 applies if material specified in an application for a production order is held in electronic form, and says how it is to be presented. In such circumstances, the material must be produced or a constable given access to it, depending on the nature of the order, in a visible or legible form or a form in which it can be readily produced as such. This could mean that information is printed out in comprehensible form for the constable to take away or it could be provided on a CD-ROM disk which could be taken away for analysis, and so forth.
  Clauses 156 and 157 concern the application for and making of production orders concerning special procedures and excluded material. Production orders follow on from the search and seizure warrants we touched on when debating Amendment No. 239. Such an order would be made by a judge, assuming that the relevant criteria had been met and where it would be in the public interest that this kind of material should be produced.

  GC 153
  Clause 158 echoes paragraphs 4 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It applies if material specified in an application for a production order is held in electronic form. As I indicated, in such circumstances, it must be produced in a form which can be taken away—if appropriate, depending on the order—and seen and read. It could be printed or produced from a CD-ROM. In that sense, it is exactly the same as current PACE processes.
  With regard to Braille, we have referred on a number of occasions to documents being produced before the court. These will normally be in printed English which is legible or readable by a person with sight. I am ignorant of exactly what the convention is in our courts for the translation of documentation in English into Braille, if a defendant or perhaps a defence counsel wishes to have access to that material. It is a good question and, rather than attempt to speculate on what should happen, I will take it away. In the interests of justice, both a defendant and a defence lawyer need to be able to know what is written if they are to be in a position to respond.
  Let me come back on this point when I have reflected further. I hope that what I have said more generally on the clause is of help.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. It is a question which pops into my mind whenever I see terminology such as "visible and legible". I am interested in the Minister's comment that it has to be comprehensible—that is not what I understood by the clause. I am reassured by him that the material is also intended to be comprehensible. The clause does not provide that reassurance.
  Lord Filkin: I hesitate to risk deflating the noble Baroness's optimism, but I was thinking on my feet. We will have to test whether what I said has the full impact that was inferred.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I of course accept that this was an unexpected series of questions.
  The Minister referred to current PACE practice being reflected in the clause. It is appropriate to look more carefully at the drafting and I am glad that he has said he will do that. He referred to current practice in the courts. My experience has been in the magistrates' court; I was aware that the last Lord Chancellor—the previous Lord Chancellor, I should say—was the first person to appoint lay magistrates who have sight difficulties. Therefore, the process of producing material in Braille may be in its infancy, but we need to consider it carefully. I am grateful for the noble Lord's offer.
  Clause 158 agreed to.
  Clause 159 agreed to.
  Clause 160 [Entry and search of Premises for purposes of arrest]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 240:
  Page 86, line 11, after "anything" insert "(other than items subject to legal privilege)"
  The noble Baroness said: For convenience, I have grouped Clause 160 stand part with Amendment No. 240 to save time.
  My amendment would ensure that items subject to legal privilege cannot be seized or retained under Clause 160. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the right to privacy. The law protects the relationship between a solicitor, or a lawyer, generally, and his or her client and has made provision for the doctrine of legal professional privilege. To preserve that relationship and ensure that information and communications are privileged, provision should be made in the Bill to the effect that powers of search and seizure under Clause 160 should not extend to information subject to legal privilege.
  I note that government Amendments Nos. 240B and 241B include the phrase,
  "other than items subject to legal privilege".
  That suggests that the Government are abiding by the principle of legal privilege and might therefore look more kindly on Amendment No. 240.
  I note that paragraph 2.7, on page 20, of the draft code of practice, in relation to legal privilege, states:
  "Nothing under the Act entitles police officers to seize material that is subject to legal privilege. The principle of legal privilege applies equally to material that has originated or been sent from abroad".
  That satisfies me to some extent. However, it would he an additional and welcome safeguard to insert the amendment on the face of the Bill.
  For completeness, I had intended to oppose the Question whether Clause 160 shall stand part of the Bill, but I should merely like some extra clarity. The clause provides for entry and search of premises for the purpose of arrest without a warrant for search and seizure.
  As I understand it, normal practice would involve the police officer being in possession of a Part 1 or Part 2 arrest warrant and a search and seizure warrant before entering a premises for the purpose of search and arrest. The only instance where the provisions of this clause would be used would be when it was impossible to obtain a warrant before entering premises to arrest someone who was wanted for extradition, if, for example, that person were doing his level best to avoid arrest and simply to scarper—for want of a better expression. I should like some clarification since, on consulting the draft code of practice, I have found no mention on page 45 of the powers under Clause 160 being used only when a normal arrest, as detailed in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, followed by a warrant for search and seizure under Clause 155 cannot be carried out. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: Although the amendment is superficially attractive, we do not believe that it is appropriate. I shall seek to explain why.
  The need to preserve the confidentiality of communications between people and their legal advisers is crucial. Accordingly, the Bill, like all the other relevant legislation, makes it clear that no search

