Sitting of 14 July 2003

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

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Peter Duncan: How many asylum applications have been processed since 1 January. [125053]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration Beverley Hughes): In the first quarter of 2003, we received a total of 16,000 asylum applications—a third fewer than in the previous quarter. During the same period, nearly 20,800 initial decisions were made on asylum applications, which is 6 per cent. more than in the previous quarter, and 24,600 appeals were decided—24 per cent. more than in the last quarter of 2002.
    Mr. Duncan: I thank the Minister for that reply. She will be aware that asylum applications made At Stranraer and Cairnryan in my constituency have spiralled tenfold in the last two years, yet there are still
    2
    no permanent Home Office staff in place, in port, to deal with those applications from vulnerable asylum seekers who need help. Will she commit herself to looking once more at the opportunity provided by the combination of Stena Line and P&O in one port facility to put in place the infrastructure so that these asylum seekers are dealt with quickly and timeously and their applications progressed much more quickly than at present?
    Beverley Hughes: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I can tell him that it would not be an effective use of resources to have a permanent, fixed immigration post in small ports such as that to which he refers, which deal only with a common travel area. What is more effective is what we are doing: working jointly with the local police service and the Association of Chief Police Officers to have an intelligence-led approach.
    The hon. Gentleman said that asylum applications have spiralled. Since January to March this year, four asylum applications have come through that port, which is a result of the measures that the Government have taken more generally to reduce asylum applications, not only in-country but at designated ports of entry throughout the UK.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend help me? I am truly bewildered about why the thousands of applicants for refugee or asylum status still awaiting a determination—after years not months—cannot be employed. It is a fact that all those people are working in what is known as the black economy. It would be much better if they were given conditional opportunities to work and pay tax rather than being a burden on the state and/or being under enormous financial pressure with their families. Why cannot they work while they are here?
    Beverley Hughes: As I think my hon. Friend knows, those people who made a claim before July last year, when we changed the rules on employment, can work. It is those who have claimed since July 2002 who cannot work unless their claim takes longer than six months.

    3
    That is because it is clear, in terms of the number of unfounded applications that we have been getting, that many people are coming here and claiming asylum when what they really want to do is work. That is a significant pull factor. That is why we have taken away the right to work for new applicants.
    Mr. Speaker: Simon Hughes.
    Simon Hughes: I had not asked to come in on this question.
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had Mr. Hughes down on the list. Perhaps I will get him some other time.
    Mr. David Cameron: It is not often that we see a tongue-tied Liberal. Is the Minister still committed to the Prime Minister's pledge to look at our international obligations under the treaties that we have signed on asylum or is she committed to more qualified majority voting on asylum and immigration matters? Surely she cannot have both.
    Beverley Hughes: We have been round this course several times previously with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. What we have said on the treaties is clear: if that were to be necessary, we would do it. We do not think that it will be necessary, however, and we have made other proposals, which, on a multilateral basis, with other European countries, we think will be more effective. As for QMV, we have also made it clear that when it is in our interests to support that, we will do so, and asylum and immigration are matters on which it can help us achieve a better common policy across Europe, which is in our interests.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Home Affairs Committee visited the port of Dover last month we were hard-pressed to find a single asylum seeker to whom to speak? To what degree have asylum applications fallen in Dover and other Kent ports? To what does she attribute that dramatic reduction? Will she lend a word of praise to hardworking immigration officers on this side of the channel and in Calais who are helping to keep the numbers down?
    Beverley Hughes: I will write to my hon. Friend with the exact figures for Dover. As I said earlier, right across the board, in relation to both in-country claims and those at designated ports of entry, comparing the figures for March with last October, we have seen a 50 per cent. reduction in asylum claims. In respect of Dover, he is right that that is in no small measure due to the hard work of immigration officials on both sides of the channel. Indeed, from January to March this year, almost 1,400 people have been stopped from coming to the UK as a result of the detection equipment in Calais. I might say that we are trying to build on those measures by bringing forward powers to enable police and immigration officers to exercise immigration control on French soil. It is astonishing that when that was debated in Committee a fortnight ago, Conservative Members
    4
    divided the Committee and voted against a practical measure that will succeed in bringing the figures down even more.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: While the rapid processing of asylum claims is much to be welcomed, so too would we welcome the speedy removal of people whose applications for asylum have failed. It is estimated that since the Government came to power, some 250,000 failed asylum seekers who should have been removed have, in fact, remained here illegally. Will the Minister confirm that the Government actually intend to remove those failed asylum seekers? Does she believe that they will ever do that and, if so, when?
    Beverley Hughes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Front Bench—it is a pleasure to see him there. As he well knows, while reducing the number of claims is an important priority, removing people who have come to the end of the road is equally important. The number of people we are removing is rising month on month. In March, 1,500 people were removed, which was an all-time high. Our policy of firm contact management—of retaining contact with people throughout the process, requiring them to report weekly and issuing asylum seekers with cards on which their fingerprints are marked—is part of our strategy to ensure that we remove more and more people. As he well knows, our figures are already much higher than those achieved by the Conservative Government in 1996, when 5,000 people were removed.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that although speedy decision making for fresh asylum seekers is welcome, many people have been in the country for several years on whom no decision, let alone an initial decision, has yet been taken? What steps will she take to speed up those people's applications?
    Beverley Hughes: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. He will know that there was an all-time high backlog of 120,000 applications several years ago. That figure has been reduced to 35,000, which is not much higher than the figure for work in progress, but it needs to be reduced further. Of course, as we reduce the number of claims every month, we are investing more resources to remove the backlog. I expect that the backlog will be no more than a reasonable number of cases representing work in progress by the end of the year.

    Prisoner Repatriation Agreements
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will list the bilateral agreements the UK has for repatriation of prisoners before their full sentence has been served. [125055]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Caroline Flint): The United Kingdom has bilateral prisoner transfer agreements with eight countries and territories. A further six agreements have been reached but are not yet in force.

    5
    In addition to these bilateral agreements, the United Kingdom is a signatory to two multi-party agreements covering 77 other countries and territories.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that 10 per cent. of the prison population are foreign citizens and that a quarter of those—something like 1,700 people—are from Jamaica alone? Would It not be sensible to pay the Jamaican Government to look after those prisoners where they could be near their families, or even for us to set up a prison in Jamaica for them?
    Caroline Flint: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes great interest in the matter, and that he secured an Adjournment debate on 1 July on it and other issues relating to the prison population on the Isle of Wight The Government are keen to conclude as many prison transfer agreements as possible and 10 such agreements have been signed in the past 18 months. I am sure that he is aware that we have constantly asked the Jamaican authorities to enter into repatriation agreements but that they have decided against concluding such agreements with us and other countries. We are mindful of the situation and we keep all aspects of it under review and discussion, but Jamaica does not have the capacity to receive prisoners back at the moment.
    Simon Hughes: Is there a bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States for the repatriation of British prisoners sentenced in the United States? If any current British prisoners under US jurisdiction were to be sentenced, would either current extradition arrangements or the new draft extradition treaty allow them to be brought back here at the request of the British Government?
    Caroline Flint: There is no formal agreement, but we would not rule out repatriation. We have a good relationship with the United States Government and keep all issues under review. There has been a long-standing partnership between us and the US. We listen mindfully to each side of the argument in relation both to people from the US who have committed offences in this country and to those from this country who have committed offences in America.

    Police
    Rob Marris: If he will make a statement on the change in the number of police officers since 1997. [125056]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I set a target for increased police numbers of 130,000 by March this year. We had exceeded that target by 1,500 by last September. I had an additional target of 132,500 by March 2004. As of December last year—I am announcing these figures for the first time—we had 132,268 police officers in England and Wales, which is 5,110 more than when we took office in 1997. Hon. Members can see that we are well on the way to massively exceeding the 2004 target. In addition,
    6
    we have almost 1,500 community support officers, all of whom are available and visible on the beat, reassuring the public that the police are there doing their job.
    Rob Marris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The increase in police numbers is having a real effect in the west midlands, but of course there is still much more to do. Will he say more about the efficiencies that the police could manage? He mentions community support officers, who are welcome to release front-line police officers to do front-line work. Will he say something about lessening the amount of paperwork that police officers have to do when they arrest someone, for example? The time that it takes to process such applications removes them from front-line duties. Could other police staff do that work?
    Mr. Blunkett: We are encouraging all chief constables to consider how both civilianisation and specialisation can help to free officers to be visible and available. There have been some interesting experiments in the west midlands with the better use of forensic science, which has reduced burglaries by 20 per cent. through the apprehension of repeat offenders. I commend what has been done there. I just wish that other forces could match it.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: The Home Secretary seeks to reassure us by explaining how many additional policemen and women there now are up and down the country. The reality, as evidenced in the report in The Sunday Times, is that burglaries, robberies and assaults have risen by more than 25 per cent. in rural areas. Is he convinced that he is putting enough resources into rural police forces? Equally, is he not worried that he is squeezing urban crime into rural areas? Does he consider it good politics or good sense to criminalise tens of thousands of people who pursue hunting as a sport when the police are already overstretched?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am not entering into the hunting debate. I merely refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the shadow Home Secretary not much more than a week ago when he advocated, as has his leader, that we divert resources into the high-crime, high-drug areas. I suggest that his Back Benchers have a little chat about how he can do that without pulling those resources out of rural areas. When we decided to keep the specific rural fund and to have a floor below which no one would fall in terms of year-on-year increases, we were mindful of our obligation to serve the nation as a whole, not just a particular sector interest.
    James Purnell: The public inquiry into Harold Shipman's murders found today that the police mishandled the investigation into the affair and that, if they had not done so, three of his murders could have been avoided. Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the families involved? Will he push Greater Manchester police to act on the inquiry's findings? Will he heed Dame Janet Smith's call for a radical overhaul of the coroners service?
    Mr. Blunkett: I join my hon. Friend in sending a message from this House of deep regret and sorrow to

    7
    the families of those who died at the hands of Shipman. The report produced by Tom Luce, which was published at the beginning of June and on which we are consulting, and Dame Janet's continuing work, including the report published today, will form the basis of radical improvement and change in the coroners service. I also want to pick up the point that was reinforced by the new chief constable of Greater Manchester. We must have not simply a better coroners service but a better process and approach from all those who deal with suspicious cases. Had that been the case at the time of the murders, at least three people would still be alive.
    Gregory Barker: It is unacceptable for the Home Secretary to say that he will not enter the hunting debate when he—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be seated; his question is not allowed.

    Unauthorised Camping
    Mr. Colin Pickthall): What measures he proposes to assist (a) the police and (b) local authorities in preventing large-scale unauthorised camping. [125057]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Fiona Mactaggart): The Government have tabled amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to extend police powers to take prompt and firm action against unauthorised encampments, irrespective of their size, where space has been provided in local authority areas.
    Mr. Pickthall: Like many other towns, Skelmersdale is regularly plagued by large numbers of travellers who turn up in as many as 200 caravans at a time to occupy playing fields, factory car parks or any open space that they can find. It costs the local authority vast amounts of money in cleaning up the disgusting mess after they have left and in investing in miles of security fencing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the police have adequate powers but, owing to the scale of the problem, cannot use them properly, and that the guidelines for local authorities have built-in delays that make them inoperable? Does what she has announced cover the fact that there is at last a joint initiative between the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to draw up an effective policy to deal with the issue and to relieve the people of Skelmersdale, including me, from this awful problem?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on an issue on which he has been active for many years. I read the Adjournment debate that he initiated at about this time of year in 1999 on precisely this problem, so I can see it has been a chronic problem in Skelmersdale. I share his optimism about the capacity of the new guidance and better co-operation between the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have powers, but it is a question of using them. The guidance that is out for consultation will help local authorities and the police to work better together to deal with the problem of large-scale unauthorised
    8
    camping that he has highlighted. The final part of that guidance specifically focuses on that issue, which I know is a very serious problem in many areas.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that, although the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), was helpful in Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, he said that the Government were prepared to consider further a problem that affects my constituency that is similar to that raised by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). A group of travellers succeeded in purchasing land on a flood plain, on which they improperly dumped thousands of tonnes of hardcore. Owing to delays in the law, it is difficult to do anything about that. The Under-Secretary promised that the Government would look into that variant of this massive problem. Will the Minister undertake to work with other Departments and to meet me to discuss constructive ways of extending the Government's efforts?
    Fiona Mactaggart: One member of the ministerial team will certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I share his optimism about the commitments in Committee of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. There are already substantial powers on dumping. In preparation for answering this question, I asked for some information about the number of prosecutions on dumping. It seems that local forces are often not as dynamic as they could be in using powers to prosecute when dumping has occurred.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Northamptonshire's geographical position means that it has acute problems at times with illegal encampments. The problem is not so much that there is not enough guidance, but that often the guidance is misinterpreted by local authorities and the police force. At times there is a lack of co-ordination between local authorities and police forces in deciding who should first take action. Will my hon. Friend ensure that when she gives advice to local authorities and the police force, she does not just tell them what can be done or what they could do, but what they should do, and who is responsible for taking the first action?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. His message of better co-operation and collaboration is a key one. It is one reason why the guidance consultation paper is a joint paper involving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. We are working together to ensure that that collaboration at national level is reflected at local level. We are seeking to provide guidance that leads to a robust approach—a phrase that is used in the draft guidance—that can be reflected on the ground.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Does the Minister recognise that one of the principal problems that leads to large-scale encampments not being dealt with is that the police cannot deal with the numbers involved and ensure public safety? That has certainly been the case in Worcestershire. I would be grateful if she commented on that. If the Home Secretary will not recognise that problem, does the hon. Lady at least understand that

    9
    her Government's determination to go ahead with a Bill to ban fox hunting will only add to the problem of public order and public safety?
    Fiona Mactaggart: The efforts of the Conservative party to defend the rights of fox hunters under any guise are becoming almost entertaining. However, the hon. Lady makes a serious point about mass gatherings and the need for intelligence where mass gatherings are planned. I hope that the fox hunting community, which has put a great deal of effort into persuading us all that it is a law-abiding community, does not intend to break the law and organise in a way that means that people are not aware of any gatherings that it might be planning.
    In the joint guidance on which we are consulting, the final section is about the mass gatherings, and especially those that have expensive security and clean-up implications. We are seeking guidance about best practice and examples of best practice from those with direct experience so that we can assist people in dealing with some of the practical difficulties that they face.

    Youth Offending
    Hugh Bayley: What action the Government are taking to tackle youth offending. [125058]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Paul Goggins): We have put in place a broad programme to prevent children from being drawn into crime, with targeted initiatives focusing on those young people most at risk in high-crime areas. We have also made significant improvements to the youth justice system that have assisted in reducing reoffending rates.
    Hugh Bayley: Does my hon. Friend recognise the sense of powerlessness that a community can feel when a group of children or young people—sometimes a very small group—run riot and engage in a localised epidemic of vandalism or criminal damage? What help can the Government give those communities so that they can believe that their voice and views will be listened to by law enforcement authorities and the courts? What are the Government doing to encourage local authorities to provide meaningful activities for young people in deprived neighbourhoods over the summer holiday to try to divert them from antisocial behaviour?
    Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right that many local communities feel overrun and powerless in that way, which is why the Government are taking action in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and a range of other measures. He is right to argue that communities need to be more involved in the criminal justice system—an issue that was raised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the Edith Kahn lecture. To give my hon. Friend an example of the use of referral orders—the main court disposal for first-time young offenders—young offenders are referred to a local panel, on which sit two local community members, and which determines the programme that they must follow. In
    10
    York since last April, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that there have been 108 referral orders, and there are now 28 community panel members in service.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: We are united across the House in our desire to lift young people off the conveyor belt to crime and see what the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) described as worthwhile activities for young people. Presumably, we also all agree that, in our desire to lift some young people off the conveyor belt to crime, we must not create incentives for other young people to get into crime. May I therefore take it that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety was either inaccurately reported or was making an elaborate joke when it was suggested in the weekend papers that she wanted to pay young recidivists up to £20,000 a year to go straight?
    Paul Goggins: I read the press reports over the weekend. They were right in one respect—my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety thinks highly of that project. However, we need to clarify some of the detail in those reports. First, people are not employed in that project as an alternative to prison—they are paid to work as mentors for young people, and the starting salary is about £8,000. If they gain all the qualifications, they can earn up to £15,000, but all of them are full-time staff. Some of them are ex-offenders, but they are turning that negative experience into something positive for society. I would have thought that, now that he knows that, the right hon. Gentleman would join me in supporting such an approach.
    Mr. Letwin: I am glad to hear that. As we seem to be making progress, will the Minister help us by agreeing also that the probation service ought to play an important part in helping young people off the conveyor belt to crime? If so, what does he make of a letter from the head of service delivery for the probation service in the London boroughs of Merton and Sutton, who writes to the clerk to the justices in a magistrates court:
    "You will be only too aware of the…difficulties that the London Probation Area has been experiencing…This is not a problem that is confined to Merton and Sutton Boroughs but is…occurring throughout the country…In order to remedy the situation it has been agreed by the London Probation Area that we will suspend individual supervision on all but very high risk offenders".
    Instead of ruminating about further schemes, should not the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety attend to the crisis in the probation service?
    Paul Goggins: I am aware of some of the difficulties currently experienced in London, and I am looking at them closely with senior management in the probation service. However, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there are now 2,000 more probation officers than there were in 1997 and that the overall budget for the probation service is set to double in the current spending period. The Government are therefore putting resources into the probation service, and we intend to make sure that the kind of service that it offers is a credible alternative to custody.
    Ms Meg Munn: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effectiveness of youth

    11
    offending teams, given that they have now been in place for some time? Is the mix of different professionals, such as education and health professionals, having the desired effect in dealing with young offenders' educational, drug and other problems and reducing the likelihood of their re offending?
    Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right. The way that services are coming together at local level is very encouraging, and can provide the right package of support for young people. It can provide the strong support that can deter them from re offending. To give an example of such programmes, the youth inclusion programme pinpoints young teenagers who are most at risk in the big high-crime areas. There has been a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of arrests in those areas as a result of that programme, so co-ordinated action between all the agencies can make a difference.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: If the Government are anxious to cut down the number of young offenders, why are they taking steps to make every member of every pony club in the country a potential young offender?
    Paul Goggins: I will look carefully at the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but given the range of my responsibilities, including prisons and probation, and the challenges that we face in those areas, I hope he will forgive me if I pass on that one.
    Ross Cranston: I congratulate the Front-Bench team on measures such as the Youth Justice Board at national level and the youth offending teams at local level, which are having a real impact. Will my hon. Friend comment on what my local police say—that much petty youth offending is alcohol-fuelled? Will he have a conversation with our hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who I am pleased to say has brought with her from the Department of Health the alcohol strategy that she was developing?
    Paul Goggins: My hon. and learned Friend is right. Alcohol is far too often involved in offending, not least among young people. We need to deal head-on with that problem and provide alternative positive activities for young people that will take them away from crime. Where that happens, we see very good results.

    Antisocial Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will change the burden of proof for anti-social behaviour orders from criminal to civil. [125059]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We have no plans to do so. The standard of proof set by the House of Lords, in the case of R v Crown Court at Manchester exparte McCann and Others, has not proved to affect antisocial behaviour order applications adversely. ASBOs are one tool in the fight against antisocial
    12
    behaviour. The measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will give further powers to police and local authorities to tackle local disorder.
    Mr. Allen: In common, I suspect, with most Members, the majority of cases that I dealt with at my surgery at the weekend involved antisocial behaviour. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor on introducing measures to tackle antisocial behaviour that will help the majority of the constituents who came to my surgery on Saturday. But will my hon. Friend the Minister keep antisocial behaviour orders under review at all times? They were a good idea when they first came in, and they have been improved. Can we ensure that we continue to improve them so that they can be more and more workable? I look forward to the debate on Wednesday about making sure that the proof required for an ASBO is not at criminal but at civil level.
    Ms Blears: Indeed, I look forward to discussing the issue at length with my hon. Friend in Westminster Hall later in the week. I can confirm to him that the orders are civil orders, and that the civil standard of evidence is therefore admissible. Antisocial behaviour orders are being granted at an increasing pace. There were 1,112 orders up to March this year, and only 31 have ever been refused. The police and local authorities are increasingly using the powers that the Government have given them to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorderly conduct.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I have had at least two cases of antisocial behaviour recently. In one case, a person driving without insurance or a licence hit another car and gave a number, but the police will not follow up in cases where the person is found not to have insurance because they say they cannot act upon suspicion—they must have third-party evidence. That is causing a great loss of faith in our policing and legal system. Will the Minister look at those cases? They could well be answered by accepting the case advanced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and transferring the burden of proof to civil, rather than criminal, standard.
    Ms Blears: I will gladly look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. Members of the public have a natural concern when powers are provided but not used in the way they ought to be. People have particular concerns about the breaches of antisocial behaviour orders. We are determined to ensure that where powers are available, they are used to their fullest extent.
    Kevin Brennan: With regard to antisocial behaviour, is there not also a responsibility on corporate interests? Is my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was when I attended a meeting last Friday in my constituency to learn that despite lobbying for many years by local councillors, including councillor Gregory Owens, BT has failed to do anything about a problem exchange building that is attracting antisocial behaviour on the part of local youth? Is there anything the Home Office can do to get corporate interests to accept their responsibilities as good neighbours?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. He will know that we have tabled

    13
    amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill to try to ensure that public utilities take responsibility for the graffiti and fly posting that often affect their buildings and equipment. It is important that businesses are at the heart of the community. They are as much members of the community as anybody else. We want to ensure that businesses not only take their fair share of responsibility, but benefit from the reduction in antisocial behaviour that this Government are determined to achieve. There are rights and responsibilities for business, as for all of us, in this field, and I am delighted that we are working much more with business on a range of such issues.

    Domestic Violence
    Judy Mallaber: What plans he has for programmes to change the behaviour of domestic violence offenders. [125060]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): On 18 June, I published a comprehensive proposal for preventing domestic violence, protecting victims and providing support to those who have been abused and affected. That includes ways of changing attitudes so that those who believe that domestic violence is acceptable get the message very clearly. Two national programmes have been piloted and we have accredited them, and a further programme is under development, as my hon. Friend knows. I should like to commend her for the work that she has done locally and nationally in pursuing this issue.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Although difficult, it is vital that we address the behaviour of domestic violence offenders, as the evidence suggests that they will almost certainly continue to assault their current and future partners. As part of the programme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that accreditation and therefore funding for Probation Service programmes is rolled out as soon as possible? Will he also consider the experience in respect of other programmes such as PODA—Prevention of Domestic Abuse—in Derby, which works with perpetrators who voluntarily seek help, but is struggling to maintain its funding after initially having three years of lottery funding? Will he consider how such schemes can be extended?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall certainly consider that issue, as the first important step forward is when someone acknowledges that they have a problem and are in need of help. There is a real problem—it applies not only to this area—where pilot funding comes to an end without what might be described as an exit programme to ensure that funding can be picked up and that the programme will not be disadvantaged. These are very important issues. We do not want to proceed with something when we do not know that it works, but when it works we need to ensure that there is long-term funding to sustain it.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a compelling case for seeking to emulate the example of Sunderland city council's housing department, which includes in tenancy agreements a clause that allows for the removal
    14
    of a convicted domestic violence offender and his placement in a shelter or refuge where he gets therapy and thereby the chance of rehabilitation?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am not in full possession of every detail of the Sunderland scheme. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in my statement on 18 June, I made a point of saying that it was important to get the perpetrator out of the house, leaving the family and children with stability wherever that is possible, and as long as we can ensure with restraining orders that they are not terrorised by the individual repeatedly going back to the home.
    Vera Baird: May I raise an issue about the standard of proof, which has just been discussed in respect of anti-social behaviour orders, in domestic violence cases? Like ASBOs, such cases involve civil proceedings, but where a domestic violence allegation is raised, its quasi-criminal nature means that the judge adopts the higher criminal standard of proof to such an extent that women are often advised not to pursue such allegations. Is it not very important that the overlap between civil and criminal cases and their respective standards of proof should play a major role in the current domestic violence review?
    Mr. Blunkett: I believe my hon. and learned Friend is correct. We indicated that liaison and work between the civil and criminal courts was crucial. We have the experiments in Cardiff, West Yorkshire and London, and we need to extend them, as we were describing this time last week, as part of bringing justice to the community through community justice courts, so that we can ensure that, on a range of issues, including this one, the courts, the magistracy and the judiciary are as close to the people as possible, and that they understand the difficulties and have the power to act.

    Community Support Officers
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What assessment he has made of the impact of community support officers on the incidence of antisocial behaviour. [125061]
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We have received very positive accounts from a variety of sources of the good work that is being done by community support officers in the communities where they are already on patrol. I have not yet made any assessment of their impact on the incidence of antisocial behaviour, but I expect that to be one of the matters that will be covered in the formal evaluations that are due this September from the 27 forces funded last year.
    Dr. Palmer: I look forward to pressing my hon. Friend further in tomorrow's Adjournment debate. Does she agree that one issue that has attracted particularly wide interest is whether the power of detention that some CSOs have has been a significant factor in enabling them to deter antisocial behaviour?
    Ms Blears: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in this field. He has been assiduous in ensuring that his community gets maximum benefit from community

    15
    support officers. Powers of detention are being piloted in six areas; they have proved extremely useful on occasion in allowing CSOs a little breathing space in order to check the names and addresses that have been given to them. I am sure that we will learn interesting lessons from those pilots.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that the undoubted success of CSOs does not detract from the need for additional full uniformed officers; and does she accept the Metropolitan police commissioner's calculation that an extra 6,500 full officers will be required safely to beat-police the streets of London?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are putting on to the streets record numbers of police officers, together with community support officers, to provide high-profile visible patrolling that reassures people in our communities. The Home Secretary gave the figures. There are 132,600 police officers: that is a record number, and it is more than 5,000 more than there were when the Government came to power. If the hon. Gentleman talks to senior officers in the Met and to officers on the front line, he will find that they are incredibly grateful for the extra support, resources and backing that the Government have given them in the fight against crime.
    Jim Knight: Last week, my local newspaper, the Dorset Echo, reported on its front page the welcome that was given by shopkeepers in Dorchester—which is in the neighbouring West Dorset constituency of the shadow Home Secretary—to community support officers who, thanks to a Home Office grant for rural areas and market towns, are tackling antisocial behaviour in town centres. Could the Minister attach the same priority to coastal towns, where we have particular problems with antisocial behaviour, especially during the summer months?
    Ms Blears: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has found community support officers to be so useful. Last week, I had the opportunity to meet a reporter, Mr. Simon McGee from the Nottingham Evening Post, who has been running a fantastic campaign on antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has also been a tremendous support in that regard.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is right to draw attention to seaside towns. He may know that community support officers have been deployed in such areas—in Rhyl, for example—to ensure that such antisocial behaviour can be controlled.
    I should just like to make it clear that, as I speak, the number of police officers is 132,260.
    Mr. George Osborne: Could the Minister tell us how many police officers could have been employed for the amount of money that has been spent on community support officers? That is surely the only way in which to judge the effectiveness of the idea.
    Ms Blears: I am a little disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's lack of imagination in this area. As I am sure that he knows, we seek not only to have record
    16
    numbers of police officers, but a whole range of other people visibly patrolling on our streets. As I understand it, the figure is approximately half the numbers that we could have had. I would challenge the hon. Gentleman to go to any community where community support officers are patrolling in order to see for himself. He should ask those local people, "Are they good value for money?" I can imagine that the answer that he will get is, "Yes, they are good value for money and they are doing an excellent job."
    Ian Lucas: If he will grant emergency funding for community support officers in Wrexham. [125062]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Fiona Mactaggart): I am not convinced that emergency funding for community support officers would be effective in avoiding a recurrence of the serious breakdown in public order on the Caia Park estate that was experienced in June. I understand that North Wales police have an action plan in place to deal with any future problems on the estate.
    Ian Lucas: I am disappointed by that reply. We have heard much about the effectiveness of community support officers on the streets throughout the country. The people of Wrexham are working hard to deal with the causes of the serious civil disturbances of the past month. For the first time, North Wales police have said that they will support the introduction of community support officers. Will the Under-Secretary meet me and the police to discuss that fact so that community support officers and their benefits can be used to address the difficulties that Caia Park estate and Wrexham face?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his determined efforts to encourage his local police, especially on the use of community support officers. I recognise that he has persisted in that, and that has been helpful. However, other police forces that had applied in both rounds and been unsuccessful would perceive it as unfair if North Wales police got emergency funding. Basic command unit commander Steve Curtis has made proposals, for example, to consider a policing priority area in Wrexham. That might provide part of the solution.
    The key role of community support officers should be to help prevent the sort of disorder that Wrexham experienced rather than tidying up after it has happened. Having community support officers as eyes and ears on the ground, noting, for example, piles of bricks in places where people could chuck them, is one of the best ways in which to prevent such disorder. That is preferable to their dealing with it when it happens.

    Drug-related Offences
    Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will make a statement on his policy on non-custodial sentencing options for repeat drug-related offences. [125063]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Caroline Flint): Effective treatment is the key to reducing drug-related crime. The courts have access to sentencing options, including drug treatment and testing orders, community rehabilitation orders or community punishment and rehabilitation orders, drug abstinence orders and drug abstinence requirements. I am pleased that the Criminal Justice Bill will provide for all community orders for adults to he combined into one generic order that can be tailored to the individual offender's requirements, including participation in drug treatment.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I belatedly add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on her new promotion. I am sure that she is well aware of the Government's drugs strategy, which says that investment in drugs treatment is cost-effective, although perhaps not in the way that the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety envisaged. Nevertheless, the strategy claims that every £1 spent saves the criminal justice system an estimated £3. Does she not agree that the Conservative policy of increasing places for hard drugs young offenders from 2,000 to 20,000, so that every young addict can be treated, makes eminent good sense?
    Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. However, with all due respect, you have to put your money where your mouth is. It is all very well Conservative Members talking about numbers, but given that they are also considering 20 per cent. cuts in public spending, the figures do not add up.
    The Government spent £438 million on drug treatment in 2002–03. That figure will increase to £503 million in 2003–04. That is real money for genuine need. We believe that our efforts to target the drug problems that cause crime, including non-custodial sentencing through drug treatment orders, is the way forward. Much remains to be done but the Government are taking the matter seriously and are prepared to put the money where it counts.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Let me say to my good and hon. Friend that the war against drugs is simply not working. Indeed, much evidence shows that it is a total failure. Drugs are more freely and cheaply available throughout our country and the police are swimming against a tide that they cannot turn back. To be honest, the Government must now be radical: they must either go for total legalisation or start chopping people's hands off. Since I would prefer the former, is it not time for the Government to admit their failure in the war against drugs, and, as in any war that one is losing, to change the strategy entirely?
    Caroline Flint: I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend's assumption that we are losing the war. From travelling around the country last week, and speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers conference on drugs, it is clear that We are making huge inroads into breaking up drugs trafficking. That has resulted in the figures for the people caught for such offences. However, it is widely appreciated and welcomed that we must focus on the class A drugs that cause the most harm to the individual and communities
    18
    and lead to crime. That position is endorsed by the police and by those involved in the treatment of people suffering from drug addiction. We shall embark on such a course and continue to keep to it; that is how we shall achieve success and results.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: May I, too, belatedly welcome the hon. Lady to her post, in which she arrived just before I arrived in mine? Does she accept the international surveys that suggest—echoing the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—that we now have the third highest incidence of hard drug users in the EU after Italy and Luxembourg? Does she also accept that the desperate shortage of in-patient treatment facilities for hard drug users is a large part of the cause of that? Does she really think it right that we have roughly the same number of in-patient beds as Sweden, which has one eighth of the population of the United Kingdom?
    Caroline Flint: I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his Front Bench and thank him for his welcome to me. We now have 3,000 residential places, which is twice as many as five years ago, but it is not enough. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would recognise, however, that residential treatment is not the only answer, and that we also have to provide care for people leaving it. I was in Bristol only a few weeks ago, speaking to people involved in the Bristol drugs project. I spoke to drug users, all of whom had been in residential treatment, and they told me that they had been let down by the aftercare. We have to look at this picture in the round, and ensure that treatment is provided for different needs. I am pleased to say that the provision of services across the board is going up and the waiting times are going down.