  GC 155
  of premises can be made for the express purpose of searching for items subject to legal privilege. Therefore, provisions to make that explicit are contained in subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 161 and subsections (2) and (4) of Clause 163. However, the amendment deals with something rather different. What we are concerned with here is material which the searching officer happens to come across.
  The Bill provides that where a police officer is conducting a search for the purposes of arrest, on arrest or following arrest, comes across material that he believes has been obtained as a consequence of an offence or is evidence of an offence and believes that it is necessary to seize it to prevent it from becoming lost or damaged, he may do so. In such cases, Clauses 161 and 163 do not impose any restriction in relation to items subject to legal privilege, and I am not sure why we should do so in Clause 160.
  Equally importantly, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, on which Part 4 of the Bill is closely modelled, does not prevent a police officer who happens across material in the course of a search, where he believes it is connected to an offence and may otherwise be lost or damaged, from seizing such material unless he has reason to believe it is a legal privilege item. There are obvious good reasons why we would not want to prevent that happening. Section 19 of PACE uses wording that is virtually identical to that in the Bill.
  There is good reason why that should be so. A police officer conducting a search may not know that the material he finds is subject to legal privilege. It may be clear that it relates to an offence and he may have reason to believe that, unless he takes it there and then, it could be destroyed, but he may not know that—for example, a letter on plain paper that has come from the person's lawyer.
  Section 19(6) of PACE provides that if a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that any material he comes across is subject to legal privilege, he must not seize it, and that particular provision will apply to extradition powers as well, and in these circumstances—which I hope provides one of the assurances that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks.
  So we are talking only about cases where the police officer is genuinely unaware that the material is subject to legal privilege. In such circumstances a blanket ban on seizing such material seems oppressive, particularly when there is nothing equivalent in domestic legislation and it could lead to a situation where, out of caution, a police constable does not seize anything, when it should be seized as part of the sensible pursuit of evidence of criminality.
  I repeat: we are talking only about material that is connected with an offence and which is in danger of being lost or damaged. The Bill makes clear that no search can be conducted for the purpose of seeking material protected by legal privilege; nor can a police officer who knows what he has found seize items subject to legal privilege.
  GC 156
  We hope that Clause 163 is quite clear. I am happy to add to it the code of practice if that would make it clearer. We shall refer to the code of practice later, but we have sent it to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I suspect that, like me, she has not read every word of it as yet, but it is there before us.
  If it later transpires that in the circumstances referred to a police officer had taken an item that was legally privileged, it cannot be used—as it should not be. That position is categoric. I hope that that is helpful.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That has been helpful. In introducing this and the previous amendment, I should have placed on record the fact that we recognise that the Government have fulfilled their commitment given in another place to my honourable friend Nick Hawkins that the codes of practice would be produced so that they could be considered in Committee in this place. The Minister is right: the codes arrived just before Committee, and I have not read each and every word in detail, but I am getting there, slowly.
  I will consider the issue of whether the code of practice should be more clearly on the face of the Bill. The Minister's response has satisfied me with regard to the amendment, and I shall not be returning to the matter in this particular form on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 160 agreed to.
  Clause 161 [Entry and search of premises on arrest]:
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 240A:
  Page 86, line 30, after "believing" insert "—
  (a) if the person has not been convicted of the relevant offence,"
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group. I shall be brief. The amendments set out to ensure that the Bill does exactly what we want it to do, and no more.
  As the Bill currently stands, the police are empowered to search for evidence in both accusation cases—that is, cases where the person has not yet been put on trial—and also in conviction cases, where the person has been convicted but has escaped from custody.
  I am sure that the Committee will recognise why that might be necessary in cases where the person has yet to be put on trial. There should be no need for this power in cases where the person has already been put on trial and convicted. These amendments simply remove the power to search for evidence in conviction cases and tidy up the Bill. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a sensible group of amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 240B:
  Page 86, line 31, leave out "or" and insert";
  (b) in any case, that there is on the premises evidence (other than items subject to legal privilege) relating"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 241:
  Page 86, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment focuses again on situations where there is no warrant for search and seizure but the police still have the power to enter and search premises on arrest. Our concerns here are with paragraph (b) of subsection (3). It states that a relevant offence for which a constable may legitimately search for evidence could be an offence,
  "in respect of which the constable has reason to believe that a Part I warrant has been or will be issued, if the arrest was under section 5".
  We return here to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson on one of the earlier days in Committee when speaking to an amendment about provisional warrants. He commented that,
  "it seems reckless to say that someone may take a subjective decision about a future warrant, possibly hypothetical, and on that basis arrest a British citizen".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. GC 344.]
  The same principle underlies our concern with paragraph (b) of subsection (3). A policeman can enter premises on arrest and search if he believes that a warrant "will be" issued. That is very close, I am sure, to infringing someone's right to privacy, especially if the police constable in question were wrong in his belief that a Part 1 warrant would be issued at some stage in the future.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in reference to Clause 5 that the provision will "hardly ever be used". We do not know that as yet. It still may be used and therefore one still has to be concerned about its use. I believe that it is important to flag up the issue when it recurs in Part 4 of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I shall be relatively brief. The police powers have been added into the Bill following the case of Rottman, as my noble friend Lord Davies indicated earlier, which cast doubt on whether the provisions of PACE and police common powers extended to cases where the offence was committed abroad. The ruling in that case initially held that the police had no powers to search premises for evidence. Although that was partly overturned on appeal, it was decided that the Bill should set down in law the police powers which are available in extradition cases.
  Entry and search powers were pivotal in that case. The Bill therefore ensures that in the interests of law and justice the police have the power to enter and search in extradition cases. Clause 161 allows for entry and search of premises in which the person is at the time of, or immediately before, his arrest. The constable may search such premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing that he will find evidence relating to the offence or the identity of the person. That power is available in both full order cases and provisional cases—that is, cases where arrest takes place prior to receipt of the full paperwork.
  GC 158
  The Bill, like the legislation it replaces, allows for arrest in both full order and provisional cases. But, clearly, if the police are allowed to arrest, they must be able to carry out searches for evidence at the same time. If they were able to arrest a person in a provisional arrest case but then not search the premises where the arrest took place, even though they had reason to believe that there was relevant evidence on the premises, there would clearly be consequent dangers.
  With the power of entry and search in provisional cases, vital and valuable evidence could be hidden, tampered with or lost. The amendment would remove the ability of the police to carry out a search of premises on arrest in a Part 1 provisional arrest case. For that reason, we do not believe it would be sensible.
  We are dealing with a rather more narrow point here. It is the removal of the words,
  "warrant has been or will be issued",
  that causes concern. Indeed, as the noble Baroness indicated, it is the same wording as features in Clause 5(1)(a), which we discussed at considerable length earlier. Clause 161 has been drafted to match Clause 5.
  In earlier discussions, concerns were expressed on the power to arrest on an expected future warrant. My noble friend Lord Bassam said that we would look again at the point, and I am happy to repeat that commitment. Clearly, if we do conclude that it is necessary in some way to change Clause 5, the clause that we are now discussing will need consequential amendment, since the power of search on arrest needs to reflect closely the power of arrest.
  Given that commitment, I hope that my remarks have been helpful and that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for that response. I undertake to ensure that, on Report, this proposal will be grouped with earlier amendments which, if the Government have not tabled their own amendments, may prompt an explanation of why they do not think it necessary to come back on this point. That will cover the matter and, next time round, we may be able to have just one debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendments Nos. 241A and 241B:
  Page 86, line 39, leave out "or has been convicted"
  Page 86, line 42, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "—