    Police (North-West)
    Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on his recent funding for extra police officers in the north-west. [125064]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Caroline Flint): In 2003–04, we are providing £36.8 million from the crime fighting fund for 1,367 officers recruited in the north-west between April 2000 and March 2003. Another £591,000 from the CFF will part-fund a further 101 officers for the region. By 30 September 2002, the north-west forces had reached a strength of 18,035 officers, which is 446 more than in 1997.
    Jim Dobbin: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. The Rochdale police division which serves my constituents will benefit from about 60 additional officers through that major investment. There is also the new deal for communities in Heywood, which is investing in some high-profile policing as part of its community development. Is my hon. Friend aware that, although crime levels are definitely being reduced across my constituency, they are being reduced even faster in the area that includes the new deal community? Is this

    19
    not a good example of the police working with their local community, and of the community supporting the police?
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I should like to give credit to him, because I know that he works very hard to maintain good relationships with the police, including the new chief constable, Mike Todd, and Chief Superintendent Ted Hill of the Rochdale division. My hon. Friend is talking about joined-up thinking. Working communities involve the police, but they also involve dealing with housing and benefits and with the quality of our neighbourhoods and streets and, most importantly, the engagement of the local community. I commend my hon. Friend's local police, because I know that they are keen to encourage the autonomy that will enable more input into police strategies from the communities themselves.

    Prisons
    Mr. Nick Gibb: What measures he has taken to expand the capacity of existing prisons to meet the forecast average population of the prison estate for 2004. [125065]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): We are modernising
    20
    and increasing the capacity of the prison estate. Four hundred additional places will be opened at Birmingham later this year, and funding has been secured for a further 2,820 prison places to be built at existing prisons. Two new prisons will be opened at Ashford and Peterborough, and the total usable capacity of the Prison Service estate will be about 78,700 by 2006.
    Mr. Gibb: I thank the Minister for that reply, and I am delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box, but, according to Home Office figures, the prison population forecast for 2006 is 91,200, while the prison capacity will be just 77,500. That includes the new prisons to which the Minister has just referred. Does that not mean that the Government are accepting the Lord Woolf approach to sentencing? Does he accept that a policy of shorter sentences has failed over the last 30 years, and that, if it is retained, it will continue to do so?
    Paul Goggins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome, but I must point out that a forecast is a forecast. As of today, the number that we have in prison is 1,000 below the forecast that has been worked up. We clearly have to take action to ensure that we have more custody available to us—4,500 extra places will be available by 2006—but we also have to ensure that credible community alternatives are also available. The Government are ensuring that that balanced approach is followed through.

Constitutional Reform
3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat a statement made today in another place by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, which is as follows.
We all recognise the importance of our judiciary and our legal system to security and confidence for our communities. They deal with crime, antisocial behaviour, family and civil disputes and, through the tribunal system, a whole range of subjects that affect daily lives.
We currently have judges of complete independence, probity and very high ability. They are admired all over the world. We need to build on that to ensure that our judges and our legal system are able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. They must continue to be independent—of the Executive and the legislature. They must be able to connect with and reflect our society, and they must be able to be of the highest quality. We must recognise that improvements should occur when confidence is high.
Currently, we have a system whereby all the judiciary—I include in that magistrates and tribunal members—are appointed mainly by, or on the recommendation of, one Cabinet Minister, whereby until 12 June that Cabinet Minister also sat as a judge in the highest court in the land, and whereby before someone becomes a judge in our highest court of appeal, they are first made a Member of the legislature—namely, the House of Lords.
The efforts of former Lord Chancellors, in particular Lord Irvine, have ensured that quality and probity have been maintained, but now we need arrangements that embed existing independence in a way that does not depend on one Minister and which ensures that we have not just a quality judiciary and not just an independent judiciary, but a diverse judiciary that reflects our community.
There has never been a woman appointed to sit in our final court of appeal. There has never been a black or minority ethnic judge appointed to the High Court in England and Wales. We must implement change in a way that carries the confidence of the community. including the legal and judicial community. That means we must consult widely and fully before deciding the full detail of our changes.
Today, the Government are publishing three consultation papers: the first on a supreme court for the UK, the second on an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales, and the third on the future of the rank of Queen's counsel. I will deal first with the proposal on a new Supreme Court.
We propose that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will cease to exist as the United Kingdom's highest court of appeal, and that the present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary instead form a new separate supreme court. While they are members of that court, they will not sit and vote in the House of Lords. The Government propose to transfer the whole of the
22
present jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee to the new supreme court. The time has come to take the final court of appeal out of the legislature.
The Government also propose, subject to consultation, to transfer from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the new court its present jurisdiction over devolution issues. That will enable us to restore a single apex to the United Kingdom's judicial systems. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will, however, remain in being to continue its work as the final court of appeal for a number of Commonwealth and Crown dependency jurisdictions.
The supreme court will be a new United Kingdom court. It will stand in exactly the same relationship to the courts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords does now. The independence of those three judicial jurisdictions will be totally respected. Arrangements will be made, as now, to secure appropriate representation for Scottish and Northern Irish judges.
The Government also propose to establish an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales to recommend candidates for appointment as judges. At present, judges are effectively selected by the Lord Chancellor. It is unsustainable for a Minister to continue to select judges in this way. The process of selection of judges for appointment in England and Wales must be demonstrably impartial and independent, as it now is in Scotland and will be in Northern Ireland.
Appointments will continue to be made solely on merit but, in addition, a judicial appointments commission will insulate more the appointment of judges from politicians and assist in opening up appointments to some groups of lawyers that are under-represented in the judiciary at the moment, including women, ethnic minorities and, at the higher levels, non-barristers.
The Government propose, subject to consultation, that the new independent judicial appointments commission would make recommendations to the Secretary of State. That model would significantly curtail ministerial involvement by placing the process of selecting candidates in the hands of the commission. The Secretary of State, however, would remain ultimately accountable to Parliament for the actual appointment. The model would therefore preserve the constitutional convention that the Queen acts on the advice of her Ministers.
The Government propose a balance of judicial representatives, legally qualified members and lay members for the commission. We seek views on who should chair it. It is proposed that the members be appointed by a separate appointing body. It would not include Ministers, but would be chaired by a senior civil servant, supported by a senior judge and a senior public figure entirely independent of the judiciary and the Executive. Appointments to the commission would be made under Nolan principles, which would further ensure its independence from Ministers. After the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will remain responsible for ensuring the independence of the

23
judiciary in England and Wales within the Cabinet, and consideration should be given to whether that responsibility should be embedded in legislation.
The third of the papers published today is the Government's consultation on the future of the rank of Queen's counsel, which currently designates members of the Bar and a small number of solicitors "senior advocates". The critical issue on QCs is whether the public are best served by the continuation of that rank. If they are, how should the system be changed?
Last year, the Government's wider consultation about the market for legal services aimed to find out how silk, as it is known, was actually used, and whether users were concerned about market distortions. The results, published in May, show that there is indeed some general support for silk, but that there are many concerns about how effective it is as a guide to quality in advocacy. That is why the Government are now publishing a wide-ranging paper that canvasses all the options, from improving the current silk system to abolishing it completely and leaving it to the legal profession to establish how customers are best informed about the quality of services.
Judicial appointments in England and Wales, a Supreme Court and the future of QCs are three vital issues that require detailed consideration. We are determined to ensure, in reaching our conclusions, that we enhance the transparency of our legal system, increase public confidence and bolster the independence of the judiciary from both the Executive and the legislature. In that way we can create a modern legal system that builds on its current independence and quality, ensuring the existence of a better justice system to serve the public.
I commend the papers to the House.
Mr. William Cash: The new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is quoted today as saying that he wants to end the Gilbert and Sullivan profusion of roles for the Lord Chancellor. Given the importance of matters that affect the very essence of our system of justice and the future of our constitution, it is to say the least a pity that the proposals of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State began with a theatrical production that put "Iolanthe" to shame, let alone the ministry of silly walks.
My first question to the Minister is this: why are we not being given a White Paper, and a debate on that White Paper in the House? Secondly, where are the transfers of functions orders? Without those, what is the statutory basis for the Minister's role in the House of Commons, especially as the new Department is the fourth largest spending Department? The lack of any such order raises serious issues of accountability for public expenditure in the House.
On 19 June, the Prime Minister told me that the matter would be dealt with once the position of Lord Chancellor had been abolished. As that can be done only by statute, which may be a year away if it comes into being at all, how will the Government deal with the question of financial accountability to the House in the
24
meantime? The Prime Minister is behaving more and more like a Stuart monarch. He should recall the fate of those monarchs.
Thirdly, the Minister says that we have judges of complete independence, probity and very high ability. He says that that must continue. Will he explain how the current system has failed, and why he thinks that the diversity to which he refers could not have been achieved under the present system? Is diversity another word for political correctness? Bias is not exclusively political, but may result from the whim of fashion or alleged rights. It is of course important for us to have a judiciary drawn from the whole community, but is the Minister saying that diversity is more important than merit?
Fourthly, on the Supreme Court, who will be responsible for the rules of procedure, including the white book, under the proposed system? The Secretary of State is understood to have said that the new supreme court would not have the power to strike down legislation, but does that mean that the power of the Secretary of State to issue prohibition orders on the Scottish Parliament, in relation to reserved matters, will be repealed, and who will deal with excessive use of powers in devolution matters? How will Scottish appeals be dealt with in the light of the Act of Union 1707?
What is the Secretary of State's reason for excluding members of the Supreme Court from sitting and voting in the other place? That may have certain attractions, but the idea is not welcomed by many. What will be the relationship between the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg as the Supreme Court in Europe? Will the Minister clarify the role of the Law Lords? Will they attend the other place after retirement? Will the Supreme Court inhabit Somerset house? I hear that the dome is still available—no doubt the Secretary of State will be able to find his way there. In such circumstances, the court will be neither supreme nor a final court of appeal.
Fifthly, on the independent judicial appointments commission, the Minister has already said that we have judges of complete independence, probity and high ability, but he states that it is unsustainable for the Lord Chancellor to continue to select judges. What evidence can he produce to show that the appointment of judges has gone wrong? If the Secretary of State is to remain accountable to Parliament for the actual appointments, as he has stated, how can he not realise that that is bound to involve political interference, especially as, in The Times today, he made clear his determination to use his role for political purposes?
The Secretary of State owes it to the House to explain how the new commission will be able to guarantee appointments on merit and be fully independent of the Secretary of State. The Government cannot have it both ways; this is no separation of powers, as the Secretary of State has claimed.
Will it be guaranteed that those appointing the commission will be statutorily prohibited from holding discussions with Ministers or their civil servants? Does the Minister agree that the principle that judges should not be politically appointed should be balanced by the principle that they should not be politically engaged, and that, if they have become so, it is because Parliament has enacted legislation that has encouraged judges not only to interpret the law, but to seek to make it?

25
One of the criticisms of the role of the Lord Chancellor was that he was dependent on the patronage of the Prime Minister. Can the Minister explain how that has changed?
Can the Minister confirm that there will be no interference with the security of tenure of judges, or of their salaries or pensions, or with the principle established in 1688 that means that they had better behave themselves? How will that be dealt with, if at all, in legislation? Will any discipline of judges be made a matter of public record and will any restrictions be imposed on their making political comments to the media?
How can the Secretary of State confirm that the Lord Chancellor's role in the Cabinet as the arbiter of respect for the rule of law and as the most authoritative and respected member of the Government in matters of proper procedure, fairness and constitutional law will he continued if, as he has said, his successor need not be a lawyer?
Should not the new Secretary of State be answerable directly to the House of Commons? Should not his Department have a fuller Question Time? Will the system of appointments continue the process of advertising posts?
I hope that the Minister will agree that the constitutional responsibility for judicial independence is at the heart of our constitutional government. It is essential for the protection of civil liberties, to stop the abuse of power by the Executive and to ensure judicial neutrality. Does he agree that the essence of the role is fair, efficient and effective administration of justice for the people of this country, and that that role should not have been caught up in the ludicrous pantomime of the reshuffle?
Mr. Leslie: I realise that the hon. Gentleman needed to make some sort of political point, but after that contribution I cannot tell whether he is in favour of an independent judicial appointments commission and a new supreme court or against them. Nevertheless, I shall try my best to answer some of his questions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Green Papers and White Papers. We have set out in the consultation documents, which are significant, a number of important questions. We seek many views on some of these big constitutional issues. Many views have already been expressed historically. We know, for example, the views of the senior Law Lord and the Bar Council about creating a new supreme court and so on. Indeed, by 7 November—the closing date for consultation—we hope that we will have a full range of representations from which to make some of these crucial decisions.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) asked again about the transfer of functions order, about which he is particularly concerned. I understand that that matter will go before the Privy Council in July and that it will come before Parliament in the normal way. We anticipate that there will be good notice for some of those matters, and I will certainly discuss that with him in more detail.
We need to improve judicial appointments and the role of the final court of appeal while confidence in the system is high, not to wait for the system to decay. I believe that that is the right approach. I disagree with
26
the hon. Gentleman's implicit suggestion that merit is somehow incompatible with diversity. By creating a judicial appointments commission that is broader in its scope and has a wider membership, rather than just relying on one Cabinet Minister to make the appointments, we can have the chance of a truly more diverse judiciary, which would be a major advance.
No changes are proposed to the devolution settlement, save for the impact on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which currently hears appeals in devolution cases. Now that the supreme court is being taken out of the House of Lords under these proposals, the supreme court would not effectively have a bias or there would be no perception of a conflict of interests because it would not be in Parliament any more, so that would be the only significant impact on devolution in that respect.
We believe that it is important to separate the political and the judicial. That is one of the reasons why the consultation document proposes to take the Law Lords out of the House of Lords, so that they will not sit and vote in the House of Lords. Many people, not just constitutional experts, will be familiar with the rationale behind that move.
I am sorry to say, on the hon. Gentleman's pet subject, that not very many European matters are affected by these proposals, although I am sure that he will no doubt find some in the documents and come back to me at a later date.
On discipline and grievances for the judiciary, clearly the current arrangements for Parliament to express its view on the judiciary in some very extreme circumstances will not be changed. One of the questions in the consultation paper is whether or not the independent judicial appointments commission should have a role in grievance and discipline procedures.
I believe that the question of who appoints the appointers has been thoroughly aired in the consultation paper, and I hope that hon. Members will consider that. There are a number of options, but we believe that, by ensuring that there is a judicial input and the independence of a senior public figure, as well as the chairmanship of a senior civil servant, we will find a way to create a judicial appointments commission that is fair and balanced. Indeed, we have clearly set out that we would like a legal voice, a non-legal voice and a judicial voice on that commission.
The paper contains a number of questions about the role of the Prime Minister in advising the Crown, and answers are sought from those who submit representations during the consultation. I cannot say that I have a view on whether the Department for Constitutional Affairs should have more time at oral parliamentary questions, as that is a matter for the House and its authorities, and I will do whatever I need to do.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that, fundamentally, the significant issues that we have set out in the consultation paper are about the transparency and credibility of our judicial system—a judicial system that is important for all people in society, because there are a number of ways in which the law and how it is

27
interpreted affect ordinary people. I believe that this is a major change and a major constitutional advance, and I hope that the House will recognise that.
Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for early sight of his proposals and even more grateful to the editors of The Times and The Guardian for even earlier sight of the proposals this morning. The Liberal Democrats largely welcome what the Minister is proposing, not least because they are policies that we have been advocating for some time, even when his predecessors were roundly defending the position of the Lord Chancellor.
On the Supreme Court, can the Minister confirm that there was little or no consultation with the senior judiciary before this policy was announced and that that omission now needs to be corrected to ensure the proper support of the senior judiciary? Can he tell me whether he intends to have discussions with the representatives of those Commonwealth and other territories that rely on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for their senior court of appeal? It would seem anomalous to retain that as an extension for ever in the absence of the role of the judges in another place. Can the Minister answer the question put by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the premises for the Supreme Court? Does he have any views on where those should be? Does he expect an enhanced role for the Lord Chief Justice in the new judicial arrangements?
On judicial appointments, does the Minister agree that the test of the proposals is whether, at the end of the day, the appointments procedure is seen to be properly independent of political interference, seen to maintain the high quality of the judiciary and seen to achieve the diversity of appointment that we all want? Does he also agree that senior advocates are not necessarily and exclusively the only source of good judicial appointments? Will he look at the proposal that the commission should bring forward a shortlist from which the Secretary of State will still select? I think that that undermines the proposals, and he should look carefully at whether an alternative exists.
Lastly, on the funding of the transitional arrangements, the Minister will know that the resources available to the courts in all divisions, including the lower courts, are extremely stretched at the moment. Will additional funding be made available for the transitional arrangements so that the new supreme court and other arrangements are not set up at the expense of local justice, at the expense of the accessibility of justice, and at the expense of the maintenance of the fabric of the judicial system as it is at present?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, tried to claim this as a Liberal Democrat idea. I am sure that in some dark recesses of Liberal Democrat manifestoes, they might have alluded to the judiciary at some level or other, which might justify the claim. Nevertheless, he asked a number of specific questions.
First, on consultation with the senior judiciary, clearly, decisions have been made that in principle we want to have a supreme court separate from the
28
legislative branch of government. I believe that the consultation papers will provide the opportunity not only for Members of Parliament but the wider public and the judiciary to express fully their views on some of the fundamental questions that need addressing.
On the question of Commonwealth and dependent territories and whether they will have an input into the changes affecting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, those are decisions for them. If independent countries wish their appeal mechanisms to come to the Privy Council, we will look to continue that. No change is envisaged at this stage in that respect. Clearly, however, they will have their own views on how they want their legal systems to evolve, and we will respect that.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important question about premises and where a supreme court would be housed. We do not have a fixed view yet, and it would be slightly perverse if we decided that at this early stage, with some of the questions still unanswered in the consultation paper. As the concept of the supreme court takes shape, so we will, as we are doing now, work up our final thoughts on potential premises.
Issues affecting the Lord Chief Justice in some detailed respects are contained in the consultation papers, and I commend those to the hon. Gentleman. It is important—I agree with him to this extent—that we have a judiciary that is seen to be freer of potential political interference. That is why we are seeking much greater independence in the appointments process. A number of suggested models exist for the independent judicial appointments commission. One is to have a shortlist suggesting a number of names to Ministers. Another is for a shortlist of one, effectively. That is the Government's preferred option at this stage but, again, it is open for consultation.
Typically, for a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman asked about resources, although it is a fair question. We envisage that costs will be associated with the creation of a Supreme Court, given that it will need to be taken out of the House of Lords. We will make sure that provision is made.
Ross Cranston: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the creation of a supreme court is in no way a reflection on the quality of our highest judiciary, which, as I think he implied, is the envy of the world? During the consultation, will he take account of the cardinal principle that appointments must be made on merit, but that merit is not inconsistent with drawing the highest judges from a wider pool? Consideration could he given to such matters as gender, ethnic background and—I declare an interest here—making appointments from the academic legal community.
Mr. Leslie: I am sure that several opportunities would open up as a judicial appointments commission began its work, but it would not be right for me, as a politician, to express a view on who should be appointed in the first flush of appointments to such a commission. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the highest judiciary and, indeed, all our judiciary is of extremely high quality and international repute. Probity is the

29
watchword of the judiciary's work. It is extremely important to bear in mind the point that I made about making improvements now while confidence is high.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Minister must surely recognise that this is a new high— or low—in new Labour tosh. The truth is that his statement was based on an unreasoned assertion. I speak as a libertarian, and whatever the faults and demerits of our present system, it has delivered a judiciary that has been able to defend our liberty. No one seriously attacks the processes by which we have reached that. Does the Minister recognise that most of us think that his statement was merely a cover up for a really botched Government reorganisation—the worst in the 19th, 20th or 21st century?
Mr. Leslie: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view. If he thinks that a Cabinet Minister should sit as a judge, I respectfully disagree with him. He might think that the final court of appeal should be in the legislature and make judgments on matters of public policy, but potential perceived conflicts of interest arise from that. We must not shy away from addressing such anomalies, as we are doing in the consultation paper.
Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement and any attempt to bring the legal profession and, especially, the judiciary into the 20th century. Will he say—[Interruption.] That was deliberate. Will he say a little more about the potential effect in Scotland and, especially, will he tell me what consultation has taken place with the Scottish Executive on the proposal? What safeguards will exist to ensure that an appropriate number of Scottish judges serve in the new court? Will he comment on the view expressed by several voices in Scotland that existing arrangements are embedded in the Act of Union and will require special treatment? What consideration have the Government given to that?
Mr. Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend, especially given his legal background, for his questions about Scotland. It is important that we continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Office and although we have responsibility for the Welsh courts, I am conscious of the interest of the National Assembly for Wales. Scotland and Scottish devolved maters will be affected in several ways. For a start, there will be a change regarding the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We do not envisage any change to the current situation in which no criminal appeals come from Scotland to the House of Lords as the final court of appeal, although issues arise regarding the granting of leave to hear civil cases in the final court of appeal. I urge my hon. Friend to examine the questions about that in the consultation paper and I would welcome his more detailed consideration.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Who will appoint the judicial appointments commission and were the changes instituted because of the adverse report made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the Lord Chancellor's office? Were the suggestions about a Supreme Court made because of the notorious Hoffman case regarding conflict of interest in
30
the Pinochet trial? Were the changes suggested because of personality: were the excesses of the outgoing Lord Chancellor such that it was deemed appropriate to remove not only him but his office?
Mr. Leslie: I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of those views. I know that this will be difficult for the Conservative party to understand, but we are making the change as a matter of principle. It is a major constitutional advance, and I have set out our reasons for the change. On who will appoint the independent judicial appointments commission, the papers suggest some ideas, one of which is to have an independent appointments panel comprising a senior civil servant, senior judge and senior public figure, perhaps independent but available in public life, such as the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That is the right way to deal with who appoints the appointers. Again, I commend those papers to the House.
Dr. Jack Cunningham: Is it not obvious that the announcement will be widely welcomed by everyone who is sensible and practical about the long-overdue constitutional reform proposals? Is it not instructive, especially in respect of the supreme court, that ever since 1945, with the reconstruction of Europe and Commonwealth independence, successive British Governments have always insisted on the creation of a supreme court, quite separate from any parliamentary or legislative actions, in the countries that were receiving independence? As it is one issue—the removal of the Law Lords from the House of Lords—raised by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, can my hon. Friend tell us when the Government will respond to the other recommendations in that report?
Mr. Leslie: The Government intend to respond shortly to the second report of the Joint Committee. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work and stewardship of that body. The creation of an independent judicial appointments commission and the step to have a supreme court taken out of the second House is long overdue. An Act of Parliament was passed as far back as 1873 to do just that, but the Government who followed that Administration decided not to commence it. So here we are ensuring that we take a long-overdue step forward.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will remain responsible for ensuring the independence of the judiciary in England and Wales, and as that gentleman will be appointed by the Prime Minister, are we not witnessing the subjugation rather than the separation of powers?
Mr. Leslie: No. The arrangement was that the Lord Chancellor was appointed by the Prime Minister to be a judge while sitting in Cabinet as a politician. As I said, consideration will be given to whether we should enshrine in the responsibilities of the new post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs a duty to safeguard the independence of the judiciary. That is one question that we have posed and it merits detailed consideration.
Mr. Clive Soley: Before this dotty idea that somehow or other it would be

31
Politically correct to have women judges escapes from the Tory Front Benches, can we make it crystal clear that confidence in justice is largely brought about by the full involvement of a cross-section of the community in the judicial system? That being so, the fact that we have not had a woman judge is a serious criticism of our system over many years. It is not, however, a criticism of the existing holders of those posts.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right to say that a woman has never been appointed to sit in our final Court of Appeal; nor has a black or minority ethnic judge been appointed to the High Court in England and Wales. Diversity is important. Our judiciary should reflect the public on whose behalf they seek to implement judicial decisions. Creating an independent judicial appointments commission, with a broad spectrum of people doing the job of selection, will enrich the process so that we have a more diverse judiciary that is appointed on merit.
Annabelle Ewing: Surely the Government's announcement represents consultation after the fact because the decision to establish a UK supreme court was taken last month in Downing street at the time of the botched reshuffle. There was certainly no prior consultation in Scotland. It is not clear from today's proposals whether the necessary criterion of independence from the English legal system will be secured for Scotland. Surely the time is now right in post-devolution Scotland to repatriate the final appellate jurisdiction to the Scottish courts. It surely remains an anomaly that the United Kingdom has any jurisdiction over the matter whatever.
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Lady suggests a major change to the arrangements that have worked well for some time under which the House of Lords hears cases as the final Court of Appeal, which we envisage will be conducted through the creation of a UK supreme court. Although there are detailed issues in the consultation paper that affect Scotland, the fundamental separation of the Scottish system will continue and be entirely respected. It is important to keep those separate jurisdictions. It is also important that we have a supreme court that is taken out of the political realm and the second House of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Lady will come round to the view that that is reasonable.
Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend share my view that all reasonable people will welcome the proposals on judicial appointments and the supreme court as a considerable enhancement of the separation of powers under our unwritten constitution? Will he confirm that the consultation process is precisely that announced at the time of the reshuffle, but that some chose not to hear the message on that day?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that he has been involved in several discussions and documents that have prompted thought on some of the major issues. Circumscribing the role of Ministers and the power that they have, especially in the appointments,
32
process are important changes. That is a major step forward, which I know that my hon. Friends will welcome.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister understand that many of us feel that he has got his priorities wrong? Is this not simply change for the sake of change and at additional cost? What will the new supreme court be able to do that cannot as well he done by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and in the House of Lords? If he wants to make a real improvement, why does he not transfer responsibility for constitutional and legal matters from an unelected Secretary of State sitting in a largely nominated House loan elected Secretary of State sitting in this House?
Mr. Leslie: The creation of the post of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is a major advance. It is difficult to see how a Lord Chancellor could be answerable in the House of Commons. The initiative of a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs should give both Houses an opportunity for further scrutiny and accountability. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that such a matter is a low priority that does not need addressing. If there is a perception of a blurred line between the political and the judicial, surely we all have a duty to address ourselves to it. That is one of the many reasons why we have done so.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: May I add my welcome to that of my hon. Friends for these long-overdue reforms, especially the proposal to establish an independent judicial appointments commission? Serving members of that commission might have an opportunity to become members of the judiciary. What arrangements does my hon. Friend intend to make concerning those appointments—either while those people are serving or after their term has ended?
Mr. Leslie: The consultation paper suggests that about 15 people should form the independent judicial appointments commission—roughly equal numbers from the judiciary, legal background and non-legal background. It would clearly he inappropriate for members sitting on a judicial appointments commission to hear their own personal applications. I am sure that arrangements can be made, and I shall certainly bear in mind any issues on the matter.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: If the Government are determined to pursue these botched proposals that in respect of judicial appointments will destroy a system that works perfectly well, will they now consider going for elected judges rather than another round of appointed cronies?
Mr. Leslie: The Conservative party seems to innovate policy on its feet from moment to moment. If a Conservative Back Bencher wishes to put forward such views, I suppose that that is entirely possible. We do not envisage having elected judges. We feel that the vast majority of important aspects and criteria of the current judicial system should be kept and enhanced. One way of enhancing that system would be to ensure that the