  (a) if the person has not been convicted of the relevant offence, is a power to search for evidence (other than items subject to legal privilege) relating to the relevant offence;

  (b) in any case, is a power to search for evidence (other than items subject to legal privilege) relating to the identity of the person.

  (4A) The power to search conferred by subsection (2) is exercisable only to the extent that it is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering evidence in respect of which the power is available by virtue of subsection (4)."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 242:
  Page 87, line 2, at end insert—
  "( ) is exercisable only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to seize the item in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed."
  The noble Baroness said: This is another of the amendments suggested to us by the Law Society of Scotland. It seeks to insert a further criterion which must be in place before the power to search under Clause 161(2) can be exercised.
  Under the Bill it is possible for an application to be made for a warrant to search premises. The Law Society of Scotland believes that these additional powers under Clause 161 should be exercised only in specified circumstances and where urgency demands swift action. The amendment seeks to reflect the circumstances in which the society believes the power should be used.
  I have to say, in advance of any adverse criticism by the Minister of the drafting, that we are not trying in any way to jeopardise the full recovery of any relevant evidence which could be useful for the prosecution of someone legitimately arrested for an offence abroad. That is certainly not what the Law Society of Scotland is encouraging us to do. It is in the nature of a probing amendment. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I could be wrong but I do not recollect ever having criticised the drafting of any amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. That is both because they usually are well drafted and because one is mindful of the resources that the Opposition Front Bench has in this respect. But be that as it may. However, that does not mean that we shall concur with the amendment.
  On the face of it, it looks sensible and attractive. Clause 161 confers the power on arrest to enter premises in order to search for evidence relating to the extradition offence or the identity of the person. The clause sets out the power to enter and search premises—subsection (2)—separately from the power to seize and retain evidence—subsection (5)—and different conditions are attached to each power.
  Perhaps I can explain briefly the conditions as it will help to demonstrate that there is not a danger that the amendment seeks to remedy. The power to enter and search premises on arrest of a person is constrained by two conditions. First, the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that there is evidence on the premises relating to the extradition offence for which the person has been arrested or the identity of the person. Secondly, the officer may only search to the extent that is reasonably required to discover that evidence.
  Clause 161(5) confers the power to seize and retain evidence found by the officer if the following further two conditions are met. First, the officer must have
  GC 160
  reasonable grounds for believing that the evidence has been obtained in commission of an offence. Secondly, the officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to seize and retain the evidence to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed. In drafting the clause in this way, again, we have followed the logic deployed in the formulation of Sections 18 and 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
  The effect of the amendment is to transfer a condition on the seizure of evidence to the power to enter and search premises. While I can see what the noble Baroness seeks to do, and while I have some sympathy with the intent, the amendment confuses the logic of the clause somewhat. If I understand it correctly, the concern is to ensure that a search only goes ahead if the officer thinks that the evidence would be concealed or destroyed if it was not seized. In practice, however, the amendment would require an officer to judge, prior to entering the premises, whether, in the event that evidence was found, it would be necessary to seize it in order to prevent it from being concealed or destroyed. I think you will agree that this is a difficult, if not impossible, judgment to make if one does not know in advance the exact nature of the evidence one may or may not find until one has entered the premises.
  In practice, it is likely that if there is even a small chance that evidence may be concealed or destroyed an officer would, in the interests of justice, take the decision to search the premises, provided the other conditions are met. In effect, it is possible that this provision will provide no additional protection.
  What is important is that evidence which is not in danger of being concealed or destroyed is not seized and the Bill already provides for that. My apologies for labouring the point. I hope that I have demonstrated we do not want to confer powers on the police lightly and that we recognise that powers of entry, search and seizure must be exercised with due consideration to people's property and possessions.
  In following the formulation of these powers based on domestic legislation, the conditions in Clause 161 provide that protection. We hope so. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has found what I said helpful.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As ever, the Minister has a very courteous way of saying, "No". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendment No. 242A:
  Page 87, line 4, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "subsections (4) and (4A)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 161, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 162 [Search of person on arrest]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 243:
  Page 87, line 37, leave out "or gloves" and insert "headgear, gloves or footwear"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 243, I shall speak also to Clause 162 stand part of the Bill. I tabled this amendment because I was intrigued by the variety of wording in different legislation about clothing that may be removed in the event of a search. I should like to draw out from the Government why there is this incompatibility between legislation.
  In Committee in another place, my honourable friend Nick Hawkins pointed out that subsection (5) authorises the search of a person involving the removal of the person's outer coat, jacket and gloves only, and the search of a person's mouth. That seems a rather limited criteria. As he pointed out, there are numerous examples of people of different religions or beliefs concealing illicit substances in their headwear or in their hat. He emphasised that it was a potentially problematic loophole in legislation which dealt with the search of a person and one which he had raised on previous occasions with some success because the Government had made amendments to a previous Bill.
  Of course, it has been proved that he is right. One can think of the infamous shoe bomber—Mr Reid—who concealed explosives in the heel of his shoe. On that basis, it is important that we should obtain clarity from the Government with this amendment. I was delighted that, during the passage of the Courts Bill through this House, the previous Lord Chancellor brought forward an amendment which dealt with this issue. It extended the wording of the clause in that Bill involving the search of a person to allow the officer to require the removal, not only of coat, jacket and gloves, but also of headgear and footwear. That was welcomed all around the House. I have therefore borrowed the wording of that amendment in drafting my own amendment to Clause 162. It has the merit of using the word "headgear" rather than "hat", giving greater applicability across different ethnic backgrounds.
  I hope that the Minister can explain to Members of the Committee why the Government use different criteria in different Bills with regard to what may be removed for a search. I beg to move.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Baroness is asking for a great deal if she is hoping to receive from me an encyclopaedic knowledge of all Bills and Acts which refer to clothing. What I shall try to do is reassure her that in this Bill we want to achieve a position of some consistency, which I think was the burden of her remarks. As far as possible, we would not want to depart from normal domestic procedure; issues with regard to extradition cases should be dealt with in the same way as other police arrests.
  There is no general power to remove headgear or footwear in normal domestic cases. Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act allows for the
  GC 162
  removal of masks and other facial coverings, but only when these are being worn for the purpose of concealing identity. Section 45 of the Terrorism Act allows for the removal of headgear, but only for the purpose of searching for articles which could be used for terrorist purposes. I think that that would cover the case of Reid, to which she referred in terms of the lethal shoes.
  These are both very limited powers and do not confer a general power on the police to remove hats in the way in which this amendment seeks. There may be something to be said for maintaining consistency between police powers in domestic cases and those in extradition cases. Imagine that the police stop a motorist for erratic driving and there is potential for an offence. On referring to the police computer, the officer appreciates that there may be some other potential offence which needs to be examined. It would be a little tough on the officer if he had to adopt two different approaches according to which legislation he was operating under. As far as the police are concerned, it is better and more straightforward that domestic and extradition legislation are squared.
  A further issue with regard to headgear—I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises it—is sensitivity. I appreciate what she says about the necessity of guaranteeing security when headgear could be used to conceal dangerous material, but she will also know that headgear can be of very great religious significance to certain ethnic minorities. Therefore, we would want to take care to recognise this dimension, as we have with domestic legislation. We would want to do that with regard to this Bill as well. I should also emphasise the obvious fact that should a more detailed and intimate search be necessary, that is provided for under Clause 166 at a police station.
  Currently, we are out for consultation on a code of practice on police powers. It will be interesting whether the police come back on these matters or others while the consultation is ongoing. I am not seeking to convey to the noble Baroness a closed mind on this matter, I am merely indicating that we are with her in the search for consistency. We think that there are very good reasons why there should be consistency between potential extradition cases and domestic law. It is for those reasons that I hope she considers she can safely withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My only comfort is that the Minister said that he does not have a closed mind on this matter and will look at it again. Like him, I am trying to achieve consistency. In the Courts Bill, the Government purposely chose a different kind of terminology for searches, which may indeed be carried out by police officers as well as by security officers in court. I, too, am very much alive to the sensitivity of the use of the word headgear as it might affect Rastafarians or Sikhs who have very special and proper reasons for wearing distinctive headgear.
  That is why I was surprised when the Government used that terminology. The Minister said today that it would be tough on the police if they have to use two different approaches. The Government are already