33
appointments process is properly seen to be independent, and to ensure that we insulate it from, perhaps, questions of political interference.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Although I agree that the current system works well, it is shocking that a woman has never been appointed to sit in the final Court of Appeal, nor a black and ethnic minority judge appointed to the High Court. Will my lion. Friend ensure that rather than just leaving these matters to the independent judicial appointments commission, he consults widely with community groups and others concerned about the promotion of equality so that we get a more diverse group of people in our highest courts?
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a suggestion that an independent judicial appointments commission could well take forward. It would be a matter for it, in its wider work, to examine new ways of ensuring that applications were brought forward from as wide a range of potential judges as possible. There are issues in the consultation paper that would help to bring forward the extra diversity that my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Peter Luff: Whatever the merits or otherwise of these proposals, does the Minister understand that as someone who had the privilege of working as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the last Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I find it particularly difficult to accept that the last Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, has been particularly effective in ensuring the quality and probity of the judiciary? I would draw a very different conclusion from the Minister, and it is this: if even Lord Irvine could ensure the quality and probity of the judiciary, the system ain't broke and don't need fixing.
Mr. Leslie: That is a somewhat circuitous argument from the hon. Gentleman. It seems easy for Conservative Members to take pot-shots at the former Lord Chancellor. Actually, he was responsible for a number of major constitutional advances that I think all hon. Members on cold reflection would recognise and appreciate. We are taking new steps to modernise the constitution, and the House should welcome that.
Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Minister's statement. I congratulate him and the Secretary of State on these proposals, which have been proposed after the short period that they have had in office.
First, I heard what my hon. Friend said about elected judges, but if the weight of opinion on consultation favours an election to the commission, will the Government stand in the way of that idea being initiated? Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be a new organisation, and that it will not merely be a case of the judicial appointments part of the old Lord Chancellor's Department moving over to the new judicial appointments commission, otherwise, it would be the same people making the recommendations?
Mr. Leslie: On the last point, it is important that we have officials who assist a new independent judicial
34
appointments commission, who can help to bring out some of the fresher ideas that my hon. Friend seeks. As for elected judges and perhaps an elected judicial appointments commission, these are not issues that have been brought out in the consultation paper precisely because we wish to draw a clearer distinction in our constitutional arrangement between the political and the judicial. I believe that that is the history of our constitution, but taken to a more modern phase. We shall consider all the representations as they are made.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Do not these changes, involving the separation of powers, mean that the judiciary and Parliament will become ever more separate from each other? Was it not a thoroughly good thing, and the reason for the system working over the centuries, that the two were linked through the Lord Chancellor? They were also linked because some of our most senior judges in the land were exposed to the pressing issues of the day by sitting in the House of Lords. Does the Minister agree that these changes are likely to lead to further conflict between the judiciary and Parliament, and will not that ultimately be to the detriment of the British people?
Mr. Leslie: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the models posed in the consultation document is for the independent judicial appointments commission to recommend a shortlist of one or a number of names to a Minister of the Crown so that, while the Minister is taken out of the selection process in sifting applications and so forth, the constitutional convention of having a Minister make recommendations to the Crown and then be accountable to Parliament for such recommendations could be preserved. At this stage, we are in favour of a recommended commission model but, again, we wish to consult on it further.
Mr. George Foulkes: I assure my hon. Friend that for the real radicals, the proposals are not only warmly welcome but long overdue, particularly if they result in fewer judges who went to Oxbridge and public school—[Interruption.] I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs Campbell). However, on the Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, while I encourage my hon. Friend to consult the Scottish Executive and other interests in Scotland, he should take account of the fact that parochialism and self-interest affect some parts of public life in Scotland. In fact, I am beginning to believe that girning is becoming the national sport of Scotland. If there were Olympic medals for girning, the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) would be in line for the gold.
Mr. Leslie: My understanding is that the sport of girning requires its participants to have false teeth, and I would not want to suggest that any hon. Member is in that position. I do not believe that the description of parochialism fits the Scottish public at large, but I accept that we must pay particular care and attention to important and delicate issues affecting the devolution settlement, especially as they apply to the United Kingdom Supreme Court. I shall certainly bear my right hon. Friend's recommendations in mind.
Mr. Graham Brady: In September 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department introduced new guidelines on the appointment of lay magistrates, saying that the Bench must reflect an area's voting pattern as evidenced by the last two general elections. Given that history, how can we have any confidence at all that the Government will not seek to politicise appointments to the judiciary as well?
Mr. Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that issue about the magistracy because, again, the consultation paper looks at the role of the current Lord Chancellor in the appointments process of the magistracy. We envisage retaining local input in the selection process, but in our view that is best done via a judicial appointments commission, independent of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman made an important point about political balance, which we would not want to upset.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: These are excellent proposals and the Government deserve a pat on the back. I hope that Queen's counsel will be done away with. We do not have queen's surveyors or dentists. QCs are an anachronism and ought to be done away with. Let the market decide.
Mr. John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman an advocate of the market?
Mr. Prentice: Absolutely—I am new Labour.
May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the judicial appointments commission? I take it that it will report annually to Parliament, setting out the criteria that it uses to recommend appointments to the Bench. How long will individuals serve on that commission? I hope that they will not have a lifetime appointment.
Mr. Leslie: The paper includes a recommendation in response to a question about how long members may serve on a judicial appointments commission. There will be mechanisms in place so that such an independent body is accountable through reports to Parliament. On the question of QCs, the Government do not have predetermined answers to the questions that we have set out, but we feel that the rank of QC needs strong justification. If it is to remain, it needs to be of demonstrable benefit to the users of legal services, and such benefit has to outweigh the disadvantages with which the House is familiar.
Mr. Peter Duncan: Is the Minister proud of the way in which he has cynically excluded the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament from the proposals, thus reinforcing the view that the Scottish legal system has been relegated to a footnote in the Government's proposals? As conflict resolution is increasingly common in post-devolution UK, can he address the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran)? Exactly how will the Government ensure that there is adequate representation for Scottish judges in the new United Kingdom court?
Mr. Leslie: There are proposals in the document to ensure that we have the right numbers of Scottish and Northern Irish judges in the supreme court and the panels within that. I am surprised to hear those on the Conservative Benches crying for greater consultation with the Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament, but I heed the hon. Gentleman's comments. We will continue to work closely with both those institutions as we develop the proposals.
Vera Baird: I congratulate my hon. Friend on these overdue proposals, which will bring the worst aspects of our legal system screaming—believe me, they will scream, and my hon. Friend should not weaken—into the modern world. The suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench that diversity in the judiciary will endanger quality is an insult to those many women and ethnic minority lawyers who work hard now and who do not get promoted. It is not a sign that the system is working perfectly or that it am not broke when there is not a single woman judge in the highest court in our country, though there are three good ones, but only three, in the Court of Appeal and six good ones, but only six, in the Queen's Bench Division. Does not the dearth of women and ethnic minorities reflect the secret sounding system whereby white male Oxbridge-educated judges inevitably recommend clones of themselves? QCs—may I turn to that?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I had the impression that I called the hon. and taught Lady to ask a question. Perhaps the Minister could try to answer.
Mr. Leslie: I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend for the forensic way in which she posed her question. She recognised that the proposals were a major advance in our constitutional and judicial system, and that it is right that there should be a stronger separation between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of our constitution. I cannot wait to hear her views on QCs.
Mr. Bercow: Given his professed commitment to increased independence in judicial appointments, why cannot the hon. Gentleman see at best the unwisdom and at worst the absurdity of proposing for the chairmanship of the body that will choose the members of the judicial appointments commission a senior civil servant who, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, is by instinct, training and contract accountable not to the wider world, but to the Executive?
Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman highlights one proposal in the document relating to the independent judicial appointments commission. and I am grateful for that. These are important issues. I await his detailed and lengthy dissertation on them. I know that he is concerned about who selects those who appoint the judiciary. We share that concern, but we believe that there are arrangements in the paper that will give a measure of extra independence and confidence in the legal system, which all hon. Members seek to achieve.

Points of Order
4.28 pm
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you share my concern that we have had yet another Government announcement on policy that was made to the media before it came to the House? I seek your guidance on the proper procedure when that announcement is a reversal—a fundamental U-turn—of a policy statement already made in the Chamber. You will have seen the press reports over the weekend that the Government are planning not to implement the boundary commission recommendations for Scotland before the next general election. During the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs was an olive branch offered to deal with the overrepresentation of Scotland in the Chamber, and also to go some way towards solving the problem of the West Lothian question. Last week in the vote on foundation hospitals, the Government were saved front defeat only—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Angus Robertson: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait to see whether there is a point of order. I must warn the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs Lait). She applied for an urgent question today, which I refused. I hope that she is not seeking a way to reopen that matter. If she has a point of order, I want her to get to the point.
Mrs. Lait: It is with pleasure that I shall get to the point. As this is a fundamental U-turn by the Government, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland or any other Minister, including the Under-Secretary, have asked whether they can make a statement to this House on this disgraceful change of policy, which will destabilise the devolution settlement and add to the distrust of this Government by the voters.
Mr. Speaker: I sometimes read the Scottish newspapers, and I say to the hon. Lady that she should not believe everything that goes into a newspaper.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few weeks ago at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister misrepresented my views on the European Union by purportedly quoting me. No. 10 provided Hansard with what it said was a direct quote and it was therefore recorded in inverted commas. I raised the matter with you as you are responsible for the accuracy of Hansard, and you said that, in your judgment, it was for the hon. or right hon. Member concerned—in other words, the Prime Minister—to correct the record himself. I therefore tabled a parliamentary question seeking that he confirm publicly what he had confirmed in correspondence—that he had not been able to find the source of the misleading quote—but he has now replied denying the inaccuracy of the quote, refusing to withdraw the remark and also refusing to correct the Official Report
This is a serious matter because the Prime Minister is the same as all of us in this House and is responsible for his remarks. He has, on his own admission,
38
misrepresented and misquoted another hon. Member—namely myself. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take action, otherwise, what is there to protect any of us against the No. 10 spin machine, in all its distortions and misleading guile, and its propensity even when caught out, to refuse to correct what it has said or indeed supplied to the Official Report?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order about the answer that he has received from the Prime Minister. I am not, however, responsible for the content of written answers given by Ministers. He has set out his argument clearly and it will no doubt be heard. He will have to seek other means than a point of order if he wishes to take this matter further. The Table Office may be able to advise.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling, but I now have something else that is misleading—a parliamentary answer that conflicts with the private correspondence that I received, which I am reluctant to put on the public record, as it was a private letter to me from the Prime Minister. In correspondence, the Prime Minister himself was unable to give me the source of the quote and therefore conceded that it was misleading and inaccurate. In an official answer to a parliamentary question that is on the record, he now refuses to do that. He refuses to withdraw his remark, to correct what he has acknowledged to be wrong and inaccurate and to amend and correct the Official Report, for which you are responsible. What more can I do when I have a direct contradiction between what the Prime Minister says in private and what he says in public?
Mr. Speaker: I have given the right hon. Gentleman good advice. In this instance, he should go to the Table Office. I would strongly advise that he does that.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can we protect the business of this House as set out on the Order Paper by avoiding spurious points of order raised by members of the shadow Cabinet, based on speculation and containing no direct quotation from any Minister? The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) raised such a point of order after having quite properly been refused by you the opportunity to ask an urgent question. That is a disgraceful abuse of the House and she ought to know better.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to worry. Points of order sometimes give the Speaker a form of exercise.
Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In response to a written question, the Prime Minister answered a question that I had not asked. However, that is not my reason for raising this point of order. My question referred to British intelligence and Iraq, and the Prime Minister's reply referred me to the inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee that is taking place. He concludes:
"Their report on their findings will be published in due course."— [Official Report, 11 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 1059W.]

39
Does that mean that if a Back Bencher asks a question that includes the words "intelligence" or "Iraq", we will be consistently referred to a Select Committee whose meetings and report we do not yet know about? Is not that a way of reducing the power of Back Benchers to ask questions of the Executive?
Mr. Speaker: As the Speaker, I am not responsible for such answers.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) mentioned the making of statements outside the House. You, Sir, have often deprecated that, and I wonder if I may suggest a solution. You have charge over the cell at the foot of the Clock Tower. Could you not send to that cell for several hours any Minister who transgresses in future?
Mr. Speaker: I would not comment on that matter.
Angus Robertson: Further to the point of order concerning boundaries in Scotland, you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the reports in a number of newspapers are based on unattributed Government sources who have let it be known that the cut will not be included in the Queen's Speech. Now that there is so much uncertainty about that matter, is it not right and proper that the Government should make a statement about it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into that. He should perhaps read the newspapers, but he should not always believe them. They sometimes get it wrong, as I know from experience.

Communication bill (Programme)(No.3)
Motion made, and Question put,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Communications Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 3rd December 2002 and 10th February 2003:
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.

Lords Amendments

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Nos. 1 and 2

6.00 p.m.

Nos. 3 to 38

7.30 p.m.

Nos. 39 to 114

9.00 p.m.

Nos. 115 to 278

10.00 p.m.

Subsequent stages
3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so tar as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after thir commencement—[Tessa jowell]
The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 165.

Division No. 289]

[4:32 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Caplin, Ivor

Allen, Graham

Casale, Roger

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Caton, Martin

Atherton, Ms Candy

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Atkins, Charlotte

Challen, Colin

Austin, John

Chaytor, David

Bailey, Adrian

Clapham, Michael

Baird, Vera

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Banks, Tony

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Barron, rh Kevin

Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

Battle, John

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Bayley, Hugh

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clelland, David

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Bennett, Andrew

Coaker, Vernon

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Berry, Roger

Cohen, Harry

Best, Harold

Coleman, Iain

Betts, Clive

Colman, Tony

Blackman, Liz

Connarty, Michael

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Borrow, David

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Cooper, Yvette

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Corston, Jean

Bradshaw, Ben

Cousins, Jim

Brennan, Kevin

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E wallsend)

Cranston, Ross

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Browne, Desmond

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bryant, Chris

Cummings, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Burgon, Colin

Burnham, Andy

cunningham, Jim (coventry S)

cairns, David

cunningham, Tony (workington)

41

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

David, Wayne

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Jamieson, David

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jenkins, Brian

Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Dawson, Hilton

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Denham, rh John

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dismore, Andrew

Jowell, rh Tessa

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Dobson, rh Frank

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Doran, Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Khabra, Piara S.

Edwards, Huw

Kidney, David

Efford, Clive

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Etherington, Bill

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Farrelly, Paul

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Flint, Caroline

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Follett, Barbara

Lammy, David

Foster, rh Derek

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Leppes, David

Leslie, Christopher

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Foulkes, rh George

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Linton, Martin

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Love, Andrew

Gardiner, Barry

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Gerrard, Neil

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McAvoy, Thomas

Gilroy, Linda

McCafferty, Chris

Godsiff, Roger

McDonagh, Siobhain

Goggins, Paul

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

MacDougall, John

Grogan, John

McFall, John

Hain, rh Peter

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McKenna, Rosemary

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McNamara, Kevin

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

MacShane, Denis

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hanson, David

McWalter, Tony

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Mahmood, Khalid

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Healey, John

Mallaber, Judy

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Heppell, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Heyes, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hinchliffe, David

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hodge, Margaret

Martlew, Eric

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Meacher, rh Michael

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Merron, Gillian

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Miliband, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Miller, Andrew

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &
Sefton E)

Moffatt, Laura

Mole, Chris

Howells, Dr. Kim

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Hoyle, Lindsay

Morley, Elliot

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Mudie, George

Munn, Ms Meg

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hutton, rh John

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Illsley, Eric

O'Hara, Edward

42

Olner, Bill

Soley, Clive

O'Neill, Martin

Southworth, Helen

Owen, Albert

Spellar, rh John

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Pearson, Ian

Steinberg, Gerry

Perham, Linda

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Picking, Anne

Pickthall, Colin

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Plaskitt, James

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Straw, rh Jack

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pound, Stephen

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prescott, rh John

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Purchase, Ken

Timms, Stephen

Purnell, James

Tipping, Paddy

Quinn, Lawrie

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

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

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Rooney, Terry

Walley, Ms Joan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ward, Claire

Ruane, Chris

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Ruddock, Joan

Watts, David

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Wicks, Malcolm

Salter, Martin

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wills, Michael

Savidge, Malcolm

Winnick, David

Sawford, Phil

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster c)

Sedgemore, Brian

Shaw, Jonathan

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Sheerman, Barry

Woolas, Phil

Sheridan, Jim

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Singh, Marsha

Skinner, Dennis

Wright, David (Telford)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Derek Twigg and

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Margaret Moran

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bruce, Malcolm

Allan, Richard

Burnett, John

Amess, David

Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, rh James

Burstow, Paul

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Burt, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Barker, Gregory

Cameron, David

Baron, John (Billericay)

Cash, William

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Berth, rh A. J.

Bellingham, Henry

Chidgey, David

Bercow, John

Chope, Christopher

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Blunt, Crispin

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Collins, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Conway, Derek

Brady, Graham

Conmack, Sir Patrick

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Cotter, Brian

Brazier, Julian

Curry, rh David

Breed, Colin

Djanogly, Jonathan

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Dodds, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

43

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Öpik, Lembit

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Evans, Nigel

Ottaway, Richard

Ewing, Annabelle

Page, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Paice, James

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Paterson, Owen

Pickles, Eric

Flook, Adrian

Portillo, rh Michael

Forth, rh Eric

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Fox, Dr. Liam

Pugh, Dr. John

Francois, Mark

Redwood, rh John

Garnier, Edward

Rendel, David

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Robathan, Andrew

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Goodman, Paul

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-kent)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Greenway, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Grieve, Dominic

Rosindell, Andrew

Gummer, rh John

Ruffley, David

Hague, rh William

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hammond, Philip

Salmond, Alex

Harvey, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Hawkins, Nick

Sayeed, Jonathan

Heald, Oliver

Selous, Andrew

Heath, David

Shepherd, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hendry, Charles

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Soames, Nicholas

Holmes, Paul

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Horam, John (Orpington)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Hunter, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Jack, rh Michael

Stanley, rh Sir John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Steen, Anthony

Jenkin, Bernard

Streeter, Gary

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Stunell, Andrew

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Syms, Robert

Kirkwood, Sir Archy

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lamb, Norman

Thurso, John

Lansley, Andrew

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Trend, Michael

Letwin, rh Oliver

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Tyrie, Andrew

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Walter, Robert

Lidington, David

Waterson, Nigel

Loughton, Tim

Watkinson, Angela

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Whittingdale, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Mackay, rh Andrew

Wiggin, Bill

Maclean, rh David

Wilkinson, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Willetts, David

Malins, Humfrey

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Maude, rh Francis

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Wilshire, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Mercer, Patrick

Young, rh Sir George

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Tellers for the Noes:

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Mr. John Randall and

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Mr. Mark Hoban

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Communications Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.46 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 155 and 196. If the House agrees to either amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Communications Bill
    Clause 3

      GENERAL DUTIES OF OFCOM
      Lords amendment: No 1
      The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof and Lords amendments Nos. 4, 6 to 10, 151 and 152.
      Tessa Jowell: When Lords amendment No. I was considered in another place, it was the will of their lordships that Ofcom be given a principal duty to the citizen and consumer and that, within that duty, the citizen's interest should take precedence. The amendment went on to say that Ofcom should discharge its duty to the consumer and citizen, where appropriate, by promoting competition. The Government can see the appeal of the amendment, particularly the strong attraction of placing the word "citizen" in the legislation. As hon. Members will be aware, the Government had sought not to use that as a legislative term for fear of confusion with legislation on nationality. However, so much has been said in both Houses on the subject that we believe that we can rely on the courts to understand that the citizen interest runs deep through the Bill in the civic sense of the word, applying to such matters as high standards in television and radio, public service broadcasting, universal service for telecoms and the optimal allocation of spectrum.
      However, the Government can also see the dangers of such an amendment. Lord Currie, chairman of Ofcom, said in another place:
      "The amendment…had a second impact, which was to put the citizen's interest above that of the consumer in the area of broadcasting and spectrum, but not in that of telecoms. That creates different duties in different parts of Ofcom's activities, which will cause difficulty. It will make Ofcom subject to judicial review and may reduce the effectiveness of Ofcom. It will be the big players, not the small players, who will take advantage of that."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 8 July 2003; Vol. 651, c. 260.]
      The Government agree with him. An over-rigid hierarchy of duties could well become a licence for judicial review.
      Ofcom must, like the existing broadcast regulators, strive to further the interests of consumers and citizens as appropriate, and with equal vigour. It must also have the necessary flexibility to achieve its aims. We absolutely believe that the consumer interest is usually best served by the promotion of competition, but I am

      45
      advised that keeping the Bill as it stands will leave Ofcom vulnerable to legal challenge. In citizen interest issues, competition is only one possible solution and, more often than not, Ofcom will need to act under its licensing powers. I can assure the House that the Government clearly understand the difference between the interests of consumers and the interests of providers.
      Therefore, the Government ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 1 and agree instead with our proposal in amendments (a), (b) and (c). Our amendments would remove any potential dangers in differing interpretations of the previous amendments while retaining the concept that Ofcom shall have a primary duty to citizens and consumers, whose interests shall be equal.
      Furthermore, when the duty to the consumer and the duty to the citizen come into conflict, there will be transparency and accountability as a result of our amendments. Ofcom will publish a reasoned statement as soon as possible after a decision, explaining how the duties came into conflict, how Ofcom resolved the conflict, and the reasons behind its decision. The Government believes that that strikes the right balance. The communications industry is not like any other industry; it is central to the health of our society and the health of our democracy.
      This is something in which the Government believes, head and heart. It is hard to imagine any Government of this country taking a contrary view. It is also something that the Ofcom board must feel in its head and heart, as was reflected by what Lord Currie said in another place. We understand how important it is for the legislation to reflect it as well, and I believe that, as amended, it will.
      When the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee set about its work, it said that it wanted to make a good Bill better. I believe that the whole process of parliamentary scrutiny has made the Bill better, and the changes that the Government are making today will ensure that from beginning to end, our concern to protect the interests of both citizen and consumer will be reflected throughout the Bill.
      Beginning at clause 3, with the duty as nom formulated, there is a clear link in the logic of the Bill. It now encompasses increased protections for content standards, and proceeds to the plurality test that we will debate later. I commend the changes to the House. I can confirm that, if carried here, they would command the support of both Lord Currie, chairman of Ofcom, and Lord Puttnam, Chairman of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, who moved the amendment in another place.
      Lords amendment No. 4 requires Ofcom to have regard to the principles of better regulatory practice in all cases. The Government listened to concerns in both Houses and in industry, and were persuaded that the previous drafting left Ofcom a degree of discretion on whether to apply the principles. The amendment removes that element of discretion. We have, however, retained the concept that Ofcom should have regard to the matters set out in this part of the general duties.
      It may be helpful if I explain, as my noble Friend Lord Davies of Oldham did in another place, why we believe that that concept is the right one to use here. It will not be sufficient for Ofcom to consider the principles of good regulatory practice for the sake of form only, or to
      46
      consider them and then reject them for no good reason. That is because for a person or body to have regard to a matter when taking specified action is a substantial legal obligation. If a person or body fails to have regard to the matter in deciding what action to take, or has regard to it in the wrong way, the action taken is liable to be held by a court to be unlawful or legally ineffective.
      Lords amendment No. 8 closes a gap by including the interests of the different ethnic communities in the list of things to which Ofcom must have regard when carrying out its functions. We do not envisage Ofcom's having any kind of interventionist role when it comes to the representation of ethnic minorities on screen. I firmly believe that this is a matter for the broadcasting industry to tackle itself, and indeed it is already addressing it, but the amendment strengthens Ofcom's commitment under existing race relations legislation, and will help it to embed diversity in the culture of its organisation.
      Lords amendment No. 10 requires Ofcom to include an impact assessment of how the proposal will further or secure the performance of its general duties, or how the performance of those duties will be furthered or secured in relation to the proposal. It is one more provision to ensure that Ofcom operates openly and transparently.
      Mr. John Whittingdale: We are on the home straight, after a long race, which has occupied about eight months. However, we are reaching the point where we can probably achieve consensus on almost every amendment before us. I hope that that is an indication that we are succeeding in improving the Bill.
      Looking around the Chamber, I see many of the familiar faces that I have come to know over the past eight months. Both Front-Bench teams have seen some changes. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who will be joining in the debate from the Back Benches. I note that changes to the Government Front-Bench team mean that the Secretary of State has had to join us this afternoon, as ministerial responsibilities for broadcasting have been translated to the House of Lords. I welcome the Secretary of State's presence and many of us will find it helpful that she is in the Chamber to set out the Government's background thinking about the amendments with an authority that we might otherwise lack. Many people will be interested to hear what she has to say.
      The first group of amendments, on general duties, goes to the very heart of Ofcom. We have already spent a great deal of time debating such issues. The main question covers whether Ofcom should necessarily have a general duty to promote the interests of citizens, or the whole of the community, or whichever phrase of the day the Government have chosen, as against the interests of consumers. In Committee, the Opposition tabled an amendment that Ofcom should have regard to the interests of citizens.
      Part of the difficulty in considering such issues are that they reflect the general problem of establishing a single regulator with both an economic function and a content function. We have always been sympathetic to bringing the five regulators together in a single body, but it is nevertheless the case that the regulator will have to undertake two very different functions, which may, occasionally, come into conflict.

      47
      In considering whether there should be a general duty to promote the interests of citizens, we believe that there will always be cases when the national interest will extend beyond the narrower interest of consumers. In Committee, I referred to the desirability of public service broadcasting as an example. Public service broadcasting often caters for extremely small groups, almost by definition in some cases; it does not cater for majority tastes. That is part of the reason why we need public service programmes. We certainly accept that there are wider interests that go beyond those of the few consumers who watch such programmes. It is in the national interest that public service broadcasting should be available for those who might want to watch it in the future.
      Similarly, although the roll-out of broadband benefits individual consumers, there is also a wider economic national interest. That, too, should be properly reflected by giving Ofcom these wider responsibilities. The Government amendments accept that Ofcom should have that wider regard—to citizens as well as to consumers. We have argued for that for a long time, so obviously we strongly welcome that idea.
      Going beyond that proposal, it has also been argued that a hierarchy of duties is needed and that the interests of citizens should be given primacy over considerations. The House of Lords argued for that and, indeed, amended the Bill to take it into account. Furthermore, colleagues on both sides of the House have signed an early-day motion calling on the Government to accept the proposal. However, I, like the Secretary of State, have been influenced by the comments of those whom we are asking to undertake the job of regulating the industry.
      The Secretary of State referred to the recent speech by Lord Currie, who is the chairman of Ofcom. She was right to draw attention to the fact that, in his Third Reading speech, he pointed out that if the interests of citizens were given priority over the interests of consumers, it would cause him real difficulties in carrying out his duties as the chairman of Ofcom.
      5 pm
      I also recently heard Stephen Carter give a speech to the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, in which he went a little further, saying that he saw real problems if the existing parity between the duties were removed and priority had to be given to one over the other. He gave examples of possible conflicts that might occur in the future. For instance, Ofcom might want to allocate additional spectrum to free view, and it might be argued that that would be desirable, not only in the interests of citizens, but in those of consumers in due course. He pointed to the fact that several existing regulators—particularly the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—have a twin duty, and that that has not caused a problem. The regulators are well used to dealing with twin duties, but if one duty were given priority over the other, as the Secretary of State suggested, a decision could be challenged by judicial review, which could cause real difficulties.
      48
      I therefore welcome the fact that the Government have attempted to meet the concern expressed in the House of Lords with the amendments that they have tabled today, especially with the additional requirement that Ofcom will have to publish a decision if it sees a conflict between those two objectives. It will need to set out precisely where that conflict lies and why the decision has been reached accordingly. That is an improvement. Given that the Government have proposed that requirement and the fact that Ofcom's chairman and chief executive have expressed concern, I accept the Government's argument that we should riot support Lords amendment No. 1, and I am willing to support the Government amendments.
      I wish to touch on only one other issue. Among the many listed duties that Ofcom will have to perform, Lords amendment No. 4 will give priority to the requirement that Ofcom abide by the better regulatory principles. Before that amendment, that requirement was No. 2 on a list of 14, and concern was expressed in the industry that it had not been given the importance that it deserved. We argued very strongly in Committee that the better regulation requirement should be put right at the front of Ofcom's general duties, but the Government were not persuaded at the time. I am delighted that the Government now appear to have been persuaded about that because I continue to believe that it is extremely important.
      There is no doubt that Ofcom will be an enormously powerful body. I believe and hope that it will be a force for good, but nevertheless safeguards need to be built into its operating principles. In particular, the requirements that regulations should not be excessive and that there should be transparency and accountability are very important. I draw attention to the fact that chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force, David Arculus, recently wrote an article in which he drew attention to the tidal wave of regulation affecting businesses and said:
      "Some of the problem lies with independent regulators, who are keen to make the most of the new powers they have been given".
      I am sure that Lord Currie and Mr. Carter will not adopt that practice.
      Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend very generously paid tribute to my efforts as part of the Front-Bench team, and, likewise, I wish to do the same for him, but does he recall making a lengthy arid extremely well argued speech on this very matter at the beginning of the process? The length and vigour of his argument was misinterpreted at the time, but does not this example show that the Government now appear to accept most of the arguments that we put from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee? I am very glad that they have done so.
      Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. We may find that a recurring theme in our debates this afternoon is the number of occasions on which arguments that we put in Committee, which appeared not to find favour with the Government, have been adopted by them subsequently. This late conversion is of course extremely welcome—there is nothing like a sinner who repenteth. My hon. Friend is right to draw to the House's attention that Lords amendment No. 4, accepted by the Government, and was first advanced by us

      49
      in Committee, and I am delighted that the Government have now seen the wisdom of it. It is extremely important.
      Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole question of independent regulators being subject to the Better Regulation Task Force came out of the Puttnam report, and a number of references were made when we expressed concern about the independent regulator following Government policy?
      Mr. Whittingdale: I would not want to claim exclusive authorship. As the hon. Gentleman, who sat through our debates in Committee, will recognise, however, we advanced the proposal at the time but were sadly unsuccessfully in persuading the Government in Committee. I will not dwell on the matter any longer, however, as we are all now united on the fact that it is important that Ofcom should operate under the better regulatory principles and that those should be given priority. I therefore welcome that amendment. Indeed, I will not oppose the amendments tabled by the Government.
      Brian White: Unlike the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), I have been involved in this Bill for two years, as I was involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and some of the other preparatory work. One of the recurring themes of the White Paper and the Puttnam committee, however, was the issue of citizens. It was disconcerting in Committee to have the parliamentary counsel's advice that judges could not distinguish between "citizen" in terms of how we now understand it and in terms of the amendment, and the narrow definition in terms of nationality. I am glad that that taboo has finally been broken. That raises some questions, however, about the quality of parliamentary counsel's advice and about whether the kind of alternative advice that went to the Puttnam committee means that the monopoly on providing such advice to Government should be subject to some form of competition. No doubt we will return to that issue in due course.
      A conflict of interest has always existed among the general duties of Ofcom. It is particularly important that Ofcom will have to explain why it makes particular decisions and how it resolves its conflicts of interests and the decisions that it has made. The part of the Government's amendment that requires that to be reported is therefore extremely important. I hope that it is also included in Ofcom's annual report to Parliament. With that, I welcome the Government amendments.
      Nick Harvey: As has already been observed, we have followed a long course to get to this point, and it is no surprise that we find ourselves yet again addressing questions of the main duties and citizenship. Those were raised, as has already been observed, in the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, in the debate on Second Reading and several times in Committee. I am glad that eventually the rather more telling arithmetic in the House of Lords has had the effect that it has, and that the Government have had a late conversion to various points that they stoutly resisted earlier. In particular, they displayed a bizarre
      50
      reluctance to concede the word "citizen", as has just been mentioned, yet here we are considering at this late stage Government amendments with the word "citizen" in them. I welcome that because it is the right formula and the right approach.
      The process has been something of a battle. The first battle was to get the Government to accept that a general public interest—as I think that it was first formulated—
      existed. Initially, there was great resistance to the idea that there was anything other than a consumer interest. Of course, the two things are very different, and the interests of the wider public are not necessarily the same as the interests of the consumer of a particular product or service.
      Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that was highlighted in the Government's White Paper that gave rise to the Bill?
      Nick Harvey: It might indeed have been highlighted in the Government's White Paper but nevertheless previous amendments that would have inserted such provisions into the Bill were stoutly resisted. I am pleased that we are proceeding by stages. Although such provisions are included in later clauses, the amendments to clause 3 will have far more effect. Lords amendment No. 1 would provide that citizenship issues would be Ofcom's primary responsibility, and the formula in the Government amendments strikes a perfectly sensible balance. We must bear in mind the possible effect of agreeing to a measure that could lead to many cases of judicial review. The Government have framed their amendments sensibly by putting the two duties alongside each other and I am happy enough to support those amendments.
      I am pleased that Lords amendment No. 4 provides that better regulation principles will be absolutely at the top of Ofcom's agenda because I spoke up for such a provision in Committee. Ofcom has an incredibly important role and it is only right for it to work in such a way.
      I add to the consensus by saying that I am delighted that we have reached a sensible view, even at this late stage. I am happy to support the formula that the Government have suggested.
      Mr. Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said that we had been going through the Bill for some two years. I remember attending a meeting during my second day at the BBC in 1998 in which we debated how we could affect the Government's then forthcoming Bill on communications, so I have been engaged in the process for five years. There has been much talk of sinners repenting—incidentally, we are delighted that Conservative Members have repented their views on the national minimum wage—but I am more reminded ofthe quotation about the battle done.
      The important point behind Lords amendment No. 1 and Government amendments (a) to (c) is that citizens' rights in society should be considered in addition to those of consumers. Many licence payers do not feel like citizens but subjects because the BBC, or whatever body designs the broadcasting ecology around them, often treats them as though they have no rights at all. I am struck by how important it will be for Ofcom to ensure

      51
      that the broadcasting ecology delivers for ordinary citizens and consumers when it puts the provisions of the amendments into practice.
      A matter of immediate concern faces many ordinary consumers and citizens throughout the country, especially those in rural and semi-rural areas where the BBC has made no Freeview service available and there is no provision for cable television. Such people and households had no choice about how to get most of the free-to-air channels unless they bought a digital satellite box and got the free solus card from the BBC. However, they might not get such a card anymore because the BBC decided last week to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement with other broadcasters to deliver all free-to-air channels to households throughout the country.
      The problem for Ofcom will be the same as that faced by the Independent Television Commission. The ITC says that it does not have a role to ensure that ITV, Channel 4, S4C and Channel 5 are made available to households that have taken the free-to-air option via satellite television. About 1 million households are directly affected by the situation. If Sky chooses to switch off the solus cards in the next few weeks, those people might be unable to watch "Big Brother" or "Coronation Street" at all. Ironically, having gone down the digital television route, they will have to return to analogue thereby incurring the additional expenditure of buying a new aerial, costing in the region of £150 to £200, and, more importantly, undermining the Government's strategy of getting people to go digital so that we reach analogue switch off in the next five to seven years.
      5.15 pm
      It is vital that Ofcom takes the issue seriously in terms not just of delivering for consumers through competition rules, but of considering the needs of citizens to have access to a diversity of programming, especially news, from a variety of sources with a variety of voices. I hope that the amendments will enable Ofcom to do precisely that.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on the amendments. As other hon. Members observed, those of us who sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee have spent at least 14 months on the subject. The amendments reflect the fourth recommendation of the Committee that there should be a hierarchy of duties and that the principal duty should reflect the necessity to further the interests of citizens and consumers. I am grateful that the Government have seen fit to take on board the substance of that recommendation.
      Although the Secretary of State rightly did not bore us with the full process, when I moved an amendment in Standing Committee to reflect the views of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, the Government resisted the word "citizen", but they intended to accept part of our argument by including a reference to promoting the interests of the community as a whole. It is worth noting that they reflected that thought on Report, but they have rightly gone on to abandon their resistance to the use of the word "citizen". Lords amendment No. 9 defines
      52
      citizen as a member of public in the UK. As the Secretary of State set out, the terms in which Ministers have explained their amendments in lieu make it clear that that is not to be defined in the context of nationality, but as applying to any member of the public. That is an important provision, which I welcome.
      I also welcome the better regulatory principles, which are to be given substance and applied in all cases. That reflects recommendation 24 of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to introduce the Better Regulation Task Force principles and to apply them in all cases. It is good to see that. I thank the Secretary of State for taking that recommendation on board.
      Members in another place might want to determine whether the substance of their aims has been achieved. I am certain that it has and, as the Secretary of State said, Lord Puttnam would no doubt concur. In so far as there are differences with the Lords proposals, it is possible that those could have given rise to difficulties. The respective interests of citizens and consumers would have been defined in cases before courts rather than by Ofcom, which can take a flexible approach to the merits of individual cases and is accountable directly to us in Parliament.
      Members of another place, especially on Third Reading, said there was a lack of appropriate scrutiny of the Bill in this House. That is true to an extent, but it was not so much a case of whether the issues were raised in the House and Standing Committee, because in general they were; it was more a case of the extent to which the Government were willing to consider amendments, especially those with the backing of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I believe that if the Opposition clearly have the better of the argument, the Government should accede to it. That happens pretty rarely. Although the Government regarded the pre-legislative scrutiny as having substantial merit and accepted 120 recommendations, they did not accept some of the most important recommendations. It has been a long time since then.
      I share Lord Puttnam's view that it was a pity that Departments did not perceive the Bill as legislation that had made progress through both Houses in co-operation with members of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. Pre-legislative scrutiny might have been better in that respect, and should be so in future. If a future Committee is anything like the one in which we participated, its members will become thoroughly familiar with the content of the legislation and how it is intended to work, and issues will be raised in order to give better effect to policy and Parliament's intentions. Members of such Committees could be worked with to a much greater extent than I fear was the case for many months before, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, the arithmetic in the other place made the Government feel that they had no choice but to co-operate positively and actively. The amendments clearly demonstrate the benefits that flow when that happens.
      Mr. John Grogan: I welcome the Government's amendments on general duties. I particularly celebrate the use of the word "citizen", which has a lineage of at least 2,000 years. It is a progressive and egalitarian term. Now that we have created a precedent for its use in this context,

      53
      I very much hope that it can be used in other contexts and by other regulators. The Post Office regulator, Postcomm, would probably benefit from assuming some duties towards citizens and, indeed, consumers.
      As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, this has been something of a battle. It would be churlish not to recognise the role of their lordships in sticking to their guns on a cross-party basis. When the Bill left this House with the support of both Front-Bench teams, Lords of all parties, but led by Lord Puttnam, required a certain steel and determination in order to give us a chance to discuss these amendments. They used as a reference point the Puttnam committee report. I welcome the fact that the Government listened.
      There is one point that I should like to explore a little more with the Secretary of State. She drew a distinction between consumers and the interests of service providers. The dual duty in favour of consumers and citizens puts Ofcom very much on the side of the little guy or girl as opposed to big businesses. I wonder whether she acknowledges that. Ofcom will be operating in the interests of ordinary members of the public and customers. It will represent the interests of businesses—whether big or small—only as customers of service providers. That gives a clear and welcome focus to Ofcom's work, and is very much in line with the Puttnam committee's original aims.
      Tessa Jowell: I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I endorse the points that have been made about the benefits, particularly for legislation such as this, of pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope that the lessons that have been identified as beneficial to the development of good legislation will be applied in future.
      The Government have seriously engaged with the arguments that have been made from whatever source. Disputes in consideration of this Bill have not broken on traditional party political lines. That has been one reason why, especially in another place, we have engaged with such a large number of Members.
      To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), the origins of the debate about citizens and consumers lie in debates in Committee in this House. The Government sought to respond to the well argued points by inserting in the Bill before it went to another place a reference to the community as a whole. That was for a simple technical reason. We were advised that "citizen" had, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) has made clear, a specific and narrow use. We have overcome that obstacle, which is why "citizen" now appears in the Bill. I am glad that there is a broad welcome for that.
      I am delighted that the proposed amendment to the general duties of Ofcom has attracted such wide support on both sides of the House. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 6 to 10, 151 and 152 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 2
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 153, 154, 155 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 156 to 187, 189, 191, 192, 231 to 234 and 278.
      Tessa Jowell: The amendments will extend the public interest test in the Enterprise Act 2002 to enable a media plurality test to be carried out in the event of a qualifying media merger. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in such a merger when he or she believes that it will have a damaging effect on plurality. The test will prevent unacceptable levels of cross-media dominance and ensure a minimum level of plurality. The Government will wish to publish guidance setting out our policy on when the Secretary of State is likely to intervene. This guidance, which we hope will be available for consultation in the autumn, will explain that that intervention will normally be only in areas that are not covered by media ownership rules, in particular: national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market and Channel 5; national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market and national radio service; Channel 3; Channel 3 and national radio, Channel 5 and national radio; national radio and national radio.
      We do not believe that intervention would normally be necessary where there has never been media ownership restriction, or in areas where there continue to be ownership rules, as the continuing rules will themselves protect plurality.
      Mr. Greenway: The introduction of the plurality issue at this late stage has understandably given rise to concern in some parts of the media world, and particularly local radio. The Secretary of State will recall accepting before we commenced consideration of the Bill in Committee that the concentration of ownership of local radio should be moved down from three plus one, the BBC, to only two plus one. Can the right hon. Lady give an assurance to the House that the new subsection (2C) in amendment No. 155 does not undermine the commitment that she gave in respect of two plus one? It concerns local radio that the plurality test, which I do not believe is aimed at it, might nevertheless affect it.
      Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I reiterate that it is not anticipated that the plurality test would apply in those areas where rules have been included in the Bill. It is not intended that there should be further regulation on top of the rules that have been much debated and now form part of the legislation. However, intervention through the plurality test will be at the Secretary of State's discretion, and we would not rule out wider use in extreme or rare cases. There may be some cases including, for instance, satellite news services, where exceptionally—I underline the exceptional nature of such cases, which were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—the Secretary of State may have an interest. However, we do not anticipate

      55
      frequent intervention in those areas. The Secretary of State will be able to intervene in a media merger to ensure that first, there is sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises serving any audience; secondly, that there is a wide range of high-quality broadcasting that appeals to different tastes and interests; and, thirdly, that there is a genuine commitment to Ofcom's standards code under clause 312.
      5.30 pm
      Let me now move on to amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 155, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). They seek to ensure that the plurality test will be applicable only to changes of control involving Channel 3, Channel 5 and national radio multiplex licences. We considered writing a narrow test into the Bill. However, in the vital area of media plurality, we consider that the test should be available in the widest range of situations. We concede that on the face of it there is a price to be paid in terms of uncertainty but, as I have already said, the Secretary of State will publish advice and guidance as to the application of the test, which should go a long way towards informing the industry about the Government's proposed approach. That is a much better tactic than adopting a narrow test, which might not be available in a case that merits investigation on plurality grounds but falls outside the criteria that the amendments would insert in the Bill.
      We have indicated the cases where we would expect to use the test, and that will be reflected in guidance. I hope that I have made it clear that in exceptional circumstances and if there are genuine plurality concerns, we may want to apply the test more widely. It should also be recognised that, however wide the power, a decision to intervene will still be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. With that explanation, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed to a vote.
      Mr. Whittingdale: The Lords amendments introduce a plurality or public interest test that, in many ways, is biggest change to the Bill. However, that change is very late—when the issue was first debated in the Commons, the Government decided that they were not in favour of a change, but their reasons for deciding that it is now necessary are clear to all of us. They have more to do with the Government making sure that they got their business through the House of Lords than any sudden conversion to the merits of the argument. Given that the test has been added to the Bill, it is important to the many broadcasters and, indeed, newspaper groups that may be affected that the Secretary of State make a clear statement about the precise way in which it will operate.
      When we talked about the desirability of a plurality test in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made the case for it. While I did not agree with everything that he said, he made some strong points, especially when he pointed out that as the test already exists for newspapers, it is curious not to extend it to broadcasters. At the time, I agreed that that was a contradiction—why should something apply in one case, but not the other? It can be
      56
      argued that the case for a test is stronger for broadcasters than newspapers, especially as there are no harriers to entry in the newspaper industry. On the other hand, an extensive regime in the broadcasting industry already controls content and puts obligations on broadcasters. We have already dealt with that at considerable length elsewhere in the Bill.
      Our general approach has always been that the Government were originally correct in their view that the best way to ensure that the broadcasters provided the kind of programming that was thought to be desirable would be through content obligations, rather than by trying to address the issue of ownership. That was the reason originally given for the deregulation that the Bill still achieves, through the removal of some of the existing ownership restrictions. As the Secretary of State knows, we have always supported that.
      Nevertheless, we are concerned that the introduction at the last minute of an additional hurdle for anybody seeking to acquire a broadcasting company will undermine the thrust of the Bill, which was to introduce a lighter-touch media ownership regime. At the same time, it will introduce a degree of uncertainty, which it was hoped the Bill would remove. I noticed that the Secretary of State said that the introduction of uncertainty was a price that would have to paid— [Interruption.] The right hon. Lady corrects me by saying a small price, but when we debated the matter in Committee, the then Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said that
      "it inevitably leads to uncertainty…Although businesses may be used to dealing with uncertainty daily, they do not actively seek out uncertainty. We should make clear rules when they are appropriate. If we accepted the amendment"—
      which would have introduced a plurality test—
      "we would effectively be putting those who wanted to acquire media assets in a worse position. In addition to complying with the clear and transparent ownership rules and satisfying the competition authorities, an owner would face the further obstacle of satisfying a plurality test. The Bill is intended to remove regulations, not impose new and unnecessary ones."— [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 6 February 2003; c. 1002–04.]
      I found the Minister quite persuasive on that occasion. I still find him persuasive, so I regret the fact that the Government have retreated from that position and have accepted the calls in another place for the introduction of a plurality test. It is important that we see precisely how it is intended to operate. Much of our concern lies with the scope of the Government's proposals in response to the narrow set of concerns expressed by those who have been arguing for the introduction of such a test.
      It is clear from the debates in another place and from the remarks of the Secretary of State this afternoon that those concerns relate to the ownership of Channel 3, Channel 5 and national radio. It has been confirmed that the cases in which the Secretary of State would consider intervening, perhaps with the application of the plurality test, are those where national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market were seeking to acquire Channel 5, where national newspapers with more than 20 per cent. of the market were seeking to acquire a national radio service, mergers and acquisitions affecting Channel 3, Channel 3 seeking to acquire a national radio service, or a merger between national radio services.

      57
      Concerns have been expressed about how that will work. In some areas, it seems that restrictions beyond the existing ones will apply. In particular, as the House knows, there is the possibility of a merger between two Channel 3 companies. It would be helpful if the Government could make it clear that the plurality test would not be applied retrospectively if a Carlton-Granada merger, which is currently under consideration by the Competition Commission, went through.
      At present, there is no legislative barrier to a merger between regional Channel 3 companies and national radio licensees. The existing restrictions apply only to the national Channel 3 licensee, which is GMTV, and a national radio franchise. Can the Government confirm that it is not their intention to introduce a new restriction by applying the plurality test to regional ITV and national radio mergers? Or will the Government break their pledge to restrict the plurality test to areas where previous rules are being lifted?
      As drafted, the plurality test can be applied to all mergers involving broadcasters, or broadcasters and newspapers that qualify for investigation under the Enterprise Act 2002. That could mean that the test will apply to mergers and acquisitions among cable and satellite channels, which have been launched in the UK without any of the special privileges or protections given to broadcasters that use terrestrial frequencies and have until now been subject not to any ownership restrictions, but only to the application of competition law.
      Such provision will again create a new layer of regulation and introduce uncertainty into a sector in which there has never been any previous expression of concern. For example, the acquisition of the National Geographic Channel or the History Channel by Discovery Networks is now potentially within the scope of the plurality test, as is the acquisition of additional music channels by MTV. Given the Government's clearly stated aims, why did they not simply produce a test that focused directly and exclusively on the identified problem instead of suddenly introducing at the last minute a sweeping new rule for all broadcasters and then saying that they will disapply it in respect of most of them? The purpose of our amendments is to put in practice what the Secretary of State has said and to limit the plurality test to a relevant merger situation that involves only a change of control in respect of Channels 3 or 5 or a national radio multiplex licence.
      The Secretary of State went on to repeat what has already been said by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting in another place. She said that the Government had considered taking a narrow power, but that there were extreme and rare circumstances in which they might wish to apply the test more widely. She seemed to indicate that it was conceivable that the Government might want to apply the test in respect of satellite news services. However, I am surprised that they wish to apply a plurality test to any cable and satellite channels, even in exceptional circumstances. After all, those considerations have never been applied to those channels before and no one has been pressing for their application. As we heard from the Minister in another place, the Government have made clear in the past their view that such a test is unnecessary.
      I am aware that the Government have indicated that they intend to produce guidance on the plurality test that will set out more narrowly how it will be applied in
      58
      practice. We have made it plain that that is not satisfactory and that, as the guidance has not yet been produced, it is very difficult to judge the merits of the amendments without what will undoubtedly be the most significant part of the Government's proposal. Of course, we understand that the amendments have appeared only in the past few days, so there has not been enough time to produce the guidance, but that is another reason why the Government should have introduced a more targeted plurality test in the Bill. In coming to debate the amendments, we would then at least have had a full package of policy proposals to hand instead of having to rely on the Government's promise of guidance to come.
      We have considerable concerns about the fact that the Government have introduced at the last minute a test that they have until now argued was unnecessary, while it also appears that the scope of the test goes considerably further than the areas about which major concern has been expressed. For that reason, we hope that the Secretary of State will give as much detail as she possibly can about precisely how she envisages that the test will operate. I must say to her that its introduction has caused widespread concern throughout the media industry—in the television broadcasting world and
      among the radio stations and many newspapers.
      Nick Harvey: I welcome the arrival of the plurality test even at this late stage. The introduction of such a test was suggested in the report of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee. I applaud the endeavours of Lord Puttnam, Lord McNally and Lord Crickhowell, among others, in pressing the case for the plurality test and in marshalling their arguments on ownership issues in a way that led the Government to agree that such a test should be introduced.
      I listened with interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who has tabled what I presume to be probing amendments dealing with the scope of the plurality test and how it will apply. He raises interesting and worthwhile points that we should stop to consider. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State will not allow him to tempt her too far in the direction of ruling out the test in all sorts of circumstances. We will start to undermine it if, even at this early stage, we rule out its use in certain circumstances.
      5.45 pm
      The Secretary of State gave a measured account of the circumstances in which she anticipates that the test will be used. Her remarks will form part of the parliamentary record and, as that is increasingly brought up in legal proceedings, will serve as an indication of what Parliament intended. She also explained that there will be guidance. I am not seeking to minimise the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford—they have some merit—but I appeal to the Secretary of State to address them in her guidance notes, not to get into the business of saying that the plurality test would never be used for A, B or C, because that would undermine the whole point of having it. I admit that it would be inappropriate to use it in some of the instances that the hon. Gentleman described, but that is a decision, come the time, for the Secretary of State of the day and for

      59
      Ofcom, which should use common sense in applying it. It would not be at all helpful unnecessarily to minimise its scope at this stage.
      I very much welcome the arrival of the plurality test. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has spoken about it on many occasions, not least during the proceedings of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, and I am delighted that it is finally here.
      Mr. Grogan: I, too, welcome the arrival of the plurality test, which puts strict limits on the deregulatory nature of the Bill. The other place has lined up with Parliaments in other parts of the world in rebelling a little against the efforts of the Executive to deregulate the media sector. For example, in Australia the federal Parliament is resisting similar efforts by the Australian Government to deregulate cross-media ownership; and in the United States, Republican and Democrat Senators are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pause in relation to similar proposals.
      If we are honest, the motivation for the changes in another place was based on fears about the deregulation of cross-media controls on the ownership of Channel 5. It was felt that it would perhaps be inappropriate to allow, without a pause for thought, someone who owned, shall we say, 40 per cent. of our Sunday newspaper market, 30 per cent. of our daily newspaper market, and—I throw it in for the sake of another example—our major satellite provider to own a terrestrial television station as well. The plurality test provides the potential for such a pause for thought. I hope that the Secretary of State will stick to a general plurality test. If we started to restrict it to particular circumstances, we would, for example, restrict its application if Ofcom decided to liberalise ownership restrictions in other areas. The plurality test will operate as a safeguard in such a situation. Given that it will be subject to strict guidance, I hope that in extreme circumstances it can have more general application.
      I followed with interest every word that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said. In 1995, he wrote that famous deregulatory pamphlet, and until this debate I had always seen him as the touchstone of advocating market forces in every possible situation. I think that he has been got at in accepting the general plurality test. I am sure that it is not genuinely in his soul. On 2 July, he wrote in the Financial Times, as described in another place, that
      "the plurality test undermined the government's desire to relax the laws governing the media. The whole thrust of the communications bill is to liberalise the rules on ownership. A plurality test erects another obstacle in the way of takeovers within the media sector."
      A few days previously, he showed a little more uncertainty when he told The Guardian:
      "My view is that a plurality test has some merit, but it is very difficult to define. I would rather the test applied across the board, however, rather than just to certain companies."
      The hon. Gentleman displayed some confusion, and I hope that the plurality test is safe in the hands of any future Conservative Government. However, I am not sure about that.
      60
      Let me deal with the charge that the test creates some uncertainty. It does, but Lord Borrie, who has some experience in those matters, is cited in column 909 of the Official Report, House of Lords as saying in Committee:
      "One cannot deny that during a period of reference there must be uncertainty as to the outcome—otherwise what would be the point of the reference? However, I would suggest that that is a small price to pay for ensuring a free and diverse media. Once ownership is changed, it is exceedingly difficult to revert to square one; the damage may have been done"— [Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2003; Vol. 650, c. 909.]
      As I said earlier, our debates have a resonance throughout the world. I tried, with varying success, to translate some French, Spanish and Italian newspaper articles on the debates in the other place this morning. I note that an article in a Spanish newspaper about last week's debate translates as,
      "Blair is all for foreign investment in the media, but not Murdoch."
      Although I am not sure whether Alastair Campbell would have portrayed the plurality test in that light, I believe that, should Rupert Murdoch try to buy Channel 5, the plurality test would have a similar effect to the public interest test, which applied when he tried to buy Manchester United some years ago. After referring the bid to the competition authorities, the Secretary of State decided that it was not in the public interest. Many analysts expect a similar outcome under the plurality test if such a move were made for Channel 5.
      Mr. Greenway: I raise a technical point so that the Minister has time to check the matter before 6 pm. Amendment No. 155 refers to clause 368. A group of amendments—I believe that they are Nos. 156 to 187—change "newspaper" to "media". However, there is no amendment to replace the title of the clause, "Newspaper public interest considerations" with "Media public interest considerations". That may be an oversight, or I may have misunderstood, but amendment No. 155 adds an important proposed new subsection to the clause. In that context, the clause's title appears too narrow.
      I want to make two brief points. First, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that introducing the plurality test at this late stage changes the structure. However, unlike other hon. Members who contributed to the debate, I believe that clarity about its application is crucial. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's confirmation that it does not override the specific competition issues and media ownership aspects in the Bill. It is crucial to understand where Ofcom's first duty lies when it is considering such matters. Clarity is important, and I therefore welcome the Secretary of State's comments, although others clearly did not.
      Secondly, it is important to realise that amendment No. 155 deals with not only plurality but two other issues. Paragraph (b) covers the need to ensure that broadcasting
      "is both of a high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests".
      Paragraph (c) deals with
      "the need for persons carrying on media enterprises … to have a … commitment to the attainment … of … standards".

      61
      The Committee's general view, across the party political divide, is that the objectives are worthy. I introduce only one note of caution, which is covered in other clauses. In imposing obligations on media enterprises, we must have regard to what is affordable. Hon. Members can sometimes become too fixed on what they would like in an ideal world and lose sight of reality and what is affordable. A merger of the two main ITV companies appears to be required because that is economically necessary in the current climate. When we passed the Broadcasting Act 1990, we had to rely on licences to enforce standards. That will remain the case; the licences are the mechanism for enforcing standards.
      Some hon. Members may believe that, in the campaign to restrict the size of the media empire that specific people—I shall not name them—may own, a victory has been won over the Government. I am not sure whether they can claim such a victory, but a provision in the measure about economic and commercial viability will be important when Ofcom considers the Bill in future and the way in which it will apply the new powers in amendment No. 155. After all, why do we have the BBC and pay it £2 billion of public money through the licence fee? The answer is, so that we retain a broadcaster to provide programmes that are not commercially viable. We should not always apply such a threshold to commercial broadcasters.
      Mr. Lansley: As Lord Puttnam kindly referred to me in another place as the architect of the concept, I am grateful for two minutes in which to speak about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned a problem with the title of a clause. I understand that the crossheads are not part of the measure; they derive from the subject matter of the clause, but they do not dictate it. The title of the clause will change automatically.
      I am grateful to the Government for acceding to the arguments for the plurality test. Members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee will recall my argument that its purpose was never to create another hurdle for media mergers that would be the subject of ex ante ownership rules. The intention was for a structure that is designed for long-term future proofing. Ofcom, which is intended to help deregulation, should be able to remove the ownership rules that currently apply, consider subsequent ownership rules, and remove ex ante ownership rules as it can. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) pointed out, the merger regime should recognise that broadcasting, like newspapers, has characteristics that relate to the health of our democracy. We unanimously accept that the principal duty is to consumers and citizens. Any merger consideration should also be about consumer interest, as expressed through competition, and the health of our democracy, as expressed through the plurality test. I therefore support amendment No. 155.
      Tessa Jowell: I shall be brief. The arguments have been expressed clearly and well. The debate has continued for approximately 18 months since the Bill's scrutiny began. The consideration has focused essentially on the best way in which to secure deregulation, future proofing of the provisions and protection of the public interest in recognition of the specific role that the media play in our society. By
      62
      general consent, the plurality test in the Bill is an important safeguard. The measure remains deregulatory; it does not add a further layer of regulation and I commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      6 pm
      Lords amendment: No. 3
      The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.
      Mr. Timms: Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have made clear our commitment to broadband. We have a target of achieving the most competitive and extensive broadband market in the G7 by 2005, and we have backed that up with a variety of actions and with funding. We now have well over 2 million broadband connections in the United Kingdom, and the rate of growth of more than 100,000 a month is one of the fastest in the world.
      We had reservations about whether to include a reference to broadband in the Bill, but we are strongly committed to broadband and we also agree that Ofcom will have a role in encouraging the fair development of the broadband market and in contributing to its competitiveness. As we are giving Ofcom a duty to secure the availability of a wide range of electronic communications services—including broadband services—we questioned whether it was necessary specifically to include the term "broadband" on the face of the legislation. However, given the importance that we attach to broadband, and the widespread support in both Houses for giving Ofcom an obligation to encourage its roll-;out and take-up, we have accepted the principle of including a specific reference to it in the general duties. Amendment (a) does no more than ensure that that fits properly within the structure of clause 3 by requiring Ofcom to have regard to the desirability of encouraging the roll-out and take-up of broadband.
      I have used the term "broadband" because it is easier to use than "high-speed data transfer" services—the term used in the amendment. The two terms are probably interchangeable in everyday usage, but we have taken the view that "high-speed data transfer services" is preferable as a term for legislation.
      Mr. Bryant: Is not this one of the problems with the language involved? Whether we use "broadband" or "high-speed data transfer services", each is a relative term, depending on whether we are talking about 512 kilobytes per second, or 1,000, 1,500, or whatever. This illustrates one of the problems involved in writing this particular element into the Bill.
      Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The term that we have adopted—"high-speed data transfer services"—is more likely to retain its currency for