  GC 163
  making them do that in domestic law, although in different circumstances—whether in court or on a street. I shall consider this issue further. I am not trying to make the life of the police any more difficult; I am trying to make their life more safe when searching people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 162 agreed to.
  Clause 163 [Entry and search of premises after arrest]:
  Lord Davies of Oldham Lord Davies of Oldham moved Amendments Nos. 243A to 243E:
  Page 88, line 11, after "suspecting" insert "—
  (a) if the person has not been convicted of the relevant offence,"
  Page 88, line 13, leave out "or" and insert ";
  (b) in any case, that there is on the premises evidence (other than items subject to legal privilege) relating"
  Page 88, line 21, leave out "or has been convicted"
  Page 88, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "—

  (a) if the person has not been convicted of the relevant offence, is a power to search for evidence (other than items subject to legal privilege) relating to the relevant offence;

  (b) in any case, is a power to search for evidence (other than items subject to legal privilege) relating to the identity of the person.

  (4A) The power to search conferred by subsection (2) is exercisable only to the extent that it is reasonably required for the purpose of discovering evidence in respect of which the power is available by virtue of subsection (4)."
  Page 88, line 30, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "subsections (4) and (4A)"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 244:
  Page 88, line 39, after "if" insert—

  "(a) in Scotland, a sheriff, on application made to him by a procurator fiscal, and if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to seize the item to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed, has given written authorisation for the exercise of these powers; or

  (b) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland"

  The noble Baroness said: I move this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lady Carnegy and shall speak also to Amendment No. 246. I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness. As one is aware, flights to Scotland do not leave very late on Thursday evenings, so the noble Baroness has had to leave us early.
  Amendments Nos. 244 and 246 were suggested to us by the Law Society of Scotland. They ensure that there must be judicial supervision of the exercise of these powers in Scotland. The power to enter and search premises under Clause 163 is given a degree of
  GC 164
  oversight by the fact that written authorisation for the exercise of those powers must be given by a police officer of the rank of inspector or above. Subsection (10), however, indicates that no such oversight is to be applied in Scotland. The amendment seeks to address that omission and makes provision for an application to the sheriff for written authorisation.
  We have tabled the amendment simply to ask the Government why there was different treatment between the different countries. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: In considering these amendments, it is important that we make it clear that, in Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have the supervisory role in all aspects of extradition law. There will, therefore, be no question of any police officer executing a warrant for the arrest of any person, whether a European arrest warrant or a warrant under Part 2, without instructions from the designated authority in Scotland, namely the Crown Office.
  It has been agreed with NCIS that that organisation will not send warrants for execution direct to a Scottish police force; rather, it will send it to the Crown Office. In doing so, NCIS has accepted that Scottish law requires that a Procurator Fiscal give instruction to the police about the execution of an arrest warrant.
  The only exception will be provisional arrest under Clause 5. Of course, the arresting police officers will be required to contact the central authority immediately the fugitive is arrested, as the actual warrant will have to be in the hands of the central authority for the fugitive's appearance in court. It is therefore at that stage that the question of search will arise.
  In all cases other than Clause 5, therefore, police officers will be required to act directly under the instructions of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That will include the questions of search.
  The judicial safeguards in Scotland are even stronger than in the rest of the UK. Accordingly, to introduce the proposed further step is not in keeping with current procedure in Scottish criminal law. In provisional arrest cases, the police will be expected to consult the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and, in common with the situation in domestic cases, will be guided by that service so far as concerns any search.
  The proposed amendments would introduce a system that is required in the rest of the UK because there is no input/supervision by a lawyer in the execution of either an arrest or a search warrant. The importation of what is essentially an English and Welsh Police and Criminal Evidence Act requirement would not only be alien to Scotland's legal system, it would also, we suggest, be superfluous.
  I am very pleased to have given what I hope is a full answer to the important probing on Scottish matters—yet again—that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, provides.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation. I will check with my

  GC 165
  noble friend Lady Carnegy whether that is how she understands the situation. Certainly, I am not aware of the role of the Crown Office in how it discharges its duties and supervises those matters. I am sure that the Minister has given us enough information to reach the right decision on what to do before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Monday 8th September at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before eight o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Northern Ireland: Child Post Mortems
  Northern Ireland: Child Post Mortems
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Tourism
  Northern Ireland: Energy Costs
  Northern Ireland: Energy Costs
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Internet Access: Get Started Campaign
  Internet Access: Get Started Campaign
  Uganda: Humanitarian Situation
  Uganda: Humanitarian Situation
  European Union: Areas Subject to European Law
  European Union: Areas Subject to European Law
  West Bank: Security Walls
  West Bank: Security Walls
  Chechnya: Human Rights Monitoring
  Chechnya: Human Rights Monitoring
  Israel: Contributions to UNWRA
  Israel: Contributions to UNWRA
  Indonesia: Scorpion Armoured Vehicles
  Indonesia: Scorpion Armoured Vehicles
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination
  Royal Mail: VAT on Rail Transport
  Royal Mail: VAT on Rail Transport
  Mothballs
  Mothballs
  Depleted Uranium
  Depleted Uranium
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Coal-fired Electricity Generation
  Coal-fired Electricity Generation
  A27
  A27
  Railways: Bi-directional Working
  Railways: Bi-directional Working
  Stranraer to Cairnryan: Transport Links
  Stranraer to Cairnryan: Transport Links
  Speed Cameras
  Speed Cameras
  Compulsory Pilotage
  Compulsory Pilotage
  Bull Bars
  Bull Bars
  Airlines: Over-booking
  Airlines: Over-booking