      63
      longer. The term "broadband" could well prove to be an expression of the moment, or at least of the period, in a way that "high-speed data transfer services" will not.
      Brian White: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Timms: Yes, I will gladly give way to my hon. Friend, who has taken a close interest in this matter.
      Brian White: Will it be Ofcom that decides what constitutes high speed, or will the Government recommend what the definition of that should be?
      Mr. Timms: Ofcom will need to take a view on what this duty entails. It will do that in the light of what is happening in the data communications market in relation to those services that one could fairly regard as high speed, given the current state of the market. Of course, that will change as time goes on.
      I invite the House to agree to amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3.
      Michael Fabricant: Well, we had a high speed debate there from the Minister. He has rightly seen the light on the road to Damascus, or certainly on the road to the other place. It was the noble Lord, Lord Northesk who raised this issue in the House of Lords. Yet a rather rocky path has been trod with regard to getting this measure recognised in the Bill.
      When my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) raised the issue in the Chamber, the normally polite Minister slapped him down, saying
      "there is nothing in that new clause that is not already in the Bill, except for the specific reference to broadband. The Bill refers to promoting innovation and encouraging investment—broadband will certainly be the beneficiary of that".
      I am glad that the Minister now realises that he might not have been quite right on that occasion. On the promotion of broadband, the Minister went on to say:
      "That is, of course, the basis of the Bill. The regulator will have all the powers that the hon. Gentleman advocated"—
      that was a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk—
      "as his colleagues who sat through the Committee stage will tell him; but we want the legislation to last, and I therefore think our current formula is right."— [Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 400, cc. 738–740.1
      I am pleased to hear the Minister tell the House that he now knows that the Bill was wrong. We welcome any sinner who repenteth, and he is right to repent.
      The Minister rightly mentioned what the Government have done to promote broadband, but I believe that he protests too much. According to data published as recently as August 2002, South Korea has 9.2 broadband connections per 100 inhabitants, while Britain lags way behind in 20th place. I know that the Minister will say that that information is out of date—he has said such things in the past—and that Britain is now performing well in comparison with its neighbours. But that all comes down to the definition of broadband, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) pointed out earlier.
      Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a delight to see him speaking from the Front Bench, I think for the first time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hearr] In Committee, he made the point that many rural parts of the country—and mining constituencies such as my own—will find it difficult to get broadband rolled out. I would like to point out that my office in Porth is now broadbanded at 512 kilobytes per second, and that Treorchy and Tonypandy will be done later next month.
      Michael Fabricant: I am delighted to hear that, although I wonder whether it will really be 512 kilobytes per second. The hon. Gentleman will know that when a number of people are online at the same time, the 512 kilobytes are shared.
      That brings me to another point that I wanted to raise. We must acknowledge the value of British Telecom's decision to reduce the trigger level at which it will install broadband, according to the number of people who have expressed an interest in having it. Previously, BT had said that 600 people had to register their interest, but in many areas—including my own constituency of Lichfield—it has now reduced that number, making broadband far more accessible. We welcome that.
      The hon. Member for Rhondda asked a very good question earlier about what actually constituted broadband. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). What is broadband? One of the problems is that both BT and the Government define it as being as slow—not fast—as 112 kilobytes per second. That is slow! Those of us who have integrated services digital network connections—perhaps to access Citrix, which is the method that we use to access the House of Commons server when we are not in our offices on the parliamentary estate—will know that we need ISDN to provide a reasonably fast connection for that purpose. Those of us who broadcast from our homes need ISDN for that, too. A double ISDN circuit, provided by packages such as BT Home Highway, operates at 112 kilobytes per second. Nobody would say that that was broadband, however; it is merely ISDN2. I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), who used to work for British Telecom.
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is chastising the Minister, but does he not agree that it does not matter how good the equipment is, because people depend on the distant end and how good that is? A lot of his figures sound good but, in effect, we all need to be in the same system for it to work as he is saying.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I chastised the Minister only for claiming that we are doing so well in the international league. Patently, we are not. That is because the definition of broadband that the Government use is patently wrong. It includes very slow mechanisms for transmitting data. That is why Lord Northesk introduced the definition of highspeed data transfer. ISDN is low-speed data transfer; broadband does not include ISDN.
      Brian White: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the countries to which he refers have had Government intervention to secure their advantage in broadband. Is he advocating Government intervention, or does he believe that the market will supply broadband?
      Michael Fabricant: I never believe that the market alone can provide all that is required in modern society. The Government always have to intervene in one way or another. Whether this Government should intervene by helping to fund BT to ensure the wider and more rapid expansion of true broadband is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will have to put to the Minister.
      Mr. Adrian Flook: It is a great pleasure to see a fellow member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport at the Dispatch Box. I believe that that is a first for my hon. Friend.
      Will my hon. Friend join me in my concern over rural areas? Even if we have a rough idea of what broadband will be in urban areas—I am very glad that BT has, after my intervention, reduced the level of indicated subscriptions required in Wellington in Somerset—in rural areas there are still huge problems about what broadband will be, let alone what size it will be. Could it be satellite or micro-link? In places such as Exmoor, there is no chance whatever of BT building superhighways through the hills.
      Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is known as a strong advocate for the people of Taunton, and I do not mean just the town of Taunton—or is it the city?
      Mr. Flook: The town.
      Michael Fabricant: I am always careful about that because Lichfield, although a very small town, is also a cathedral city.
      My hon. Friend is also a strong advocate for people who live in rural areas. The Countryside Alliance, among other organisations, has pointed out the huge divide between urban and rural societies over access to broadband. When the Earl of Northesk introduced his amendment No. 5 in another place, which we now welcome, in this great Government conversion, and asked that this matter be included as a function of Ofcom and that the expression "high-speed data transfer" be used instead of "broadband", he pointed out that
      "95 per cent. of urban households have access to a broadband connection, as compared with 7 per cent. for rural households."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 23 June 2003; Vol. 650, c. 58.]
      That is a real problem. It is not a party political difficulty, and it must be addressed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) asked about other means of broadband connection than cable. Yes, that can be achieved by low-orbit satellite systems—although they have their disadvantages—and by wireless matrix connections.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to intervene on my hon. Friend and
      66
      congratulate him very heartily indeed on his promotion to the Front Bench. He and I entered the House together and I am delighted to see him in his post.
      My hon. Friend knows that I have been campaigning for a long time to get broadband rolled out in the Cotswolds. I held a conference a week ago last Friday with the Federation of Small Businesses to try to provoke BT into more action on reducing its target thresholds for the small rural exchanges in my constituency. It is quite clear from that conference that alternative wireless technologies, including low-orbiting satellites, are being rolled out rapidly. If BT is not more proactive in its various technologies such as piggybacking exchanges, which we learnt about at the conference, it will simply be left behind. The business men in my constituency consider that there will be technological apartheid, compared with their urban counterparts, if broadband is not rolled out in rural areas.
      6.15 pm
      Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am grateful for his kind comments. We indeed entered the House at the same time. He is a very doughty advocate for his constituents who live in rural areas that are not served by broadband. When the countryside is experiencing such economic difficulty, the Government are quite rightly asking people working in the countryside, particularly farmers, to diversify. One of the means by which they can do that is using web services, but they can use web services, and download pictures quickly only if they are able to use broadband. That is not possible using double ISDN, which, in any other country, would not be classified as broadband. Again, I remind the House that the false claims made by the Government about the expansion of broadband in this country are patently not true.
      Another good reason why it is important not to use the term "broadband" was raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda when he mentioned the possibility of there being much faster speeds. I argue that there will be faster speeds. I would use the term "wideband", and there is no doubt in my mind that a time will come, perhaps five, 10 or 15 years from now, when television stations will be able to stream video from any part of the world. Whereas at present we can watch that through services such as Real Networks, which produces a rather herkyjerky picture, as it is known, we will then be able to enjoy pictures every bit as good as digital television is now. Incidentally, that means that the Bill will become almost irrelevant to broadcasting. At that stage, viewers will be able to watch television from any television station in the world that chooses to transmit its systems through wideband.
      Mr. Bryant: One is reminded of a song, "You say wideband, I say broadband". None the less, the important point is that the hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating giving widespread grants in rural areas to BT. That would wholly undermine the competitive nature of the market that we are trying to develop. Surely, if there is no killer application that people want to use, the idea of having broadband passing by their

      67
      houses is almost irrelevant. We need to try to get all the public services in rural areas together to ensure that the applications that could be useful to them are delivered.
      Michael Fabricant: Just to put the matter straight. I have advocated no such thing. When I was asked about it by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, I suggested that he ask his Front Benchers about it.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), because it is exactly on his point that I want to intervene on my hon. Friend. We could encourage greater roll-out of broadband by using the roll-out that the Government will inevitably have to undertake for schools and to meet their e-commerce targets. Ofcom has a role here, so this Lords amendment is highly pertinent. It was raised during my conference that Chipping Campden school in my constituency gets broadband through a broad pipe, but that businesses surrounding that school cannot get it. Ofcom has a role in ensuring that such anomalies can be sorted out.
      Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. He is not the only one to have had that argument presented to him. There is a whole argument over whether schools given access to ADSL through a broad pipe should become a node, from which links could be provided to businesses and other people who wish to access broadband. There are some technical difficulties with that over the speed at which data can be transmitted to and fro.
      I am sure that the Minister will go into considerable detail about the technical difficulties applying to both ADSL and local networks. One possibility, though, was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), who suggested the use of cells and microwave links for the provision of broadband on a broad—512 kilobytes per second—basis.
      Let me stress again the importance of the Government amendment, notwithstanding the lateness of the conversion. We owe a debt of gratitude to Lord Northesk—who was, I believe, one of the first to coin the phrase "high-speed data transfer", recognising that there would be wideband in the future. I hope that the Government will now finally recognise that a speed of 128 kilobytes per second does not constitute broadband. Let me paraphrase what was said by an American senator, changing it ever so slightly: "I have seen broadband, I have met broadband, and believe me, 128 kilobytes per second is no broadband."
      John Robertson: I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests—and, unlike some Members who have spoken, I shall try not to rewrite history.
      The Bill covers an enormous number and a wide range of issues. As chair of the all-party group on telecommunications, I am pleased to have an opportunity to express my wish for all who want access to broadband to have it. I feel, however, that "broadband" is essentially a brand name: at the end of the day, it is not what communications are about. In
      68
      Committee, I wanted an assurance from the Minister that the Bill would deal not just with what was currently covered by broadband, but with what would be covered by any band width in the future. Who knows? In the not too distant future there may be infinite band widths covering anything and everything. We probably cannot imagine what might be covered even in the next 50 years.
      Significant action will be required from Ofcom. I share the Government's goal of making Britain the most dynamic broadband market in the G7 countries. I appreciate what the Government have already done in appointing an e-envoy charged with the task of promoting roll-out and take-up of broadband, but huge areas of the country have no access to broadband, and we need to do more. The Government must invest in broadband to ensure that it exists in those areas.
      Broadband allows access to a greater range of services, and it is about more than just personal need and empowerment. It is of huge economic importance to the United Kingdom. Studies have shown the obvious benefits to community regeneration, but there will be wider economic benefits to the whole nation if we can achieve much wider broadband access than we have now. Without the necessary investment, some parts of the country will have fewer services and perhaps even a lower standard of living. Words are not as important as deeds, and the Government should invest, but—unlike other Members—I do not think that a single company should benefit from all the investment.
      I share the Government's commitment to widespread broadband provision by 2005. Given its regulatory role, it is essential for Ofcom's general remit to include making universal access to broadband a priority, and for flexible regulation to contribute to that aim. Ofcom should therefore be set specific clear and continuing objectives in regard to broadband development, to ensure the success of broadband in Britain and to overcome the troubles that have been experienced with local loop unbundling. That should feature expressly in the policy framework that Ofcom is set annually by the Government. We should also ensure that universal service is specifically protected and extended.
      The Bill will set a framework for the communications industry for the next decade. It should take account of the fact that making broadband available is a huge challenge. We must look ahead. I want to ensure that the Bill covers broadband and its extra use and increasing width, and that we do not have to stick to a limit that is, as it were, bought off the shelf in the marketplace. Future expansion must be covered.
      As I have said, I welcome the Bill and endorse the Government's amendment. I am glad that these provisions will soon be on the statute book, but I am keen to enable the Government to improve the Bill further.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I too congratulate the Government on conceding the need for a specific reference to high-speed data transfer services. We have spent a good deal of time discussing a specific form of communications—broadcasting—and an inordinate amount of that time talking about one particular broadcaster, the BBC. I expect that we shall return to that subject later, but many of us consider the internet side of the Bill equally if not more important to where we are going with the communications industry.

      69
      Network services continue to become more important. The idea of a dotcom boom followed by a bust, suggesting that the dotcom issue has gone away, is nonsense in the context of what is actually happening to economic growth, and the amount of the economy that now depends on network services in the broadest sense. I believe that the importance of those services to broadcasting will grow over time, and that they deserve a high profile in the Bill.
      The term "high-speed data transfer" is correct, although it will and should change over time. I think it right to leave Ofcom as the organisation on the ground, with contact with the industry and able to decide how "high speed" should be defined at any particular stage. I understand that, according to the legally mandated minimum requirement, telecoms providers should currently provide a line that transfers data at 2.4 kilobytes per second, while BT has a self-imposed minimum of 9.6. That provides us with something that is more or less useless as a universal minimum standard.
      I see no reason not to have realistically high-speed minimum standards, imposed in a way that would allow the industry to deliver. It makes no sense to say that ADSL must be delivered everywhere via BT lines, because the technology simply does not allow that, but it does make sense to have a floor standard enabling investment decisions to provide technology on an even basis, and to enable that floor to be raised over time. I hope that Ofcom will interpret "high-speed data services" in that sense.
      John Robertson: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but surely the state of the plant that companies must use would not allow the service for which he asks. Should not the Government invest in the network so that it can be provided?
      Mr. Allan: There are instances in which specific Government investment is helpful. That has been taken up by regional development agencies, and I consider it an appropriate form of intervention. My colleagues in Cornwall used objective 1 money for a project to make up for the difference between the cost of BT's putting in the standard equipment that it would have put in anywhere else and the upgrade cost in Cornwall. That, I think, makes sense. I am more worried about cases in which Government investment constitutes a substitute, or creates competitors where there is an existing business—disrupts the market, in other words.
      I have mentioned to the Minister concerns raised with me about Scottish Enterprise activity. Providers, including those based in Scotland, argue that the intervention is creating spare capacity where capacity already exists. Our interventions should be carefully targeted. We should recognise that for the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom, the market will provide. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where it does not provide intervention is appropriate, but intervention should not be in lieu of the market; it should happen in specific cases of market failure.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Lansley: Can the hon. Gentleman help to clear up a slight confusion? He says that, as the definition of high-speed data transfer services changes over time,
      70
      Ofcom will be able to do something in relation to it, but I cannot for the life of me work out what precisely Ofcom is supposed to do in relation to those services that, according to its other duties, it will not be doing in relation to other communications services and networks.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman makes the case that the Minister made in Committee. He refers back to the general duties of Ofcom, whereby it has responsibility for electronic communications in the wider sense. However, it would be helpful to include the additional wording
      "the desirability of encouraging…high speed data transfer throughout the United Kingdom"
      as an objective, as proposed. For example, Oftel has had to adjudicate in a dispute about the relative pricing the IPStream and DataStream services provided by BT, which are two ways of offering broadband services. The arguments made by the players in that field, who are all in the private sector, are about the way in which Oftel's adjudication will affect the development of the market. If Ofcom has that explicit objective—that it is desirable that those high-speed data transfer services spread throughout the UK—it can use that in making such adjudications.
      Mr. Lansley: Ofcom's responsibility is, as Oftel's has been, to determine access pricing into BT's network, and the gap between the BT retail price and the wholesale price would apply regardless of the availability of that duty. The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about the requirement that the service be available right across the country, so surely he is talking about a universal service obligation. Is he talking about that, or is he not?
      Mr. Allan: The amendment proposes something that is short of a universal service obligation but would be a clear objective for Ofcom. The situation is not the same for Oftel. When Ofcom is making an adjudication and dealing with telecom providers such as BT, it will do so on the basis that one of its objectives is the desirability of access throughout the UK. If there is a clear steer from Ofcom, because it has that objective, it will help to shape the investment decisions of all the companies in the sector, but it is not a substitute for those decisions.
      If we all have a common interest in ensuring access to high-speed data services throughout the UK, that additional objective can do no harm. One might argue that it is unnecessary, but to argue that it takes us back is entirely wrong. It could take us forward and it would be helpful to include a specific reference to such access. It does not mean that there is a universal service obligation. That is a separate debate and relates to other clauses that we discussed in Committee.
      The key point to note about the desirability of broadband access provision is that broadband is not just faster narrow band; it allows new forms of functionality. Obviously, additional functions kick in with every speed increase. One can do some things at ADSL, the normal BT broadband speeds, while other things can be done only at faster speeds. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred to video, for example, which will not kick in until a later date. However, as we climb this ladder, new forms of functionality are available on every rung, which are key to the competitiveness of UK industry.

      71
      Competitiveness is the basis for South Korean investment decisions. It stands to reason that businesses that can act more effectively and speedily have a significant competitive advantage over those that are on a slower track.
      Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if firms are to diversify and to be able to offer certain services by web, they will have to transmit even still pictures relatively fast? Whether they use a local or a distance server, minimum standards of broadband are required, at least something of the order of 400 kilobytes per second and not the low levels that are currently included in the definition of broadband.
      Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that different definitions are used. That relates to the target arguments. The Government have a target to increase use and so they are casting the definition as widely as possible. My sense is that all the telecom providers want to give as fast a service as they can—the faster the service, the more they can charge for it—so there is the prospect of, if not universal coverage, fairly high rates of coverage at 512 kilobytes per second, which is a functional rate for moving around large graphics files. That prospect is within reach.
      I hope that the amendment will enable Ofcom to instruct the telecoms on all the issues referred to in other parts of the Bill, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) pointed out. There will be a framework so that the companies know that highspeed data transfer throughout the UK is one of Ofcom's desirable objectives and that that will influence its actions as a regulator. Its decisions will be made through the lens of that provision. That will add something, and I am pleased that there is a specific reference to data transfer, as opposed to broadcasting.
      Brian White: I fear that we are in danger of repeating the debate on broadband that we held in the Chamber on I May. I am astounded by what I have heard. The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) admitted that public interest tests were reasonable, and then the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) agreed that Government intervention in the market was an acceptable way forward, thus turning on its head 20 years of the Tory ideology that the free market will deliver.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I should hate the hon. Gentleman go away with the impression that I welcome a public interest test. I made it fairly clear that I was not in favour of the Government's adoption of a public interest test.
      Brian White: Some of the other parts of the debate that I found incredible were the references to other countries. The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about South Korea without putting his remarks in the context of that country's economic structure or talking about Government involvement in companies there; for example, the tower blocks are constructed so as to encourage broadband connection. In Germany, the regulator acquiesced in the stifling of competition by Deutsche Telekom. Are the Tories seriously advocating
      72
      that we should have a national championing of broadband through BT, as some of their comments in the debate suggest? If so, there will be serious problems and we need to address that point.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to note the intervention of the Government of South Korea, but there has been no such intervention in the Netherlands, in Denmark, in Australia nor, surprisingly, in Portugal. All those countries—in fact, 19 countries—are ahead of Britain in the broadband stakes.
      Brian White: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman cited figures from August 2002. If he actually looked at the rate of broadband growth over the past few months, he would see that the UK is at the forefront. He should look at those figures rather than relying on historical, out-of-date figures.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way to me for a second time.
      As I pointed out earlier, the more recent figures are based on definitions of broadband that no other country would accept and that many scientists in this country—including, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman—would never accept. All that has happened is that the definition of broadband has been expanded by the Government to include more services.
      Mr. Timms indicated dissent.
      Michael Fabricant: The Minister may say no, but the Minister knows the truth of the matter.
      Brian White: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have held several discussions on broadband over the years, but my understanding is that the figures are based on comparable definitions. If I am wrong, I will apologise, but that is my understanding. That is what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and other studies have put forward. The hon. Gentleman should look at the definitions again.
      One of my concerns is that although the Lords amendment encouraged competition and markets, the Government amendment does not. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell us how Ofcom will deal with the provision? Will it have a duty to encourage the markets? If this is about encouraging an incumbent supplier to do more, that is a very different prospect from allowing entrants into the market and the kind of data-stream and internet protocol competition that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) mentioned earlier.
      These are serious issues. The House is in danger of latching on to the latest fashion. We did so with local loop unbundling; we are in danger of doing so with broadband. I am very concerned that we will create more problems for ourselves if we accept the amendment. At best, it is neutral. At worst, it is the thin end of the wedge. I am concerned that we will not give Ofcom clear instructions that broadband should be delivered by competition and creating markets. That is the only sustainable way to deliver it.
      Mr. Lansley: I had feared, before I heard the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) speak, that I would be in a minority of one on this subject. I have to say hesitantly that, not for the first time, he and I see things more closely than perhaps some of members of our pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and, sometimes, even those who served on the Standing Committee.
      Before I enter into the subject matter, I want to join in congratulating and welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) to the Front Bench. Once again, as he did in Committee on many occasions, he has demonstrated the extent and, often, the depth of his knowledge of technological matters.
      I fear that, on this occasion, enthusiasm and knowledge of the technology have diverted some Members from the debate at hand. The debate is not about the desirability or otherwise of further broadband roll-out, or the desirability of functionality at higher speeds and developing new forms of broadband or highspeed data transfer services. All those things are very important and interesting subjects for longer discussions, and they are not least the responsibility of the Government. The question is whether Ofcom should have an additional specific duty, as proposed either by the Lords or by the Government.
      My view is that neither of the amendments is necessary and both may be undesirable. Why is that true? Essentially, the problems that might arise are these: if we accept the Lords amendment and give Ofcom the responsibility to consider what are the best means of gaining access to those systems, we introduce to Ofcom an element of picking technological winners that is not evident elsewhere in the Bill and is completely inappropriate to the responsibilities of an independent regulator. If we include, as the Lords amendments does, the specific reference to encouraging competitive markets in such systems, we have to ask why that is necessary. As Ofcom will have a wider responsibility to encourage competitive markets in all electronic networks and services, why is it necessary to specify that requirement? Doing so will simply cause confusion about the nature of the Bill in other respects. Although well motivated, the Lords amendment is deficient in those two respects.
      Let us move to the Government amendment, which raises the harmful possibility that the Government could give Ofcom a duty about the development, availability and use of high-speed data transfer services that could conflict with its other duties that relate to the promotion of consumer interests through competition. That would be highly undesirable. We want Ofcom's pro-competitive duty to be clear. Even if we wanted to give Ofcom that duty, is Ofcom the right body to exercise it? It is not; the Government should do so.
      Almost everything that I have heard about the desirability of different forms of intervention—we can argue about how much there should be and whether it should simply involve aggregating public sector purchasing, promoting certain technology with grants or developing access in certain areas using subsidy—suggests that those are matters for the Government, not for Ofcom. Ofcom will not have the powers or the resources to do those things.
      74
      6.45 pm
      The most harmful aspect is that—as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said in response to my intervention—the proposal might be short of a universal service obligation. The idea that we must give Ofcom responsibility short of a universal service obligation in relation to high-speed data transfer will simply allow the Government to say, "We gave Ofcom the duty to promote broadband; it may not have done it well enough." I shall not try to interpret the history too much, but Oftel picked local loop unbundling as the way to try to promote broadband. It subsequently said, "If we aren't going to do it, we'll let BT do it, by cutting prices. That will do it for us." Neither of those approaches represents the simple pro-competitive operations on which Oftel should have focused.
      Oftel's job was not to promote broadband. Oftel's job was to ensure that the markets were competitive. In so far as that involved diminishing the monopoly aspects of BT's operation, that was what Oftel needed to do. Unfortunately, other questions got left on one side, especially those related to spectrum allocation and the availability of alternative technology, because everyone became focused on local loop unbundling.
      The issue now is to define Ofcom's role. Ofcom's role is to provide a competitive market in all electronic communications, networks and services, but if the Government conclude that the economic or social necessity suggests that there should be a universal service in high-speed data transfer services, clause 62 will allow the Government to establish a universal service obligation by order. That is how the Government would need to act. The Government could get off the hook because Ofcom had a subsidiary duty but no power to give effect to it. That could be damaging.
      Mr. Bryant: I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly missed his grammar. Neither the Lords amendment, nor the Government amendment would give Ofcom a new duty. Surely it would have only to exercise its other duties with regard to the desirability of encouraging the availability and use of high-speed data services.
      Mr. Lansley: That is not a matter of grammar; it is a matter of interpretation. In relation to clause 3, yes, furthering the interests of citizens and consumers is subsequently qualified by the things to which Ofcom must have regard. We have to consider the way in which Ofcom exercises those duties. The hon. Gentleman will find that, so long as Ofcom asserts the primacy of its consumer interests, it will also have to show that it is giving effect to the subsidiary aspects of its general duties.
      All those things are Ofcom's general duties. The risk—I put it no higher than that—is that the Ofcom's subsidiary duty in this respect will come into conflict with its primary duties, and we ought not to countenance that. Moreover, many hon. Members are extolling the benefits of broadband roll-out, and they perhaps think something should be provided for the 10 per cent. of the population that will not have access to BT's broadband or cable. However, when they find that it is uneconomic do to so and they come knocking

      75
      on the door called "universal service obligation" and the Government say, "Oh no, we can't do that, but we have given Ofcom some responsibility", they will find that this debate will ring hollow because it will not have served our purpose at all; it will have inhibited us from going down the path that will probably be necessary in due course.
      Sir Robert Smith: I certainly found the last few speeches quite informative about the range of tensions involved in trying to achieve what is best for our constituents, especially in trying to get new technology and broadband into rural areas. The Minister will know, from having met my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and myself recently, just how important such things are in areas such as the north-east of Scotland.
      The great challenge for that area is that its rurality involves a dispersed population. In many parts of northeast Scotland, there is no constraining physical geography that, as in the highlands, forces people into nodes of population that can be tackled by conventional connections. The population is more dispersed, so the attempt to get such technology into the area is even more challenging, yet it should be a very tempting area, given the importance of the oil and gas industry and the amount of data handled by many people who commute to the city of Aberdeen. The benefits of high-speed data links should be apparent, but there is a worry in the community about how to press forward.
      Just lately, the pressure on BT and others seems to have had some effect. For example, the exchange in Drumoak has had its target level reduced to 150 registrations, which is achievable. Another community, Kemnay, already has 300 people signed up, but a target has not been issued. Having listened to the debate, I do not know whether the amendment will improve the situation, but—as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—the universal service obligation is a long-term aspiration. It is certainly a challenge to reach the last bits of the really rural areas.
      BT lobbied Members of Parliament last week and told us that it could cover 90 per cent. of the country under the conventional rules that affect the market. It felt that it could cover up to 97 per cent. of the country with some tweaking, but in those last exchanges the number of years that would be needed to see a return on BT's investment would need to be changed. Would the amendment affect Ofcom's ability to allow BT to run the market in a way that would allow that last 7 per cent. of exchanges to be enabled?
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned exchanges, but BT are doing good work by spreading broadband out in the highlands and islands, and other parts of north-west and north-east Scotland, using the low earth orbit satellite constellation system. It does not involve exchanges and it is another way to supply broadband, but it is costly.
      Sir Robert Smith: It also has a problem with the return of data and the ability for two-way communication. A company in my constituency is developing satellite
      76
      systems, and it is another solution for some rural areas. However, if the regulator can be convinced by BT, the ability to provide the conventional solution for more people will mean that they can use the same equipment in their houses to access the network. They can be on the same wavelength as everyone else and make best use of broadband. In another interesting innovation in my constituency, Scottish Hydro-Electric is using power lines to carry broadband.
      Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that BT has argued that the reason it has to have the thresholds is for reasons of competition law. It cannot be seen to be subsidising an exchange because that would be anti-competitive against other suppliers. Will the Bill make it possible for BT to surrender that feeble reason for not rolling out broadband?
      Sir Robert Smith: That is what I want to hear from the Minister, when he replies. Will the amendment allow those exchanges that BT argues need a greater rate of return to be enabled? That would be the quickest way to ensure that even more constituents gain access to broadband.
      John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Hydro-Electric scheme, but that is not a new idea. Companies such as Thus plc have tried to do it in the past. Even British Rail tried it. The problem is that it comes at a cost, and where will the money come from?
      Sir Robert Smith: We will find out, because the commercial trials are taking place in my constituency in Stonehaven, where the cost is roughly comparable to that of the BT equipment. It is two-way broadband, and the speed in both directions is the same. One of the greatest complaints that I received at the meeting I held with my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon was what ADSL is not the product that businesses want. They want to be able to send large data files as well as receive them.
      The good news from BT was that our exchanges happen to be made by Fujitsu, so it is possible to use a patch to make them into two-way fast exchanges. However, I want to know whether the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right and the Government have accepted the amendment to get themselves off the hook and removed from any role in driving broadband forward in rural areas. Will the amendment have any effect on the regulator? Will it allow the regulator to adopt a different model in rural areas to ensure that the maximum number of people benefit in the quickest possible time from this new market?
      Mr. Timms: I welcome the fact that we have had a lively and interesting debate about broadband—as we often do. I also welcome the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) to the Front Bench. We enjoyed his contribution and look forward to many more, on these topics and others, in the months ahead. He quoted me correctly when he said that I had argued against the inclusion of the term "broadband" in the Bill, but the amendment uses the alternative term "high-speed data services". That is helpful. The data that we use to compare progress on broadband in the UK are compiled on a consistent basis with the way in which

      77
      data are compiled in Europe and elsewhere. That is one of the arguments in favour of using the definition in the Bill, because it is used elsewhere.
      When I joined the DTI last year, I was greeted by a headline in one of the computing newspapers that claimed that the UK was neck and neck with Croatia on broadband. We have come a long way since then, as the hon. Gentleman will—I am sure—acknowledge. He appeared to suggest at one stage that we might include basic rate ISDN in the broadband figures, and that double rate ISDN was equivalent to broadband. We are not including ISDN basic access in the broadband figures, and indeed there is a fundamental difference in that ISDN is not always on, as broadband is. That is a significant benefit of broadband.
      Michael Fabricant: Double ISDN is in the order of 112 kilobytes per second—
      Sir Robert Smith: It is 128.
      Michael Fabricant: Yes, that is right. That rate is included in the broadband definition, and that is the point that I was making. The Minister is right to say that ISDN is not always on and has to be dialled up, but that bandwidth is not fast and cannot be used for the projection of graphic images. Therefore, that speed does not fit the definition of broadband and it should not be included.
      Mr. Timms: It can be used, but it is slower. We are looking for consistency, to allow us to make comparisons with other countries, as the current definition allows. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) was right to emphasise the importance of the roll-out of broadband across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) was also right to draw the House's attention to the importance of aggregating the public sector demand—not through subsidy, but with the public sector as a customer for broadband—to increase the level of demand, including in rural areas, to allow the service to be rolled out there.
      We are making rapid progress. I have established a rural broadband team in the DTI, which works closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality. I am confident that the rapid rate of progress that we have seen lately will continue. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) about the importance of the internet. One does sometimes hear ill-informed comments about boom and bust, suggesting that the importance of the internet has waned. He is right to remind the House that that is not the case. We see greater realism in people's approach to the internet, but it will still be extremely important in the future. I also agree about the dangers of distortion of the market through inappropriate subsidies, which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) speaks with great authority on these matters, and did so again this evening. He and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) spoke of some possible unhelpful approaches to the issue. It is fair enough to question
      78
      whether the amendment adds much to the Bill, but I do not agree that it is potentially damaging. I suggest that if they look at clause 3, they will see that subsection (2)(b) already refers to
      "the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of electronic communications services".
      Subsection (3)(e) refers to
      "the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation in relevant markets".
      7 pm
      What the amendment will do is impose a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the desirability of encouraging broadband in exercising its functions, which will require it to take other decisions, such as the setting of general conditions with which communications providers must comply, in a way that would be more likely than not to encourage broadband. The hon. Gentlemen's misgivings about potential downsides should therefore not cause them concern. The provision will, of course, sit alongside all the existing requirements, including that in subsection (3) about the desirability of promoting competition in relevant markets.
      Mr. Lansley: How confident is the Minister, therefore, that were Ofcom to set its general conditions in ways that were designed around that objective, as distinct from those that are provided for in the EU directives, that setting of general conditions would not become subject to legal challenge?
      Mr. Timms: I do not think that Ofcom will do that in isolation. It will have regard to all those matters that are required of it, including those, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that have been derived directly from the directives. Perhaps I ought to agree, too, that this is entirely separate from the universal service obligation process, which, as he says, comes from another part of the Bill. It is important not to confuse those two.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 4 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 5
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 38, 43, 47 to 54, 147, 194, 196, 198 and 205.
      Tessa Jowell: Lords amendment No. 5 amends clause 3(3), which sets out a number of matters to which Ofcom must have regard, in particular, in performing its duties under clause 3(1). The amendment adds the purposes of public service television broadcasting to those matters. Those purposes are detailed in clause 260(4) of the Bill.
      The Government listened to the strength of argument in another place that the position of public service broadcasting, to which we are fully committed, within Ofcom's general duties should be secured. This amendment does that. I should explain that the reference is to the purposes of public service television

      79
      broadcasting because that is provided for and defined in the Bill. Put* service radio broadcasting, which is not mentioned in the Bill, is provided by the BBC and is secured through the BBC charter and agreement. Amendments Nos. 43, 54 and 198 simply tidy up related parts of the Bill. Amendment No. 198 provides for the construction of the
      "purposes of public service television broadcasting in the United Kingdom"
      in the Bill, allowing the ad hoc definitions in clauses 226 and 266 to be removed. Amendment No. 33, coupled with the new definition of
      "the BBC Charter and Agreement"
      in amendment No. 147, enables the BBC charter to confer functions on Ofcom to the same extent as the BBC agreement.
      Amendments Nos. 34 to 38, 52, 194, 196 and 205 are consequential and ensure that the policy is applied consistently throughout the Bill. Having reflected further on the arguments put forward by the Opposition on this issue in the House, and again in another place, the Government felt able to accept the principle that it would be right to keep open the possibility of Ofcom's regulatory functions in respect of the BBC—other than those contained in the Bill—being placed in the BBC charter and not solely in the BBC agreement, as the Bill originally provided. Amendments Nos. 47 to 53 add detail to the definition of public service broadcasting in clause 260. The areas to which changes are made are educational programmes, programmes facilitating civic understanding, programmes dealing with religion and other beliefs, and children's and young people's television and drama. I will now set out briefly what each of those changes will achieve.
      Amendment No. 47 requires broadcasters to provide comprehensive and authoritative coverage of news and current affairs to facilitate civic understanding, in addition to the requirement that such programmes should facilitate fair and well-informed debate on news and current affairs. This amendment has been made following intense discussion in another place of the importance of broadcasters facilitating understanding of democratic and civic processes, such as proceedings in Parliament.
      Amendment No. 48 expands the requirement for broadcasters to provide programmes on educational matters to include
      "programmes of an educational nature and… other programmes of educative value".
      This change was introduced to reflect more accurately the Department's policy on this issue, again following concerns both in this House and in another place. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the programming covered in clause 260(6)(e) should extend to programmes whose purpose is to educate and which have educational value.
      Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 53 relate to programmes dealing with religion in the public service remit. Two broad changes have been made to this provision. The first, in amendment No. 49, expands the reference to religion in the matters listed in subsection (6) to "religion and other beliefs". Amendment No. 53 defines "belief" to include collective belief in or
      80
      adherence to ethical systems or philosophies or mystical or transcendental doctrines. The second change, in amendment No. 50, makes it clear that the reference to religion within the remit encompasses both factual programmes about religion—such as news, information or the history of different religions and other beliefs—and programmes of a religious nature, including those portraying acts of worship and other ceremonies and practices. Amendment No. 53 also defines the term "drama", in response to concerns raised in another place. The definition makes it clear that the term "drama" as used in clause 260(6)(b) includes contemporary and other drama in a variety of different formats. We consider that this new provision encompasses new ideas and new writing, as well as the wide range of formats of television drama.
      Amendment No. 51 expands the requirement for programming for children and young people from
      "a suitable quantity of high quality and original programmes"
      to
      "a suitable quantity and range"
      of such programmes. Despite the unique status of the provision for children's programming in the public service remit, since it specifies that programming should be both high-quality and original, we accepted that additional safeguards should be made to protect programming for young people. This amendment therefore ensures that a suitable quantity and range of programmes for children and young people will be provided. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Whittingdale: I might have given the impression during earlier proceedings on the Bill that I wish to speak at considerable length whenever the BBC is mentioned. Indeed, that was the impression given by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who has now left the Chamber. However, I do not propose to speak at length this evening.
      I welcome the fact that the Government have listened to arguments suggesting that the charter should be allowed to incorporate future developments that might lead to Ofcom taking additional responsibilities for the BBC, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) suggested in Committee. The Secretary of State knows that one of our principal complaints about the Bill is the fact that the biggest broadcaster in the country is excluded from Ofcom's full regulatory remit. We continue to believe that that is wrong and that it should be corrected in the future. The Government have argued that it would be suitable for the issue to be considered at the time of charter renewal. The amendment is helpful because if the Government decide to extend Ofcom's role to oversee the BBC's activities, the Bill will facilitate that.
      Given that everything is wrapped up in the renewal of the BBC's charter, is the Secretary of State able to say more about precisely how that will be undertaken and, especially, about how her Department intends to review the charter's current operation before conclusions are reached about future changes? She knows that we have strong feelings about that. She said in public that there will be a far-reaching review but she has given few details about how it will be carried out.
      It is an appropriate time to welcome strongly the Government's agreement in the House of Lords that the BBC should be subject to scrutiny by the National Audit

      81
      Office. We argued strongly for that and although we have not achieved 100 per cent. of what we wanted, at least the door of the BBC has been opened to the NAO for the first time. That is in the BBC's interests and certainly in those of the taxpayer, so we have achieved a vastly improved situation.
      Mr. Lansley: I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), welcome the Government's acceptance that when the BBC charter is renewed, it might be appropriate for Ofcom to be given functions that would be best specified in the charter rather than in the agreement and the licence. Indeed, the amendments head off at the pass a risk that might have otherwise arisen because subsequent to charter renewal, the BBC governors could have been invited under the agreement to accept Ofcom's responsibilities and functions yet wish, or think that they had a duty, to resist that due to the framing of the agreement. If Parliament wants Ofcom to have responsibilities, it may advise Ministers and they can decide that such responsibilities should be reflected directly in the charter. I welcome that because I argued for it in Committee.
      The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) earlier chided parliamentary counsel for their lack of imagination about the word "citizen". One must recognise that parliamentary counsel occasionally must go above and beyond the call of duty—defining beliefs in legislation is certainly beyond the call of duty. I hope that the definition is not tested too much in the courts.
      Tessa Jowell: I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made. I expect that we shall publish proposals on how we intend to approach the charter review before Christmas. The process will be wide-ranging and thorough and I hope that it will provide an opportunity for wide-ranging debate so that the public and all those with an interest in the BBC's future may express their view.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Lansley: I neglected to mention a point to which the Secretary of State might wish to respond. The Bill suggests that Ofcom will undertake its first review of public service broadcasting probably during the latter part of next year. How does she think that the review will relate to consultation on the BBC charter? Could we reasonably expect that formal consultation on the charter would follow Ofcom's first such review?
      Tessa Jowell: It is important to distinguish between the formal and informal process. Of course, a formal process will allow parliamentary scrutiny of early proposals on the charter. The Bill provides for the review of public service broadcasting to be held within a time scale that allows it to inform the charter review process, which is what we intend. We need to get the sequence right, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we intend to announce the way in which we aim to approach the process before the end of the year. The first stage is to secure legislation to enable Ofcom to undertake the wide-ranging review of public service broadcasting at an appropriate time. As I said, the review will be an important source of information that
      82
      may be fed into the charter review process. I promise the House that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss the methodology and approach of the charter review in addition to the content of the review itself.
      I pay tribute to Lord Sharman for his deft and skilful negotiations in another place. The solution that found considerable favour in another place to the vexed question of NAO access to the BBC accounts has taken us to a good position to which we will return at the time of charter review. I have made that position clear throughout the process.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 10 agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 11
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 17 and 18, Lords amendment No. 42, and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 72 and consequential amendments (a) to (e), and Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 93, 119 to 126 and 206.
      Tessa Jowell: The amendments, although not directly related, have been grouped together because they deal with a wide range of disability, equal opportunity and training issues. They include placing a new duty on Ofcom to promote equipment that is convenient for use by the widest practical range of users, including people with disabilities. Ofcom will also be required to establish and maintain a committee to advise on the interests of disabled people and of elderly people across its remit.
      The reference to the "fair treatment" of disabled people has been replaced with a reference to "equalisation of opportunities", which is the preferred term in recent disability legislation. Lords amendment No. 42 was introduced to require Ofcom to include conditions in the public Teletext licence to ensure that people with sight and/or hearing disabilities can use the service for all the same purposes as people without such disabilities. Though we agree with the spirit of the amendment, we had to address some technical difficulties with the drafting and the placement of the amendment. So we drafted a new amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 42, which will be inserted in the correct place.
      Lords amendment No. 72 requires Ofcom's code on provisions for the deaf and visually impaired to give guidance on the extent to which applicable services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people with a dual sensory impairment. Amendments (a) to (e) are minor consequential amendments. They provide that consultation on the code, and accessibility to it, applies to people who have a dual sensory impairment.
      Ofcom will have a duty to include in its code on access to television for people with sensory impairments a requirement that broadcasters make adequate information about the assistance that is available to those who are likely to want to make use of it. In addition, a fixed five-year interim target of 60 per cent.

      83
      for subtitling has been introduced to ensure that progress towards meeting the main target by the 10th anniversary is accelerated in the early years, with the Secretary of State able to set, by order, a more challenging target where appropriate.
      Amendments have been tabled to close a loophole that related to the provision for thresholds in clause 330, below which the requirements for equal opportunities and training would not apply.
      Mr. Whittingdale: We spent considerable time in this House and the other place ensuring that the Bill properly caters for the needs of those with hearing or sight disabilities. The Opposition pressed that on a number of different occasions and it is gratifying to find, once again, that one of the things of which we were keen to persuade the Government has been taken up in a Lords amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) asked in Committee for a new clause to give a duty to promote inclusive design. That has resurfaced in a similar form to encourage the wide availability of accessible, easy-to-use equipment. The issue is important. The disability groups feel strongly that the measure is necessary. I am all in favour of giving Ofcom the duty to encourage equipment to be as accessible as possible to people who are deaf or visually impaired and, equally, to ensure that their needs are properly taken into account by the establishment of the panel.
      I have a couple of slight concerns. There is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that the broadcasters pay due heed to the needs of people with disabilities while not loading them with too great a burden. There is a requirement that all cable and satellite channels subtitle 80 per cent. of their programmes within 10 years of the legislation coming into force. That target was agreed in discussions with the industry and the disability groups. All the broadcasters have signed up to it.
      The Government have gone further, however, by imposing a new interim target of 60 per cent. subtitling for all programming after five years. That front loads the demand on the broadcaster to move towards greater subtitling so that they have to achieve more than 50 per cent. of the target within five years rather than 10. The full target of 80 per cent. subtitling could cost nearly £900,000 per channel annually. I am not going to disagree with the amendment, but I hope that the Government will bear in mind that the target is demanding and will have considerable cost implications. For many broadcasters, £900,000 is an easily affordable sum, but small struggling niche channels will find it hard to meet that cost.
      I am also concerned that amendment No. 88 provides that if a channel has voluntarily fulfilled its 60 per cent. interim subtitling requirement before the five-year deadline, the interim requirement can be increased by the Secretary of State. That would give those who have acted in a thoroughly commendable fashion by reaching their target early an even more demanding target to meet on top. That could act as a disincentive to channels
      84
      to reach the target of 60 per cent. before the five years have expired. Apart from those points, however, I do not disagree with the amendments.
      John Robertson: I want the Secretary of State to assure me that the needs of disabled persons working in the telecommunications industry will be addressed. The Bill mentions broadcasters, but does not mention telecommunications. I raised that in Committee. When Lord Gordon tried to amend the Bill, he said:
      "If the object of this Bill is to bring together telecommunications and broadcasting, it seems a little lopsided, to say the least, that the training provision applies solely to broadcasting."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2003; Vol. 650, c. 396.]
      I ask the Secretary of State to consider that.
      Tessa Jowell: The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) is right: we are front loading the cost of subtitling. I hope that I have made clear our reasons for that. Other hon. Members on both sides of the House and in another place have certainly made the reasons clear. The cost of subtitling is decreasing all the time. That is why we have acted as we have. It is also worth noting that Ofcom has the power to exempt services, taking into account the cost if that is properly justified.
      In response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson). the Government are constrained by legislation. I remind him that last week we published the White Paper on skills, the focus of which is to ensure not only that our industries maximise productivity through a trained and skilled work force, but that we draw from the widest range of people across the community in developing access to skills and training. I attended an event earlier today at which Barbara Cassani, the chair of the London Olympic bid committee, forcefully made the point that diversity in recruiting for the Olympics is important because in that way we recruit the best. The same applies to telecoms and broadcasters in recruiting from the range of talent, which obviously also includes people with disabilities.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to.
      It being half-past Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 38 agreed to.

    Clause 199

      BORROWING LIMIT FOR C4C
      Lords amendment: No.39.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 40, 41, 146, 195, 197, 199, 201, 202, 204, 207 to 214, 224, 225, 227 to 230, 264, 265, 274, 276 and 277.
      Mr. Timms: The amendments are not related, but they are all technical. Lords amendment No. 39 clarifies

      85
      that the power to set a borrowing limit for the Channel 4 Corporation is exercisable by order by adding the words "by order" to subsection (1) of clause 199. A number of drafting and minor amendments of various kinds follow.
      Lords amendment No. 195 corrects the drafting of clause 386(2)(f) so that it uses the term
      "an international obligation of the United Kingdom",
      which is defined in clause 398, instead of simply referring to "an international obligation", which is not. Lords amendment No. 199 corrects an error in clause 398.
      The Bill provides for television multiplex services or general multiplex services to carry digital radio services. Consequential amendments were necessary to ensure that the penalties for contraventions relating to digital radio programme services take that into account. Some of the provisions necessary to achieve that were already in the Bill, but other such amendments needed to be made. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 207 to 214, 224, 225, 227 to 230 and 274. They also make some minor corrections to related amendments to schedules 13 and 15.
      Amendments Nos. 264 and 265 are designed to clarify the effect of certain transitional provisions relating to newspaper mergers set out in schedule 18. Lords amendment No. 264 ensures that the powers to make orders containing transitional and consequential amendments set out in subsections (2) and (3) of section 276 and section 277 of the Enterprise Act 2002 apply to transfers of newspapers or newspaper assets that take place prior to the newspaper merger provisions in the Bill coming into force. Lords amendment No. 265 clarifies that clause 395 does not apply to the order-making power under section 91(6)(a) of the Enterprise Act. That order-making power remains governed by the general provisions that apply to order-making powers in part 3 of that Act—in section 124.
      Lords amendment No. 276 corrects a minor drafting error in the repeal schedule. It is consequent on an amendment made on Report and reinstates an omitted conjunction. Lords amendment No. 277 makes a minor amendment to the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 to amend the definition of "programme services" used in that Act to take account of changes introduced by the Bill to the provisions on which that definition relies.
      Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 are drafting amendments that replace the references to television broadcasting services in clause 202(4) with references to television programme services. That aligns subsection (4) with the remainder of the clause. Lords amendment No. 146 is a minor amendment to correct a drafting error. Lords amendment No. 199 aligns the definition of consumers in clause 398 with the definition of customers in the clause by inserting the words "or in connection with" in subsection (5)(a). Lords amendment No. 197 corrects an error in clause 396(6). The change in wording will require Ofcom to allow a period of not less than one month for representations to be made on any proposal by it to make an order or regulations.
      Lords amendment No. 201 is a minor drafting correction. Lords amendment No. 202 has been drafted to allow any order under clause 403 bringing provisions of the Bill into force to make transitional or transitory provisions in that connection. That will give greater
      86
      flexibility to ensure a smooth transition from the existing law to the new legal regime in the Bill. Lords amendment No. 204 is also a minor amendment that makes specific provision for Scottish partnerships in relation to the contempt of court provisions in schedule 11. I commend the amendments to the House.
      Michael Fabricant: As the Minister has said, these are on the whole minor amendments that merely restructure the Bill to make it more readable and legal. However, it is interesting to note that when the Bill was considered in this House, we were told, in effect, that it was perfect. Every time the Opposition tabled amendments to try to make the Bill more appropriate or legally viable, we were told that they were not necessary. I am therefore pleased that the Minister has accepted that, like so many Bills that Governments of all parties introduce, this perfect Bill required amendment.
      I wanted particularly to ask the Minister a question about Lords amendment No. 39. It is a simple but interesting amendment, as it amends clause 199 by inserting "by order". Clause 199 is not so short. As the Minister said, it deals with the borrowing limits for C4C. Does the provision apply only to C4C, or does it apply also to S4C, and is a similar amendment necessary as a result? Both channels operate within a similar structure, as they are owned by the former Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is now the Independent Television Commission.
      As the Minister said, the order refers to the limit on borrowing. Subsection (2) refers to the sum that the outstanding borrowing must not at any time exceed, but does it also provide for any regulation of the interest rates payable by C4C? Is there any obligation on C4C to seek alternative sources of funding to ensure that the moneys are not borrowed at a rate that it would be difficult for C4C to repay without damaging programming? Finally, will the Minister explain precisely where at present C4C receives its funding from when it borrows as opposed to the funding that it receives from advertising revenue?
      Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend explain why he has not drawn attention to subsection (6), which requires that the Treasury's consent is required for an order to be made under this part of the Bill? Can he conceive of any circumstances in which any Secretary of State could make an order without the Treasury knowing and giving its consent? Does he know of any other occasion where it is necessary to make this provision? After all, it is one of those open secrets that the House knows but to which it does not usually refer.
      Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has raised an interesting and important point. I am tempted to speculate whether it is the power of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer that has managed to produce subsection (6), which provides specifically that the Treasury's consent is required for the making of the order. The question needs to be addressed by the Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation for why "order" is referred in subsection (2) but not in subsection (1), except by the amendment that is before us? Is this merely a correction, or is there a subplot, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)?

      87
      These are important questions that need to be answered. In future years, when we deal with other issues that arise from our consideration of Bills, will the Minister accept that Bills are not always perfect in their drafting, and that sometimes the Opposition will come up with proposals that perhaps the Minister could accept - rather than us having to wait until this late stage of consideration for his acceptance?
      Mr. Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to Lords amendment No. 39 and clause 199, and for the searching questions that he has raised about the contents of the clause. We never said in Committee that the Bill was perfect. We said that it was a good Bill, but he will recall, as a member of the Committee, that there were several occasions in Committee when we accepted amendments tabled by his hon. Friends. We certainly never claimed that the Bill was without flaw.
      I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is not any subplot as he feared. The reason for the amendment is to add to subsection (1) at the end "by order", so that that leads on to the references to the order in subsection (2). The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked about the requirement for the Treasury to give its consent. That is a common feature of many pieces of legislation, including those for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible in the past. The requirement in the Bill is not an innovation.
      The House can be reassured that this is an unexceptional amendment. It is designed to clarify—perhaps slightly to correct—the form of words in the Bill.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 42 disagreed to. Government amendment (a) in lieu agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 43 agreed to.

    Clause 245

      SERVICES THAT ARE NOT RADIO LICENSABLE CONTENT SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 44.
      7.45 pm
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 45, 46, 55, 69 to 71, 94 to 114, 128, 129, 132 to 145, 149, 150, 216 to 218, 221, 222 and 269 to 271.
      Tessa Jowell: These amendments deal with diverse broadcasting regulatory provisions. They make changes to the provisions on electronic programme guides, amendments Nos. 44, 45, 94 to 97 and 150; the renewal of radio multiplex licences, No. 46; must—provide services, No. 55; regional programming, Nos. 69 to 71; radio localness, Nos. 98 to 113, 136 and 140; broadcasting competition, No. 114; advertising agencies, Nos. 128 and
      88
      129, 269 and 271; change of control, Nos. 132 to 135, 137 and 138, 216 to 218 and 221; meaning of control, Nos. 139, 222 and 270; and access radio, which we intend to refer to as community radio, Nos. 141 to 145; and a minor drafting error, No. 149.
      I do not expect that these amendments will prove controversial, and I am happy to commend them to the House. However, I would be happy to go through them in more detail if hon. Members so wished.
      Mr. Whittingdale: A considerable array of different issues seems to be grouped together, but there seems to be a familiar theme. Many of the amendments relate to issues that in the past we promoted at considerable length, but at the time we failed to persuade the Government of their merits. Now they reappear on the amendment paper from another place in the form of amendments that seek to make precisely the changes that we were advocating originally.
      A matter of huge importance to the radio industry is the definition of localness when it comes to radio stations. The Secretary of State will recall that we spent some time in Committee considering the issue. We also had a quite lengthy debate on Report, during which we argued strongly that what mattered to people in identifying with their local station was what it broadcast, the fact that the content of programmes should be local and that the way in which localness is defined when it comes to examining individual local radio stations is the content broadcast. A number of the other requirements that were originally within the Bill—the employment of local people and stations' headquarters being located within the community—seemed to us not to be appropriate for regulation by Government and had little bearing to most people on whether they regarded their station as local. We made those points quite strongly, and we were supported by the radio companies, but without success. It appears that the Government have seen the light, and that is something that we welcome strongly.
      Another issue that we spent quite a lot of time debating in Committee was the meaning of control, which has cropped up today as Lords amendment No. 139. We have been pressing the substance of that amendment for some time, as we have always thought that a simple inflexible 20 per cent. shareholding threshold was not an accurate reflection of the ability to control, and may well catch shareholdings that do not confer the means to control or significantly influence another company. We therefore argued that it was wrong that the provisions placed the burden of rebutting the assumption on the shareholder. I am delighted that the Government now agree with us, and have deleted the relevant provisions. It is worth reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, that the Government, when forced to examine an argument in the House of Lords, where the arithmetic is rather different from the arithmetic in the Commons, suddenly accept it and agree to make a change. We sometimes get the feeling that because the Government are guaranteed a majority in the Commons they do not give the same consideration to the same arguments when they are advanced here. Nevertheless, we are always happy when our argument prevails.
      Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that in Committee the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) was willing to accept the Opposition's

      89
      amendments but rebutted mine, which has now become Lords amendment No. 95? May I welcome the Government's conversion on electronic programme guides?
      Mr. Whittingdale: It has been suggested to me that the obvious lesson to be drawn from that is that the hon. Gentleman should come and join us. If he did so, he might have more success, so I extend an invitation to him, although without great expectation of it being accepted. While we were disappointed that we were unsuccessful when these matters were first debated, nevertheless it is welcome that the Government have accepted a number of points that we made and introduced amendments that we support.
      Another issue that we raised on several occasions in Committee is dealt with in Lords amendment No. 114, a sensible provision that will help to enhance transparency in the regulatory process in this area, which is a good thing. I should like to say a few words about clause 310, which is amended by Lords amendment No. 114. We have tried to convince the Government that a problem has arisen because broadcasters who are subjected to economic regulation by Ofcom through their licences for reasons other than a competition purpose, for example under various clause 3 duties, will not have a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In another place, the Government have gone some way towards recognising that in practice, at least in the case of the duty to promote the interests of citizens and consumers in relevant markets, any economic regulation relating to pricing and packaging under that duty will be appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We are grateful for that welcome statement from the Government.
      There are still other clause 3 duties under which economic regulation could take place for reasons other than a competition purpose. The Government have still not said that a right of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal exists. The fact that they have not said so remains a source of some concern. It should be the case that any regulation of the pricing and packaging of broadcasting services—not the content of those services—under any clause 3 duty is clearly appealable to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. We will obviously want to keep a keen eye on that when Ofcom assumes responsibility for those matters, particularly the way in which it decides to proceed on economic regulation. If the Secretary of State could say anything more about that, that would be very welcome.
      John Robertson: I pay tribute to the Government for agreeing to incorporate in the Bill Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 99, which reflect concerns expressed by the music industry about the impacts of consolidation in commercial radio. I hate to agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) but I too believe that throughout our proceedings, Members on both sides of the House voiced their opinion and all felt that the music industry was hard done-by. However, the Government have given careful consideration to the matter and ensured that the concerns of listeners are taken into account. In short, we can retain choice and diversity on our airwaves. We should all agree that these amendments represent
      90
      important safeguards for the British music industry and that our songwriters and composers have been protected in this legislation.
      It is very pleasing that proposed new section 106ZA of the Broadcasting Act 1990 refers to
      "Consultation about change of character of local services".
      That ensures that the various stakeholders are able to contribute to the process, should they wish to do so. However, I should like to pose three specific questions to the Minister about the provision. First, I would like to clear up any greyness that may result from the change that Lords amendment No. 98 makes to clause 306, and the insertion of new section 106ZA in the Broadcasting Act by Lords amendment No. 99. Lords Amendment No. 99 specifies the grounds on which Ofcom can consent to a departure from the licence as mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of subsection (1A) of section 106 of the Broadcasting Act. Can the Minister confirm that that does not narrow Ofcom's remit and obligations, and that proposed new subsection (1B) of clause 306, which states that Ofcom must have regard to the character of a service, particularly
      "the selection of spoken material and music in programmes"
      will still be taken into account in relation to a licensee's departures in subsection 1A, and that the music provisions are not excluded by Ofcom because of the scope of the amendments? Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?
      Secondly, subsection (4) of proposed new section 106ZA specifies that Ofcom is not required to publish a notice under that section if it considers that the publication would result in a delay that would be
      "likely prejudicially to affect the interests of the licence holder".
      Would the Minister give some examples of considerations that would be judged to affect the interests of the licence holder in that way and would prevent the public and other stakeholders from being told of a proposed format change, let alone given the opportunity to express their response? Finally, can the Minister provide an assurance that the music industry will be consulted by Ofcom before guidance on consultation is released into the public domain? Given the high profile of issues relating to local radio services both in Parliament and beyond, I trust that the regulator will take seriously its responsibilities relating to music output on radio.
      I have said on many occasions that music is the single most important influence on people's lives. People have different and diverse tastes, and I am made conscious of that every day. My researcher is always berating me because I like Eric Clapton, Huey Lewis and Garth Brooks, while I find it difficult to enjoy her taste in the Smiths and Nirvana, although we agree about REM. However, no matter what our taste, music continues to mould, simulate and entertain, which is why it is important to preserve diversity on the radio. Could the Minister put my fears to rest once and for all and tell the House that Ofcom will ensure that music on the radio will be protected?
      Tessa Jowell: I thank hon. Members for their contributions about these specific and detailed changes. May I tell the hon. Member for Maldon and East

      91
      Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that he cannot have it both ways? He complained rather grudgingly that a number of amendments have been adopted, thereby improving the Bill. However, that is part of an extremely constructive parliamentary process that has extended over a fair period of time. I hope that he will see that in an area of such national importance as the shape of our media and communications industry, the Government have taken seriously the responsibility to do whatever they can to build a consensus reflecting shared views where they can be established in Parliament, and across the industry. I have said on a number of occasions that I cannot recall a piece of legislation on which there has been such wide and lengthy consultation as on the Bill. The fact that there is such a high level of agreement between the Government and the Opposition and between the House of Commons and another place is the result of that investment and that consultation, and we should be proud of it.
      Michael Fabricant: No one doubts the amount of consultation that has taken place, but we find it odd that when the Opposition offered helpful suggestions to amend the Bill, they were rejected outright in Committee, yet those same amendments were accepted in another place and are being accepted today. Could not considerable time have been saved, had they only been accepted in the first place?
      Tessa Jowell: Let me go back to the earlier discussion of the proposal to insert a provision to further the interests of citizens among the general duties of Ofcom. I proudly acknowledged that after listening to the debate in Standing Committee, we were persuaded that greater clarity was necessary. However, as has been made clear by the Government and by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) from his experience, inserting the word "citizen" at that stage was deemed not to be possible by parliamentary counsel. Once the matter had been voted on in another place, the more arcane conventions of parliamentary counsel allowed us to adopt the term without its previous narrow meaning relating to nationality, which had obstructed our wish earlier. That is an example of good engagement in the Standing Committee and an eventual solution being found as a result of the amendment passed in another place.
      Hon. Members should remember that those outside who feed the Opposition with their briefing, ideas and proposals are free with their advice to Members in all parts of the House, so we receive the same ideas, briefing and argument. Those have been fairly reflected in the Bill as it now stands. The changes that have been made in respect of localness and local radio are a good example. The amendments under discussion were tabled in response to the radio industry's concern about the application of the "localness" clause. Hon. Members will recall that in the draft Bill, the plurality floor in relation to local radio was originally set at three plus one. In consultation with the industry, the Government accepted the case that was being made and amended that to two plus one. Let us have no more criticism. That is the process whereby good legislation is developed, and we can all take due credit.
      92
      I shall say a little more about the application of the "localness" clause. There was a concern that the Government's original proposals were over-prescriptive. In the amendments we have provided clarification, which has been welcomed by the industry. For example, the amendments make it clear that not all services need to include local material, and that a suitable proportion of local material must be locally made. The reference to a code is replaced by reference to guidance provided by Ofcom. Once again, the Government listened to the arguments from the industry and acted to reflect the balance between the ambition to deregulate where possible, and the need to protect the public interest because of the unique importance of media in our democracy.
      The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford asked why we had amended the definition of control. The relevant provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 deal with merger control, whereas the Broadcasting Act provisions safeguard plurality. There is no necessary reason why the definitions of control should be wholly identical.
      The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises in amendment No. 114 with regard to broadcasting competition has been a hoary chestnut throughout the parliamentary stages of the Bill. I shall not replay the lengthy debate that took place in Committee. The issue has been debated in both the House and another place, and reflects the concerns expressed, notably by Sky in relation to the packaging of its channel. That broadcaster sought to reduce Ofcom's ability to consider the interests of citizens or consumers in respect of matters that could have an impact on its business.
      Along with the important economic and competition issues, Ofcom must be able to balance the wider public and consumer issues. The need to get that balance right exercised the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, as it has hon. Members in the House and in another place. The process has produced a Bill that represents a proper balance, and we should not re-open consideration of such fundamental questions, given the specific concerns of one broadcaster, which I have had the opportunity to discuss with that broadcaster. In view of the many procedural and other safeguards in the Bill, I believe that those concerns are unfounded.
      I shall deal with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) about the importance of music, whose protection and promotion we have sought to achieve. Amendment No. 99 would mean that Ofcom did not have to consult on a request for a departure from the character of a service where the departure would not substantially alter the service's character. However, if the departure would substantially alter the character of the service, Ofcom would have to consult on the proposed departure before it could agree to it.
      John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend tell me who makes that decision?
      Tessa Jowell: That decision will be made by Ofcom. In considering such matters, Ofcom must have regard to factors including the effect of the change in the selection of spoken material and music.

      93
      That is one very specific area in which the position of music is safeguarded. That has again been a matter of some considerable debate and interest during the Bill's passage. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the House about the strength of the safeguards to secure music as part of the wide range of broadcasting genres, whether on television, on radio, and particularly where his interests lie, in relation to local radio.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 55 agreed to.

    Clause 276

      APPOINTED NEWS PROVIDERS FOR CHANNEL 3
      Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 249, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 68, 131, 148, 188, 190, 193, 203, 219, 263, 267 and 275.
      Tessa Jowell: We have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in debates in both Houses about the subject of the Channel 3 news provider. The amendments are our response to that debate. They will lift most of the ownership restrictions on the Channel 3 nominated news provider and remove the Ofcom nomination process for that body. That will mean that ITV can own its own news provider, but must still function as a single body corporate in order to maintain the desirable level of independence.
      The remaining ownership restrictions are intended to ensure that a body that could not hold the Channel 3 licence or have a substantial interest in the holder cannot provide the news service. So the main restrictions are as follows: any body banned from owning a Channel 3 licence under part II of schedule 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1990—for instance, that includes political bodies—will be similarly restricted from being or having an interest in the Channel 3 news provider; and any body, such as a major newspaper, that is prevented from owning a Channel 3 licence is also prevented from owning its news provider and restricted in the interests it can hold in the news provider.
      The quality provisions remain in place and require that Channel 3 national news continues to be able to compete with other national news services. They also provide for Ofcom to approve the appointed news provider contract to ensure that it is adequately funded. In order for Ofcom to guarantee that the required arrangements are in place and work effectively, the amendments ensure that Ofcom can obtain the information it needs from ITV or the appointed news provider. If Channel 5's audience share becomes broadly equivalent to that of Channel 3, it will be possible to create a Channel 5 scheme comparable to the appointed news provider scheme for Channel 3. We will be able to modify by order the quality and ownership provisions of the Channel 3 system and any Channel 5 scheme.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Whittingdale: In debating the previous group of amendments, I suggested that we might have saved some time if the Government had listened in Committee, rather than resisted our ideas before going to the House of Lords and conceding those points. In reply, the Secretary of State said "Let's not have any more of that", but if ever there is going to be any more of that, it will be in relation to the group of amendments that we are now considering.
      8.15 pm
      The amendments introduce the most important change that the Opposition have managed to achieve in relation to the Bill, and it will undoubtedly benefit ITN and ITV. It is worth reflecting on the history of this matter. The nominated news provider system and the cap on ownership were established back in 1990. Such an arrangement was arguably right at that time, but over the past 14 years, it has become a handicap to ITN.
      Brian White: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the arguments for nominated news providers came from ITN itself, which advocated the system as one or two people in the company thought that they could make some fast money?
      Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is right: the arguments came from ITN and they were put forcefully to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who was persuaded by them. However, the world has now moved on. ITN certainly no longer believes that that system is good for it, and neither, indeed, does the Conservative party. I suppose that we have all seen the light.
      The effect of the nominated news provider system has been to reduce the revenue for ITN by a very large amount. The ITV news contract price back in 1993 was about £70 million in today's prices. Some 10 years later, the price had halved. The result is obviously that the amount of resources available to ITN has been drastically reduced, which has meant that it has not been able to invest in its business to the extent that it needs to invest in order to provide a news service that is competitive with those offered by the other major news providers. It has been suggested that Sky News was the beneficiary, as it was able to bid against ITN for the ITV contract and was likely to benefit whatever the outcome, as it could either have beaten ITN and got the contract, or not beaten it, but, in bidding, forced down the price that ITN was able to charge and weakened it as a competitor.
      In our view, it is terribly important that there should be three powerful television news providers. There is no question but that the BBC has always been such a provider. Sky News has now established itself very successfully as an extremely robust and reliable news provider. While continuing to do a good job, ITN has nevertheless suffered from lack of investment caused not only by the nominated news provider system, but by the ownership cap. Currently, there are five shareholders, each of which holds a 20 per cent. stake. Two of those shareholders will be likely to wish to increase their stake, especially if they come together. Under the Government's previous proposals, however, they would have been unable to do so.

      95
      In this House and the other place, it has been pointed out that ITV is the only broadcaster that is prevented from owning its own news provider. Indeed, it was Lord Bragg who said:
      "BBC News is at the heart of the BBC and Sky News is at the heart of Sky."
      He also said:
      "it should be repeated in Hansard as often as possible"
      that
      "ITV is the only broadcaster prevented from owning its own news provider."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 3 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1225.]
      I am happy to take up his invitation to repeat that statement once again. It is that issue that the amendments are now addressing.
      It is not only the effect on the nominated news provider in terms of the necessity of cutting the price in order to beat the competition that is an issue, but the most extraordinary list of requirements regarding information that ITN has to supply to the ITC at the time of renewal. There is a list of about 40 pieces of information that the nominated news provider is required to provide to the ITC, including matters such as 24-hour capability to retrieve and transmit news and foreign external broadcasters' material not substituting for original production. It goes right into the detail of the management of the company. It is wholly unnecessary that a commercial operation should have to account to a regulator to that extent, particularly in a competitive environment. If ITN is to provide a competitive third force, it badly needs to be relieved from its current requirement and to have access to the investment that it needs.
      ITN has suffered over the course of the past few years. There are many reasons for that. The uncertainty about when its nightly news bulletin is going to go out has not helped it to win an audience. Equally, the fact that the bulletin lost 10 minutes meant that it was not always able to provide as great a depth of coverage as its competitors. What ITN most needs now is long-term sustained investment. That is most likely to occur if the ownership cap is removed and if, in due course, the ITV company is able to take ITN in-house.
      I welcome the fact that the Government have belatedly come round to seeing the force of those arguments, and I strongly support the amendments from the House of Lords.
      Nick Harvey: I, too, welcome the amendments and the change of stance on the part of the Government. It is absolutely right that we need at least three strong news providers and that that requires ITN to be in a position to battle on equal terms with BBC News and Sky News. In recent years, the existing restrictions have handicapped ITN from fulfilling that competitive role. There are two reasons for that. First, it has suffered from a lack of investment as a result of a dispersal of shareholders, with nobody having a strategic grip on the situation or an incentive to put some serious money into it. Secondly, it has periodically to go through the auction process, whereby others can either take its service away or bid its price down; that is exactly what has happened. Although we do not know who will own ITV in future, at least if a
      96
      new owner from abroad takes control of the news service he will be subject to Ofcom regulation in the course of his daily business, whereas Ofcom has no such lean upon an investor from a completely different sector.
      I am pleased that the Government have shifted ground and decided to go ahead with the provision now instead of relying on a sunset clause.
      Tessa Jowell: There is broad agreement that this is the right decision. I shall underline why that is. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) mentioned the important point—namely, that news has a special place in public service broadcasting and that it is crucially important that news services across all public service broadcasters are of high quality and adequately resourced. In that context, I stress the protection that clause 276 affords on both counts of investment and quality. There was a remarkable degree of consensus in another place. However, having had many discussions about the matter I would say that the original decisions were taken on balance rather than being conclusive in terms of retaining ownership limits.
      I pay tribute to the way in which ITN conducted the argument and to Lord Bragg and Lord Alli, both of whom contributed to the debate constructively and from their own experience. We have reached the right conclusion, and I commend the amendments to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 72 and consequential amendments (a) to (e) agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 73 to 114 agreed to.

    Clause 312

      OFCOM's STANDARDS CODE
      Lords amendment: No. 115.
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 116 and the motion to disagree thereto, Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116 and Lords amendments Nos. 117 and 118.
      Tessa Jowell: With amendment No. 115, I will also speak to Government amendments (a) to (e), which are offered in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116, and to Lords amendments Nos. 117 and 118. It may be helpful if I indicate that I propose that the House agree with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 117 and 118.
      Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 would have the effect of narrowing the scope of the code regulating broadcast advertising. At present, the ITC and Radio Authority codes can cover any matter governing standards in broadcast advertising. Those codes are developed after consultation and cover matters that are to be regulated under domestic or European law and other matters of public policy relating to broadcast advertising. The Lords amendments would limit the scope of the broadcast advertising codes to matters that may be misleading, harmful or offensive. We accept the

      97
      "misleading, harmful or offensive" formulation introduced in the Lords amendment. However, some of the matters that are regulated by way of the current codes, and which will need to continue to be regulated, appear to fall outside the scope of that amendment. We have identified two specific areas where we believe that there must be a proper basis for the inclusion of these additional matters in the code. They are the continuation of the ban on political advertising, which has widespread support in the House, and the discharge of the United Kingdom's international obligations. The Government amendments would make those matters standards objectives in their own right, regulated by the code, and include them in the aspects of clause 314 that relate to advertisement and sponsorship.
      Lords amendment No. 116 would apply the standards objective for the protection of children to the provisions of clause 314 on advertisement and sponsorship. Our amendments in lieu would not overturn that, but that is an exception to our overall approach. The general framework of clause 314(1) is designed to pick out the provisions in the standards objectives that apply specifically to advertising.
      Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State mentioned the codes for children and for political advertising. However, she has not mentioned the code that controls the way in which a crime is depicted in an advert. It is part of the codes of the Radio Authority and the Independent Television Commission that the perpetrator is always caught. One can see that in such advertisements. Do the amendments mean that the codes will be outside the scope of the Bill?
      8.30 pm
      Tessa Jowell: Perhaps I can revert to the hon. Gentleman's point later. I shall continue to set out the case and logic for our amendments. As I said, the general framework in clause 314(1) will pick out aspects of the standards objectives that apply specifically to advertising rather than including the other standards in clause 312, which apply to other sorts of programmes as well as advertising. All the standards objectives in clause 312 apply to television, radio programmes and advertisements when they are relevant.
      Let us consider amendments Nos. 117 and 118. The simpler of the two, amendment No. 118, rectifies the omission of referendum broadcasts, to which equivalent provisions to those for party political broadcasts apply. I expect cries of delight from the Opposition Benches.
      Amendment No. 117 clarifies clause 314(7). It rectifies a weakness in the Bill's drafting, which has been discussed and came to light in proceedings on an appeal to the Appellate Committee. The interpretation of the provisions appeared likely to cause argument. The appeal was by the BBC against the Court of Appeal judgment that its refusal to broadcast the ProLife Alliance's party election broadcast in 2001 was unlawful. The Department was informed that an argument had been advanced that the draft Bill precluded the application of standards, especially those of taste and decency, to party political broadcasts. It was argued that a party political broadcast need not comply with the standards set by Ofcom under what is now clause 302 because clause 314(7) meant that
      98
      transmission could not be prohibited on the grounds of standards. Such a change of policy was not the Government's intention and the Appellate Committee was informed of that. The amendments put the position beyond doubt: the standards objectives apply to all broadcast material.
      I confirm to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that all the objectives in clause 312(2) apply to all programmes, including advertisements.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Once again, the steam has gone out of the issue and the Government have proposed an acceptable formula. As the Secretary of State knows, there was genuine concern that the word "unsuitable" was vague and capable of several different interpretations. That contrasted greatly with the existing wording in the codes of the ITC and the Radio Authority, of "misleading, harmful or offensive". It was not clear why the Government wanted to substitute "unsuitable" for the existing wording, and it caused the industry anxiety. However, after the vote in the House of Lords, the Government have tabled an amendment that is acceptable to the industry. We do not therefore wish to oppose the amendment.
      On the other two amendments that the Secretary of State has tabled, I was delighted to hear that the ban on political advertising will also take into account a ban on advertising in any future referendum campaign. She was careful not to say when such a ban might have to be used, but I trust that it will not be for some considerable time. On that basis, I have no further comments.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 116 disagreed to.
      Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 115 and 116 agreed to.
      Lords amendments 117 to 129 agreed to.

    Clause 340

      MODIFICATION OF DISQUALIFICATION PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No, 130.
      Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendments (a) to (1) in lieu thereof.
      Tessa Jowell: The Government are asking the House to overturn amendments made in another place to remove all restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcasting licences. We do not think that it is right to remove those restrictions in their entirety, but we have listened carefully and sympathetically to the many points raised in debates in this House and the other place. The amendments offered in lieu address many of the concerns raised by this issue.
      Earlier today, I spoke to the Bishop of Manchester and outlined to him the steps that the Government intended to take, and the argument on this issue that we intended to put to the House tonight. I had met the bishop some weeks ago in his capacity as leader of a

      99
      delegation of Members of the House of Lords and others who were concerned about this issue. He felt that progress had been made as a result of those discussions.
      Before explaining why we think that the restrictions should be reintroduced, albeit in a modified form, I would like to emphasise that the Government are not in any sense anti-religious, or opposed to religious broadcasters or religious broadcasting. We recognise that faith communities play an integral part in the life of the UK and should be reflected in the broadcast media. We also firmly recognise that religious programming is an important element of public service broadcasting, and have amended the Bill to ensure that it can better be reflected in the Bill's definition of public service broadcasting.
      Our amendments require public service broadcasters to include programmes providing history, news and information about different religions and other beliefs, as well as showing acts of worship and other ceremonies. In terms of the BBC, the 1996 agreement between the corporation and the Government identifies religious programmes as a specific strand to be provided within the corporation's television and radio services in the UK. The BBC remains committed to religious broadcasting across its services. Its statements of programme policy for the current year include an undertaking to provide 112 hours of religious programming across BBC1 and BBC2, which I welcome.
      The Bill will remove all unnecessary restrictions on religious bodies holding licences. Religious bodies can already hold a wide range of licences offering significant broadcasting opportunities, including local analogue radio licences and licences for radio and TV cable and satellite services. The Bill will widen those opportunities still further, allowing religious bodies to hold licences to allow them to provide national and local digital radio services, digital terrestrial TV services and TV restricted services.
      Those changes brought in by the Bill have been widely welcomed. Listening to some of the commentators, however, one could get the impression that there was a complete ban on religious broadcasters holding any licences. That is not the case. The only remaining significant restrictions on religious bodies holding broadcasting licences will relate to Channel 3 and Channel 5, national analogue radio licences and multiplex licences.
      To put all that in context, under our proposals religious bodies will be unable to hold 20 licences for broadcasting programmes—the 16 ITV licences, the Channel 5 licence and the three national radio licences. They can, however, hold any of the almost 900 cable, satellite and digital broadcasting licences. As a matter of fact, religious bodies currently hold about 40 UK broadcasting licences of one sort or another.
      Our policy, reflected throughout the many debates on the Bill, is to have as few restrictions as necessary. We allow religious bodies to hold different kinds of broadcasting licences where that is consistent with satisfying as many viewers and listeners as possible and giving equal respect to everyone's beliefs. We wish to avoid a situation where, through scarcity of
      100
      broadcasting spectrum allocated to a particular kind of licence, some religions achieve access to the airwaves but others do not. Where there is no broadcast spectrum scarcity—such as with cable and satellite—there are no restrictions, because there are sufficient opportunities for several religions to offer services, and for other non-religious services to co-exist with them, to offer a diversity of services. It follows that restrictions could be removed in the event that significant new broadcasting spectrum became available. That would not require primary legislation, but could be done by order.
      It also follows that in the event of any new classes of licence being introduced, we will carefully consider whether religious organisations should be able to hold them. There will not be a presumption that they cannot. The decision will turn, as now, on a question of broadcast spectrum scarcity. As I will explain later, we are proposing to amend the Bill to reinforce that point.
      I should like to concentrate on the case for the continuing restriction on national analogue radio licences. There are at present only three national analogue licences, and there is not enough spectrum to allow more services of that kind. Given that, we believe that it would not be appropriate for one of those licences to go to a religious organisation. That is because we do not think that a religious radio service, however popular it might be with many, would have sufficient appeal to justify its having one of only three national licences. To that is added our concern that it would be invidious, and perhaps unfair, for only one religion to have a national station while the others did not.
      The effect of the Bill will be to increase substantially the range of licences that religious organisations can hold. The restrictions that remain relate to areas of broadcasting where the opportunities to broadcast are limited due to scarcity of spectrum.
      It has been suggested that a decision on whether to award a licence to a religious body should be left to Ofcom's discretion. I do not agree. One of the aims of the present, limited disqualification is that scarce spectrum should be used to satisfy as many viewers and listeners as possible. Although I wish neither to denigrate the religious stations that exist nor to deny that they do a good job on their own terms and have a very loyal listenership, all the evidence is that such services do not have mass appeal.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Lansley: Is the Secretary of State not perpetuating the myth that the decision on whether the owner of a given licence, or a media asset associated with a licence, is a religious body or person automatically presupposes that the owner would wish to broadcast religious programmes to a greater extent and in a particular form? In other contexts, the Secretary of State and her colleagues have argued repeatedly that the licence conditions in the Bill prevent such a distortion of the purposes of a given channel. Why does it suddenly become possible in the case of a religious owner?
      Tessa Jowell: That is an interesting question, but I think it must be a working assumption that a religious organisation seeking to acquire a broadcasting licence does so for a reason connected with the expression of a faith, although that might not occupy 24 hours of a day

      101
      or, at any rate, all the broadcasting time available. Surely it is fair to assume that a religious organisation would wish to express its faith, and the character of that faith, through the broadcasting that it chose to schedule.
      Mr. Lansley: My point does not relate to whether the Secretary of State's assumption is fair. We could debate that at length. My point is that she and her colleagues have argued that, notwithstanding the assumption, the protections in the Bill relating to licence conditions would be sufficient to prevent such an eventuality in any case. Why does she need to perpetuate discrimination in the structure of ownership to protect the format of a given licence, when those other protections can be applied?
      Tessa Jowell: We apply the same logic—the same argument—to political organisations. In their case there is an outright ban, as opposed to the heavily qualified restriction that we propose in relation to religious organisations. Members should recognise the progress that has been made in opening access to religious organisations during the Bill's progress.
      Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Tessa Jowell: I want to make some progress.
      The case for restriction is especially relevant in the case of national analogue radio licences. In their case, Ofcom's discretion is limited as such licences are normally awarded to the highest bidder unless exceptional circumstances apply.
      Given the evidence of the limited appeal of religious stations, we do not think it would be right to allow a well-financed religious organisation to buy one of only three national analogue licences and run it as a subsidised minority-interest service when the primary purpose of the broadcasting legislation is to ensure that services are calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests; but without a ban, that could happen. A well-funded religious organisation could outbid all other organisations, including other religious organisations, to broadcast religious material.
      The rationale for the bidding system for national licences is that it enables the market to deliver a popular and sustainable service. The highest bid is thus a proxy for wide appeal. But the system will not work if people act in a way that is not market-oriented. A well-funded religious body could run its national service on a noncommercial basis through subsidy and subscriptions.
      Andrew Selous: I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber for the earlier part of the debate.
      I am interested in the Secretary of State's argument, as it is my understanding that no other professional broadcasters have actually been refused access to a licence for reasons of spectrum scarcity. I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire
      (Mr. Lansley). Can the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to why religious bodies are put into a separate category and treated as no other country treats them?
      Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman is right. The argument for limiting access to religious organisations relates to spectrum scarcity. It follows from that—as
      indeed one would assume—that if no restriction were to exist, it is perfectly possible that a wide range of religious organisations would want to apply for licences. It then follows that it would not be fair, given the small number of licences to which we are referring, not to offer fair competition to the wide range of religious organisations that might want to bid for those licences. Certainly until analogue switch-off, the argument turns on that precise point about spectrum scarcity and applies specifically to the services that I identified.
      Mr. Lansley: In the terms of the Secretary of State's argument, if, under the provisions of the Bill relating to spectrum trading, a religious body were to try to acquire enough spectrum to make it available for broadcast purposes—for example, for a further analogue sound broadcast licence—would the Secretary of State have any objection to a religious body offering a fourth such licence by using its own spectrum?
      Tessa Jowell: Were those circumstances to arise, the decision would be for Ofcom, not for the Secretary of State.
      To continue my argument, the system that I was outlining would not necessarily produce a popular service; indeed, the need to rely on subsidies rather than on advertising suggests the opposite. It is hard to see what other sorts of body would adopt a similar approach. Conventionally, commercial bidders for such a licence will naturally aim to provide a popular service with wide appeal so as to ensure a financially viable business.
      The need to treat all religions fairly and to use scarce spectrum in a way designed to appeal to a wide range of tastes and interests, combined with the particular way in which national analogue radio licences are awarded, convinces us that retaining a ban on religious bodies holding such licences is essential.
      It is frequently alleged that our policy is not compatible with the European convention on human rights. We have taken legal advice, however, and are convinced that the remaining restrictions are fully compatible with our commitments under the European convention on human rights. The Joint Committee on Human Rights believes that the restrictions are likely to be compatible. The European Court of Human Rights has declared inadmissible the most recent challenges to our restrictions. It is important to make clear a point that was raised in the earlier stages of the Bill: we are aware of no current challenges in Strasbourg to the status of religious broadcasting under the European convention on human rights.
      Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way a second time. I should like to return briefly to her argument about spectrum scarcity. I am puzzled as to why no other Government in the world are arguing in the way that she is about spectrum scarcity. France and the Netherlands have just released a raft of new analogue frequencies. On her point about licences being divisive and unfair to religious broadcasters, religious broadcasters tell me that they only want to be

      103
      treated in the same way as any other organisation and to have exactly the same criteria for fit and proper persons applied to them. Surely that is not too much to ask.
      Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman asks about spectrum availability. Regardless of the circumstances in relation to the disposal of spectrum in other countries, only enough broadcast spectrum is available in the United Kingdom for three national analogue licences. I reiterate something that I hope that I have already made clear to the House: if things were to change, we would review the situation.
      On the question, asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), about how a religious organisation might procure spectrum, perhaps a better answer than the one that I gave earlier is that such things could be considered if they were to arise and would be subject to the Secretary of State's order-making powers.
      I hope—I have no great certainty—that I have persuaded hon. Members on both sides of the House that the ongoing restrictions are made necessary by reason of spectrum scarcity. I should like to take this opportunity to comment on the words used in the communications White Paper. In explaining the reasons for placing restrictions on religious broadcasting, we referred to religious broadcasting's "particular capacity to offend". That was an unfortunate and unnecessary phrase, and I am quite sure that we would not use the same words if we were publishing the White Paper today.
      The Government amendments will reverse what might described as the default position in the case of religious bodies. At present, religious bodies are disqualified persons for all licences, but, at Ofcom's discretion, they can hold certain licences listed in the legislation. The Bill, as passed by the House in March, would have retained an approach by which, if a new category of licence had been introduced, religious bodies would have been disqualified automatically. The Government amendments make it clear that religious bodies will be disqualified only in relation to licences specified in the Bill. They are now ruled in until ruled out, rather than the other way around. The issue has caused concern in the religious community, and I believe that that modest change will be welcomed.
      We have already recognised in the communications White Paper that the restriction on religious bodies holding local digital sound programme service licences is an anomaly. We recognise that the restrictions that we propose to lift may be causing commercial difficulties for some religious broadcasters. Therefore, subject to the Bill being passed with the continuing modified restrictions, we also propose to implement those parts of the Bill that remove restrictions on religious broadcasters two months after Royal Assent.
      Subject to the will of Parliament, it is still our intention to implement all other ownership changes in December, so I hope that religious broadcasters will not have to wait any longer than necessary before they can take up new broadcasting opportunities. Government amendments (h) to (k) are also necessary to achieve that, as they allow the ITC and the Radio Authority to stand in Ofcom's shoes for those purposes until Ofcom acquires its substantive licensing functions at the end of this year.
      104
      The Bill will usher in a new era for religious broadcasters, with greatly increased access to broadcasting licences. If the Bill is agreed, the restrictions on local and national digital radio programme licences should be lifted by the middle of September. Once that happens, new opportunities will open up. For example, local digital radio multiplexes are still being licensed, so religious broadcasters can seek to obtain some of those new slots. In the case of existing radio multiplexes, there should still be chances for religious bodies to get slots on those multiplexes that are currently unfilled or become vacant in the future. There are also opportunities, as I have already mentioned, to take up radio slots on Freeview.
      9 pm
      We are confident that Ofcom will take its duties with regard to religious broadcasting seriously and, mindful of its role in maintaining and strengthening public service television broadcasting, will not be content to see religious broadcasting relegated to inaccessible parts of the television schedule. Broadcasters who want to make a significant change to current levels of output, as set out in their statements of programme policy, are required to consult with Ofcom before they can do so.
      We remain convinced that, for the present, the case for some restrictions remains. But where restrictions can be removed, they have been removed. The Bill offers enormous possibilities for religious broadcasters that I hope they will seize.
      Finally, I have told the Bishop of Manchester that I would like to convene a forum for a discussion with religious broadcasters of how they see the future of religious broadcasting developing. That will provide an opportunity for those with an interest to have a continuing dialogue with the Government. We will arrange that later this year. I have dealt with this matter at some length and in some detail, because of the sensitivity of the issues and the concerns that have been expressed, and I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Whittingdale: It is a matter for genuine disappointment that at the end of the nine-month consideration of the Bill and all the amendments on the Order Paper today we are left with this one, on which we still have no meeting of minds. We continue to believe that the disqualification of religious bodies from holding any form of broadcasting licence causes great offence to those communities and is unnecessary under present law.
      The Secretary of State is right to say that considerable progress has been made. Some 13 years ago, religious organisations were not able to hold any licences at all. Since then, exemptions have been granted for satellite radio and local analogue radio licences. The Bill represents further progress in allowing religious organisations to apply for more kinds of licence. Now, in the amendment that the Government have tabled tonight, they have changed what the Secretary of State described as the default position, so that instead of the Bill specifying what kinds of licences religious organisations can apply for, it will specifically identify the licences for which they cannot apply. To that extent, the Government's amendment is welcome, as is the relaxation that the Bill already contains. However, it still does not go far enough.

      105
      The Secretary of State mentioned that she had had a conversation with the Bishop of Manchester in which she had set out the proposals that she was making tonight and he had said that he welcomed them as progress. We see them as progress, but I do not believe that the Bishop of Manchester no longer wishes to see the disqualifications removed from the statute book. I think that he also still believes that there are concerns about the human rights aspect, and he recognises that it will not go anything like far enough to satisfy a large number of people in the industry. To that extent, the Bishop of Manchester should perhaps have another opportunity to express his view in person when the amendment returns to the other place.
      As I said, progress has been made, but the Secretary of State fails to grasp the point, as the Government have repeatedly failed to do ever since this matter was first raised, that the concern is not how many licences or what kind of licences religious organisations should be allowed to apply for or be disqualified from applying for. It is the fact that religious organisations are singled out in statute as somehow inappropriate to apply for particular kinds of licences—that somehow they are so unacceptable that they need to be named in the Bill as not able even to apply for those licences. There is almost certainly no religious organisation that has any great interest in applying for any of the categories of licence that the Bill sets out. In promoting the amendment, we do not intend to say that ITV should be bought by a religious organisation or that a national radio analogue licence should be bought by a religious organisation. All that we, and the religious organisations, are saying, and have been saying ever since this matter first arose, was that they should at least be allowed to put in an application, and that that should be judged according to the usual procedure.
      In defending the Government's position, the Secretary of State referred, as the Government have done several times in the past, to the argument about spectrum scarcity. It is by no means accepted by a large number of people that there really is the spectrum scarcity that she claims that there is and that would justify the Government's position. A former Minister in her Department, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—I am sorry that he is not here, but I do not think that he will mind me quoting him—said:
      "As Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I was not satisfied with my officials' changing answers when I investigated the Christian broadcasters' disqualification. I believed in their democratic freedom to broadcast to the third of a million people who wrote and petitioned the Department, asking to be allowed to listen. The consumer need could easily have been met, if officials had allowed the Christian music broadcasters to use the additional national radio frequency from the Isle of Man."
      He finished:
      "It was never a technical matter when I was Minister, I don't believe it is a matter of spectrum now. I believed then, and I believe now, that religious broadcasters should bid for national and local licences on a level playing field with other applicants".
      As I said, I do not think that he will mind me quoting him, as he is also a co-signatory to the early-day motion that I tabled, which has been signed by 68 Members from all parts of the House, calling on the Government not to reverse this Lords amendment.
      Real problems have been caused already. Liberty AM women's radio, which is owned by religious people, was disqualified, because of that, from applying for a digital
      106
      audio broadcasting licence. Unlike the other local radio licences, it was not given an opportunity to have an automatic roll-over of its analogue licence, which, I understand, cost the station some £4 million. In addition, Premier Christian radio, which is now the only remaining religious radio station in London, faces a new hurdle with the potential switch to digital radio mondiale. That matter has been raised with the Department in the past, and the Government have been asked whether Premier will be able to continue broadcasting on a DRM multiplex, with perhaps a variety of different stations, or whether it will be a casualty of this provision. The Government have still not replied on that, and we need to have the answer.
      The Government have also said, as the Secretary of State has repeated tonight, that they do not believe that there are problems in relation to the European convention on human rights. She said that the Government have taken legal advice, and that they are now advised that the provision is not incompatible with the convention. Whether or not that is the legal advice, will the Secretary of State read carefully a speech made by Lord Brennan in the other place? He is a distinguished lawyer and he set out clearly real concerns about whether the provisions are compatible with human rights legislation.
      Lord Brennan said:
      "The Bill seeks, among its objectives, to make provision for the regulation of… broadcasting. Such a statutory objective is of democratic import; therefore, if we find in its terms a provision that a significant proportion of society shall not be allowed even to apply for a radio/TV licence, nationally as well as locally, our democratic antennae should very carefully be switched on to find out why."
      I shall not read the whole of his speech, although I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the subject, but he continued:
      "The result … is that the argument that there is no available frequency is simply unacceptable. It begins to concern me democratically. The Human Rights Committee of the House has asked the Government for a reasoned explanation, so the Government must give an answer. I have not seen one … The first step in the argument is the democratic right; the second is why the Government are justified in restricting it … These proposals do not come before the Committee on behalf of religiously inclined citizens of this country, but from me as a democrat. I do not understand why those who would wish to tune into religious broadcasting in this country should find themselves in the same legislative slot as politicians or advertising agencies."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2003; Vol. 648, c. 1497–98.]
      Despite the Government's assurance that the provision might not technically be incompatible with current human rights legislation, some of our finest human rights lawyers are raising real concerns that human rights would be damaged in this country and that there is no real justification for that to happen. We have argued that existing restrictions on the allocation of licences that are available to the authorities already provide sufficient protection. Even if that were not the case before, the Government today introduced a new provision in the form of the plurality or public interest test. I said that I was not a wild enthusiast of the public interest test but it specifically provides that if the Secretary of State decides that it would not be in the public interest to award or transfer a licence, she will be allowed to raise questions. A raft of safeguards now exists to prevent undesirable people from acquiring

      107
      licences. That is why we continue to be unconvinced that there is any necessity for religious organisations to be singled out in such a way in the Bill.
      The matter is causing great concern in the House of Lords, where the Lords amendment was supported in all parts, and hon. Members of this House from all parties are also worried. Even now, I ask the Government to consider the matter again and accept Lords amendment No. 130 rather than insisting on the Government amendments.
      Nick Harvey: I echo the disappointment of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that at the end of our long and tortuous process and after there have been sensible compromises and progress toward a consensus on so many issues, the Government have not met their opponents halfway on this matter. They continue to want to include a blatantly discriminatory measure in primary legislation to provide who can and cannot hold broadcasting licences on the basis of who those people are. No account is taken of what they would want to do with the licence or their programme format or content or market ploy. The Government simply want to use primary legislation to ban people on the basis of who they are. That is fundamentally wrong. Despite the Secretary of State's confident assurances about the human rights implications, I am convinced that that will catch up with them in the fullness of time and they will be found to be wrong. It is not possible to begin to justify the proposal in fundamental principle.
      9.15 pm
      As hon. Members said, the Government proposal is not necessary. We have equipped Ofcom with a raft of tools that it can use to regulate the media, any number of which would be applicable. It has close powers over the format of radio stations and their programming. If they get into a realm that is faintly political—I questioned witnesses on this when they came before the Pre-legislative Scrutiny Committee—they are subject to the same rules on impartiality and balance as others in the media. The addition of the plurality test gives Ofcom a serious way of dealing with spectrum scarcity.
      The Government have grappled with the absurd principle that the licences should be granted to the highest bidder. If they want to find a way out of the conundrum they should re-examine that idea. It is far fetched to maintain that British society, culture or democracy is under threat from people who want to play Christian music on the radio. I do not understand the Government's concern about that.
      David Burnside: In the part of the UK that I come from, religion is, perhaps, slightly higher up the list of topics for discussion, both historically and at present, than it is in other parts of the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no support from any part of the political spectrum in my area for discrimination
      108
      against the religious sector's ability to have total access to broadcasting under the right regulatory framework? Does that not say something to the rest of the UK?
      Nick Harvey: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. If the idea does not raise hackles in his community in Northern Ireland, that gives the lie to the view that the matter is of great concern to all.
      It is a human rights issue. I am told that the religious freedom rapporteur of the UN's Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, has decided to investigate religious disqualification in UK broadcasting law. That does not surprise me. One would expect that because it is so very wrong in basic principle. As hon. Members said, no other country is resorting to such crude methods to control who broadcasts.
      We should remember that we are talking about religious persons as well as religious bodies. For example, the formula adopted by the Government will disqualify Olave Snelling, a broadcaster and former trustee with London Premier radio in the independent sector, from applying in consortium with others for national analogue TV or radio licence, yet she previously produced BBC national religious radio and TV programmes, for which she received licence fee-payers' money. We clearly thought that that was in the public good. If she wants to produce similar programmes for a similar audience, she will be banned from doing so and cast into darkness as an unfit person.
      The Government have to go further. Re-imposing the disqualification will drive yet more of our UK religious broadcast companies into the hands of European partners and some of those will start to use serious financial muscle to challenge the disqualification in the courts. I believe that the Government's case will eventually come apart. I do not know what consideration they have given to the impact of that or what it will cost.
      Mr. Timms: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Does he accept that the central concern of the effective and well supported campaign on the issue has been that religiously owned radio stations should have access to digital national licences, which the Bill allows? The central concern has not been analogue licences.
      Nick Harvey: I hear the Minister's point. Among those who campaigned on the issues, different people will have had different concerns—depending on whether one talked to a bishop or to a more commercially mobilised operator. My concern is that it s fundamentally wrong to ban in primary legislation particular people or organisations from being allowed even to apply for a broadcast licence. We have regulators who are perfectly capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff and of deciding what constitutes a balanced programme for the public within a scarce spectrum. The Government are simply wrong and will have to go back to the drawing board.
      Mr. Lansley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on this matter, but I should like to reinforce one or two points.

      109
      The exchange with the Secretary of State on the availability of spectrum under spectrum trading adequately demonstrated that, although the Government contend that the argument is about scarce spectrum, it is not. They cannot offer an answer when tested on their proposition in the light of additional spectrum becoming available. They are proposing a ban that will apply regardless of the amount of additional spectrum that is made available, even though Ministers could then make an order to modify such change.
      When the Secretary of State compared the proposed ban with one on political organisations, she demonstrated that the argument is not about spectrum scarcity. The Government say not that they are stopping political organisations owning such licences because of the scarcity of spectrum, but that—they said this to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee—political organisations should continue to be banned from holding licences because they are not satisfied that such organisations or those holding office in them would be able to operate with the necessary impartiality. Nobody is disputing that point; we are disputing that that proposition should not apply to religious bodies.
      The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) got to the point of the matter. One can well understand how granting one political party access to licences would be seen as undermining other political organisations that are directly in competition with it. Indeed, the entire population would probably regard such a move as unhealthy for our democracy. I do not find people from religious bodies saying, "If church X has access to a licence, church Y will be unhappy about it." I do not find people contending that religious organisations and persons—we must keep remembering this—holding office in them are somehow in competition with one another for a limited amount of spectrum, the purpose of which is to proselytise and evangelise.
      The religious context is unlike politics and the other contexts in which we have imposed bans because there are people who live their lives in a religious context. It is not right for us to discriminate against those who participate in religious bodies as office holders and want also to be active broadcasters, perhaps owning licences. I do not want us either to discriminate against those who live their lives in a religious context and want broadcast organisations that reflect their lives and provide them with a service.
      Mr. Paul Marsden: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that there is deep unease among many constituents and many Members on this issue? Is it not another example of the Government's control freakery and their need to be able control everything in sight?
      Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is making his own point about the Government. He has his own experience of the Government, which no doubt justifies his remarks. I shall not make such a crude political remark at the end of a stimulating and consensual debate in almost every other respect. However, the hon. Gentleman is right about the degree of concern. For reasons that are becoming increasingly difficult to discern, the Government are persisting in a blatant piece of legislative discrimination. We have reached the point where we cannot find any realistic prospect of religious
      110
      organisations coming forward to apply for licences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) was getting to the heart of the matter when he referred to the highest bidder? Is it a question of the Government choosing mammon rather than God?
      Mr. Lansley: I hope that that would not be the case.
      I do not think that the Government were getting anywhere near the heart of the matter when it came to the issue of the highest bidder. When these licences are to be provided, there is a backstop power so that the licences cannot necessarily be exercised in ways that would be contrary to the intentions that lie behind the legislation.
      That is the curiosity. We do not have practical examples of what would contravene the Government's intentions. The Government talk about having to define licences that cannot be obtained, but at the same time leave in amendment (f), which is proposed in lieu of the Lords amendment, a mechanism that would require Ofcom to make determinations before people are able to apply for and exercise other licences. This strand of discrimination is still running right through the structure of the proposed legislation.
      It seems that within that structure, if the Government have realistic concerns about the nature of the way in which the licences would be held and used by religious bodies or persons associated with those bodies, Ofcom has the powers to deal with that situation. At the point of acquisition or of merger, if a large organisation is involved, the media merger rules and the media plurality test could bite. They could bite on anybody who was likely to prejudice the achievement of the standards objective that is set out in clause 312. If that objective was not contravened or if the licence was not of sufficient size to justify such a test, the fact of the licence itself and Ofcom's control over it mean that anyone who owns such a licence would not be able to use it in ways that would be prejudicial to the public interest. I find it difficult to understand why this discrimination is persisting. In these circumstances I would prefer that we accepted, with the Lords, that the discrimination should be done away with rather than sending anything back in lieu.
      Andrew Selous: I shall support briefly the comments of every Member who has spoken so far in the debate.
      The restrictions that are still left in the Bill cause practical problems. One example is Premier Christian Radio, which wants to have a digital radio multiplex licence. Without that it will have difficulties in developing its service in future. If the Secretary of State genuinely believes that all the religious broadcasters are happy with the concessions offered in the Bill, why does she think that they have lobbied the House and the other place so hard, and right up until today? Why does she think that they are so concerned about the issue?
      I received about 50 letters from my constituents last week on the matter. Constituents telephoned me and e-mailed me, and it is clear that they are extremely

      111
      concerned. I wonder what consultation the right hon. Lady has undertaken. The message that I pick up from my constituents is one of great concern. It has even been put to me that those religious broadcasters who will continue to suffer discrimination will, if necessary, move to France to rebroadcast to this country. That is because of the restrictions that are still set out in the Bill. That is a ridiculous situation and, like other hon. Members, I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter.
      9.30 pm
      Dr. Evan Harris: I speak as an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. I came to our debate uncertain about what I would do if there was a vote, because there are concerns out there about giving more freedom to religious organisations to apply for licences. However, I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that the right thing to do is oppose the Government in a Division, as it is not necessary to include such a provision in primary legislation, given that there are safeguards on content, which is what we should be talking about—it is about content, not ownership. I am happy to put that on the record because previously I have abstained on a vote on a ten-minute Bill on the subject and even voted against such a proposal.
      I should like to make another point about discrimination, which has been raised by all Members, but especially the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). It is reasonable that they should make such arguments on behalf of religious organisations, but may I gently stress to them that it works both ways? In public service broadcasting, where there is provision for religious broadcasting on the basis of both religion and belief, it should not be right that, as a quid pro quo for non-discrimination, people with atheistic, agnostic or purely secular beliefs should be excluded from participating in, for example, reserved slots such as "Thought for the Day", which is not described as religious broadcasting.
      I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reflect on that. I cannot go into it in any more detail, as it is not the subject of the amendments. When discrimination is cited, one must consider whether religious organisations or the law around religion seeks to discriminate against those without religion.
      Andrew Selous: My understanding is that "Thought for the Day" is in fact a religious slot, and that all faiths have the opportunity to use it. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that there are many other opportunities during the day for secular organisations to make their case?
      Dr. Harris: I do not want to go too far down that path, but humanism and atheism are a belief pattern. Indeed, an earlier Government amendment expands religion to include both religion and belief, thus including people who do not have a theistic faith but have atheistic beliefs. It is reasonable that there should not be exclusivity and discrimination in any of those
      112
      areas. Indeed, that can be seen in programmes that fall outside the category of so-called religious slots. One cannot turn on the radio without hearing bishops and. clerics arguing with one another about various important issues of the day. I do not want to overstress that point, but would like gently to urge hon. Members to consider the point that, in their effort to avoid being discriminated against, religious organisations should look carefully at themselves and the surrounding legislation to see whether they discriminate against people without religion.
      Tessa Jowell: Hon. Members have made wide-ranging points with considerable passion, and I respect entirely the sincerity and strength of feeling that the debate has engendered.
      I should like to respond to some of the specific points that have been made, starting with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) about DRM, a digital system that is currently being developed for use on AM frequencies. There is a worry that DRM may be licensed as a multiplex, and consequently religious bodies would be prevented from holding such licences under the proposed restrictions. The first point to make is that no decisions have been taken about the way in which DRM will be licensed. It may be licensable under existing legislation, or it may require new legislation. Whatever happens, I can categorically assure the House that the restrictions on such licences will be looked at again.
      The second set of arguments refer to discrimination and the charge made by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that no other country is arguing the position that our Government have adopted. It is important to remember that the position varies from country to country, depending on spectrum availability. Many countries are in a different position from ours, because of the widespread availability of cable networks there. The charge that the Government have not met their critics halfway is not true.
      I underline that by reminding the House that under our proposals, religious bodies would be excluded from holding 20 licences for broadcasting programmes—that is, 16 ITV licences, the Channel 5 licence and the three national radio licences. However, they could hold any one of almost 900 cable, satellite and digital broadcasting licences. Despite that availability, which has come about as a result of the change in rules, religious bodies still hold only about 40 UK broadcasting licences.
      Having listened carefully to the arguments, I find that they are rather overblown and disregard the concessions that have been made. They do not fully take account of the central point: we are speaking of disqualification from holding broadcasting licences on analogue. There are no restrictions—I repeat—there are no restrictions on religious groups holding broadcasting licences on digital. It is important that hon. Members who expressed their concerns take that point on board and understand it. The restriction arises because of the present scarcity of analogue spectrum capacity.
      The Government's proposal is not a discriminatory move. It is driven solely by spectrum scarcity. Content regulation, another means to which several hon.

      113
      Members referred, has a role to play but it is not the whole story. We are dealing only with national analogue radio licences and television licences, as I identified, in areas where there is spectrum scarcity. There is no discrimination in respect of the 900 possible licences that religious bodies can hold, the 20 that they cannot bid for or the 40 that they already hold. It is important that those in all parts of the House who continue to voice concerns and whose constituents continue to make representations take that point on board.
      In the course of debate and discussion over the past nine months—almost a year—progress has been made, and more digital spectrum has become available. The restrictions have therefore been lifted on holding licences on digital spectrum. The restriction is specific and is not intended to discriminate in any way against religious groups. It is intended to protect for the widest possible appeal the limited availability of analogue spectrum.
      The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred to the attitude of religious groups in Northern Ireland. Many of the groups responding to the Government's consultation supported a ban. Notwithstanding what hon. Members have said about the representations that they have received, many of the groups that responded supported a ban, including the Church of Ireland.
      We have had a long debate this afternoon and this evening. In the view of hon. Members on both sides of the House, we have established in it a remarkable degree of consensus across a wide range of issues relating to media ownership and broadcasting, as well as broadband and spectrum management. Those issues have been controversial, but the process of debate and parliamentary scrutiny has achieved a remarkable degree of agreement.
      The matter before us remains the final sticking point. I say this to hon. Members on both sides of the House: listen to the argument, set aside the claims about discrimination on religious grounds and accept the evidence in fact that the restrictions that we intend to maintain in the Bill are required by the present scarcity of analogue spectrum. If that situation changes, as with the availability of digital spectrum, we will obviously review and reassess the case. As of now, however, the Government's view is that that spectrum should be safeguarded for licences that will attract widespread appeal. Nobody has claimed that religious broadcasting attracts anything like a majority audience, and licences should be retained for services that will command a widespread and majority appeal. We should maintain the current restriction on their availability to religious organisations for the reasons that have been put before us. The dialogue with religious organisations about religious broadcasting and such issues more generally, as the availability of spectrum changes in future, will continue.
      This has been a hotly contested issue. I believe that the Government's position is right. It is a considered position and it represents deregulation and the unpicking of rules that the previous Conservative Government put in place. I commend the proposals to the House.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House proceeded to a Division.
      Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby. Here is the Whip now, so the Serjeant need not bother. We are all right.
      The House having divided: Ayes 314, Noes 175.

      Division No. 290]

      [9:43 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coleman, Iain

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Colman, Tony

      Ainger, Nick

      Connarty, Michael

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cousins, Jim

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Banks, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Battle, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beard, Nigel

      David, Wayne

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Davidson, Ian

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benn, Hilary

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Berry, Roger

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Best, Harold

      Denham, rh John

      Betts, Clive

      Dismore, Andrew

      Blackman, Liz

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Doran, Frank

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Flint, Caroline

      Bryant, Chris

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, rh Derek

      Burnham, Andy

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Cairns, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Challen, Colin

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clelland, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hanson, David

      115

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McWalter, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Healey, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Holmes, Paul

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, rh Alun

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Miliband, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Mole, Chris

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moran, Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Julie

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, rh John

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Mudie, George

      Illsley, Eric

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Owen, Albert

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pearson, Ian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Perham, Linda

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Picking, Anne

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Plaskitt, James

      Kidney, David

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Pound, Stephen

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Prescott, rh John

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lammy, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Purchase, Ken

      Lepper, David

      Purnell, James

      Leslie, Christopher

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Linton, Martin

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Rooney, Terry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCafterty, Chris

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salter, Martin

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sawford, Phil

      McNulty, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacShane, Denis

      Shaw, Jonathan

      116

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Sheridan, Jim

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Ward, Claire

      Soley, Clive

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Southworth, Helen

      Watts, David

      Spellar, rh John

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Woolas, Phil

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Worthington, Tony

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Paul Clark

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Allan, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Amess, David

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Evans, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Fabricant, Michael

      Barker, Gregory

      Fallon, Michael

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Flight, Howard

      Bellingham, Henry

      Flook, Adrian

      Bercow, John

      Forth, rh Eric

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Boswell, Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brazier, Julian

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Breed, Colin

      Goodman, Paul

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burnett, John

      Greenway, John

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, rh John

      Burnside, David

      Hague, rh William

      Burstow, Paul

      Hammond, Philip

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Cameron, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Heald, Oliver

      Chidgey, David

      Heath, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hendry, Charles

      Collins, Tim

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Conway, Derek

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Dodds, Nigel

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      117

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Ruffley, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Leigh, Edward

      Selous, Andrew

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Lidington, David

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

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Loughton, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Maclean, rh David

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Malins, Humfrey

      Streeter, Gary

      Maples, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Syms, Robert

      Maude, rh Francis

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mercer, Patrick

      Thurso, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Tredinnick, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Moore, Michael

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Walter, Robert

      Öpik, Lembit

      Waterson, Nigel

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Ottaway, Richard

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Page, Richard

      Weir, Michael

      Paice, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Pickles, Eric

      Wiggin, Bill

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Willetts, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Wilshire, David

      Randall, John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Redwood, rh John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hugh Robertson

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed that that Division took 17 minutes. I have no difficulty with that, but I hope that it sets a precedent. Although the Government delayed the House on this occasion, I hope that you will not hold it against the Opposition if, occasionally, our Divisions take 17 minutes due to the important discussions that we like to have with colleagues in the Lobby. I hope also that you can assure me of your even-handedness in these matters and that we have entered a new era of Divisions.
      Mr. Speaker: About a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman reminded me that I worked in a Rolls-Royce engineering factory. Time and motion used to work to stopwatches. I did not like it, so I do not work to a stopwatch.
      It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Government amendments (a) to (l) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 130 agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 278 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

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

    IMMIGRATION
    That the draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    OFFICIAL SECRETS
    That the draft Official Secrets Act 1989 (Prescription) (Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.

    IMMIGRATION
    That the draft Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 16 July, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security (Jobcentre Plus Interviews for Partners) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Mr. Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 16 July, pursuant to Orders [June 28 2001 and 29 October 2002]
    Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 7 to 10.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
    That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2003, Which were laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) (No. 2) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

    INSOLVENCY
    That the draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) (Administrative Receivership and Urban Regeneration etc.) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

    DRAFT BUDGET AND ANNUAL POLICY STRATEGY
    That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum from HM Treasury dated 5th June relating to the Preliminary Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 2004, and European Union Document No. 7229/03, Commission Communication on the Annual Policy Strategy for 2004; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

    IDENTIFICATION OF OVINE AND CAPRINE ANIMALS (SHEEP AND GOATS)
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15829/02, draft Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals and amending Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92; and supports the Government's view that this proposal does not take account of the way in which the United Kingdom sheep and goat industry operates, nor of the enhanced system of identification and traceability already in place in the UK, which is sufficient for animal health disease control purposes until an economical and affordable electronic identification system is available.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    Question agreed to.

    SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,

    That—

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

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

    Hon. Members: Object.

    MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT CHANGES: AMENDMENTS TO STANDING ORDERS
    Motion made,

    That—

    (1) Standing Order No. 94 (Scottish Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Scottish' and inserting 'Scotland';

    (2) Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committees (questions for oral answer)) be amended in line 2 by leaving out the second 'Welsh' and inserting 'Wales';

    (3) Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be amended in the table in paragraph (6), as follows:

    (a) in line 5, by leaving out 'Transport, Local Government and the Regions' and inserting 'Transport; Office of the Deputy Prime Minister';

    (b) in line 12, by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Department for Constitutional Affairs (excluding those responsibilities of the Scotland and Wales Offices which fall to European Standing Committee A)';

    (4) Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the Table in paragraph (2), as follows:

    (a) before item 1 insert

    '1 Constitutional Affairs

    Department for Constitutional 11':. affairs (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, and excluding the work of the Scotland and Wales Offices and of the Advocate General for Scotland)

    (b) leave out the item relating to the Lord Chancellor's Department inserted on 27th January;

    (c) in item 16, leave out 'Welsh Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))' and insert 'Wales Office (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales)'; and

    (5) the Order of 5th November 2001 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out 'Lord Chancellor's Department' and inserting 'Constitutional Affairs'.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

    Hon. Members: Object.

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

    HOME AFFAIRS
    Ordered,
    That Mr Chris Mullin, Bridget Prentice and Mr Tom Watson be discharged from the Committee and that Mr John Denham, Janet Anderson and Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas be added.—[Mr. McWilliams, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    WELSH AFFAIRS
    Motion made,
    That Mr Bill Wiggin be discharged from the Committee and that Mr Nigel Evans be added.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    INFORMATION
    Ordered,
    That Michael Fabricant be discharged from the Committee and that Mr Michael Jack be added.—[Mr. McWilliams, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Bamburac Family
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the friends and supporters of the Bamburac family. It asks the House to ask the Home Secretary to allow the family to stay in Britain, and not to deport them to Croatia. Mr. Bamburac is of Serbian ancestry.
  The petition has attracted 1,411 signatures in just over a week. Most of the petitioners are my constituents—friends and neighbours of the Bamburac family. That is clear evidence that the family have settled into the life of our community in Newcastle. They have lived in Newcastle for the past five years; their daughter Sabrina is now 10, and has learnt English with an endearing Geordie accent, made friends, and settled into school. It is Sabrina who makes this case so special. She is an unusually gifted tennis player, with a talent acknowledged in public, nationally, by the Lawn Tennis Association. Her human rights, enabling her to develop that talent in the country that she has made her home, would be cruelly infringed if the family were deported.
  To lie upon the Table.

Prison Medical Services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Charlotte Atkins.]
10.8 pm
Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise issues about prison medical services, although I very much regret the circumstances that gave rise to this debate as I had hoped that the issues could be resolved in correspondence with the Home Office and the prison medical service. However, my constituent, Mr. John Tero, whose case I want to raise, is very seriously ill from the cancer that first developed and was untreated while he was in Woodhill prison. An ombudsman's inquiry takes time and, as my constituent says, time is not on his side. In fact, only this evening, he came out of hospital after another acute spell of illness.
I have some general questions about the working of the prison medical service but, more important, I want two specific things for Mr. Tero. The first is the payment of the £45 compensation that he was promised, and the second is an apology for the way in which he has been treated. I emphasise that Mr. Tero is innocent. He was convicted at the end of 2000, but at his appeal in December 2001, the conviction was found to be unsafe and the charges against him were dismissed. By then, however, it was too late for him.
Before Mr. Tero went into Woodhill, he developed a problem with his prostate gland and arrangements had been made for him to have an operation, which was duly carried out in May. He was discharged from hospital after three days and returned to Woodhill where he was put into an ordinary cell. He was then put into the medical wing for a couple of hours, but later—he estimates that it was about 11.30 at night—he was returned to the ordinary cell where he remained, despite suffering a severe haemorrhage some days later. He was given no help to clear that up, nor was he taken to the medical wing.
I am astonished at the way that my constituent was treated. Is it standard practice for prisoners who are discharged from hospital after surgery to be returned to an ordinary cell? In the interests of the Prison Service, I would have thought that prisoners in such circumstances would be kept under some degree of medical observation and I consider that what happened to him was excessively cruel.
It was after that, however, that Mr. Tero's problems really developed. He complained to the prison medical staff that he could not keep food down; he could not swallow and he could not eat. He was given indigestion tablets. He complained several times, but got nothing more than indigestion tablets.
Mr. Tero started to lose weight. He showed me the belt that he had worn in prison and I could see the notches where he had had to tighten the belt to stop his trousers from falling down during the months when he became more ill and steadily lost more weight. In late October, he was transferred to Wymott prison although he said that he felt too ill to be moved. At that stage, he could eat only soup and biscuits. He said that the staff at Wymott treated him better. He continued to complain that he was unable to eat, and was eventually—I believe on 12 December—admitted to Preston hospital for a day for tests, which found he had a tumour on the gullet.

123
In December when Mr. Tero's appeal came up in London, he was too ill to attend. He was released from prison shortly afterwards on 19 December.
On 9 January 2002, he was admitted to Northampton general hospital and was found to he suffering from cancer. He underwent radiotherapy and, several months later, surgery. However, this year the cancer came back, and he is now very seriously ill.
I have spoken to Mr. Tero's consultant who said that the particular cancer from which he suffered was a fast developing one, and early intervention was essential. He also said that the early warning of Mr. Tero's difficulty in swallowing should have alerted medical staff to the possibility of a serious problem.
Mr. Tero first came to me for help last November; he had a strong sense of injustice, and simply wanted an apology. However, what has happened since then has made things worse for him, not better. Over the past few months, we have been in correspondence with the Home Office, the Prison Service, the prison health policy unit and the Prison Service ombudsman, but we have not got much further.
First, there was a dispute about the clothes that Mr. Tero wore to hospital when he had his prostate operation. He said that they had been lost. The Home Office, in a letter from the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister, denied that. When Mr. Tero produced the copy of his lost property form, the Home Office conceded the point and agreed to pay him £45 compensation. Five months later, the compensation has still not been paid.
More important, there have been different stories about Mr. Tero's care and they raise more questions than they answer. Mr. Tero says that he complained of being sick, of not being able to eat, of not being able to swallow, and of losing weight. Indeed, he weighed only 66 kg when he arrived back in Northampton. The Prison Service said, through a letter from my hon. Friend's predecessor, that Mr. Tero's weight was stable. A second letter from the Prison Service stated that he had actually put on weight and weighed 77.8 kg on 4 October. How exactly did his weight go down from 77.8 kg on 4 October to 66 kg on 9 January?
It is claimed that Mr. Tero's only complaint was one of gastric reflux, despite the fact he made seven visits, as recorded by the Prison Service, to the doctor at Woodhill between 5 June and 4 October. There is no recognition by the prison medical service that he was unable to eat. Mr. Tero told me he had pretty much stopped eating completely by about August or September and that he ate only soup and biscuits when he was transferred. He also said that a prison officer at Wymott tried to get him special food that he could eat.
The Prison Service says that health care staff at Wymott were unaware that Mr. Tero no longer wished to attend his appeal, whereas my constituent said that he spoke to prison staff, that he had collapsed at least once by that stage and that the prison officer that he consulted agreed that he could not travel and sorted out some of the appeal arrangements for him.
In trying to pursue this matter, there has also been some dispute about whether the Prison Service ombudsman can deal with it, or whether it is down to the
124
prison health care policy unit. In the middle of all that, there is a desperately ill man who has a complaint—in my view, wholly justified—about the way in which he was treated. I have to say that, apart from my concerns about his treatment, the difficulty that I have had in getting a resolution also raises real concerns about the way that the prison medical services work. I therefore want to ask a number of questions not just about my constituent, but about the general policy.
First, on the general policy, about which I have asked questions previously, what are the procedures for prisoners who have been discharged from hospital? Should they be kept in a prison medical facility, or just put in an ordinary cell? What are the procedures for examining prisoners and recording their complaints? In particular, if they complain of eating difficulties, are they weighed or is their eating monitored in any way? Given that prisoners sometimes go on hunger strike, I should have thought that procedures would be in place to deal with those issues.
How long does a prisoner's consultation last with a prison doctor? What notes are kept of those consultations? What access do prisoners have to their medical files? What liaison takes place between the prison's medical staff and the rest of the prison staff? It appears, from what Mr. Tero said, that some of the prison staff were aware of his condition and tried to help him, but that did not seem to have been relayed back to the medical staff. For example, I understand that Mr. Tero collapsed on at least one occasion and that he was unable to get up on at least one occasion. On several occasions, other inmates did some of his tasks for him; he was simply unable to do them because of his poor state.
Would not it be normal in any institution for such events to have been noted and passed to the medical staff to deal with? Why are there no clear lines of accountability, so that the prison medical services can be properly held to account, instead of inquiries being batted between the prison ombudsman and the health care policy unit, as well as the Home Office and the Prison Service?
Secondly and most importantly, on behalf of my constituent, I want an apology. What has shocked me most in all this is that my constituent has had no apology and no recognition of the hardship that he has experienced. Having dealt with him for a number of months, I know that his hardship has been immense. I have watched while his health has declined and he has been completely unsupported and not helped by the Prison Service. By any account, he had a horrendous time and regained his liberty only to lose his health. Of course, it will always be debatable whether proper and timely intervention could have made a difference to the ultimate medical outcome, but he could at least have been spared the indignity and suffering that he has had to endure.
Public services must ensure that they respect people's humanity and, whether they are prison services or whatever, ensure that they treat people with the dignity that is their due. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could look at the bare facts of the case and fail to realise that they were dealing with a vulnerable, very sick, elderly and innocent man and that steps had to be taken to make amends.

125
What my constituent most wants is an apology, which will make a big difference to him in the time that he has left and end his burning sense of injustice about the way he was treated. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ensure that the £45 compensation that is outstanding—it is not very much—is paid very promptly, acknowledge that Mr. Tero was not properly treated and offer the apology that my constituent deserves.
10.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on her success in obtaining this debate. She set out eloquently and powerfully the complaints made by her constituent, Mr. John Tero, about his medical treatment while he was in prison in 2001. He believes that the Prison Service failed to give him proper access to adequate health care and treatment, despite his making repeated complaints about the symptoms, including substantial weight loss, of what turned out to be a serious medical condition. We are, of course, all deeply concerned to hear about his current state of health.
In my reply, I intend to refer to the wider context of health care in prisons, and the general improvements that are taking place under the partnership established in April 2000 between the national health service and the Prison Service. However, I shall begin by responding to the specific points that my hon. Friend made on her constituent's behalf. I know that she will understand if I do not go into the same detail as was possible in the exchange of private correspondence that she has already had with my predecessor and the director general of the Prison Service. Medical confidentiality limits the amount I can divulge in public. I will try to deal with as many of the points that my hon. Friend made as possible, but I will in any event write to her to give a full answer to every question that she has asked me this evening.
Mr. Tero was first received into Woodhill prison on 15 December 2000. He told staff that he had recently seen his GP about a medical problem and he subsequently underwent successful surgery for that problem in May 2001. On his return from surgery on 4 June, he had a full medical examination. He did not at that time report any significant symptoms. He did, however, report symptoms of a different condition on 16 July 2001 when he was seen by a prison doctor. The doctor prescribed medication.
My hon. Friend asked whether it is standard practice for a prisoner to be returned to his cell after surgery. That is a clinical decision in each case. Normally, prisoners are returned to the health care centre on their immediate return from hospital. Health care centres have cells, of course, and I do not know whether it was one of the cells in the medical centre to which Mr. Tero was returned. That is one of the points that I will clarify in the letter I send to my hon. Friend.
Later in July he was seen again. Similar symptoms had persisted and further medication was prescribed. He was seen again in August and September, and at a further appointment with a doctor on 4 October his weight was recorded. It had remained stable since the beginning of June. On 9 October 2001, Mr. Tero was
126
transferred to Wymott prison. On reception his continuing health problem was again identified and recorded. On 15 October, he consulted a doctor at Wymott with further symptoms. In view of that development, he was referred to a local NHS hospital for specialist investigation. The first appointment made for him was for 20 November but unfortunately it was cancelled at short notice. A new one was arranged for 12 December.
The investigation revealed a significant condition that merited further attention. The hospital made an appointment for 19 December. As my hon. Friend said, by coincidence that was the same day as Mr. Tero won his appeal and was released from Wymott. Prison staff advised him of the importance of keeping the hospital appointment but he preferred—perhaps understandably—to return home to Northampton and consult his own GP. Staff at Wymott informed the hospital about what had happened and subsequently forwarded details from the hospital to the GP.
My hon. Friend and her constituent are clearly dissatisfied with the responses that they have received to date from the Home Office and the Prison Service. I know that, in addition to bringing this matter to the attention of the House in this debate, my hon. Friend has referred the matter to the prisons and probation ombudsman. Although the clinical aspects of the complaint fall outside his jurisdiction, he has—I understand—agreed to examine the alleged administrative failings in the case. In addition to any other material that has been provided to the ombudsman, I shall ensure that he receives a full copy of the Official Report for this debate, so that all the information that my hon. Friend has provided tonight may be fully considered.
Ms Keeble: I wrote to the ombudsman for the second time on 27 May, and I have not had a reply yet. Is my hon. Friend saying that he has now agreed to take on the case, as he had not done so previously?
Paul Goggins: It is my understanding that the ombudsman has accepted the case, but I undertake to confirm that and to ensure that there is proper communication from the ombudsman to my hon. Friend, as that is the least that should happen in terms of indicating to her whether the case is to be considered. I assure her that I will look closely at the ombudsman's findings and take any remedial action that may be called for in the light of his conclusions.
My hon. Friend raised two specific questions. One was in relation to the payment of compensation, which she says is owing. I have in front of me a copy of a letter that she received from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) dated 11 February 2003, which refers specifically to an agreement that Mr. Tero would be offered £45 in compensation. I cannot understand why that payment has not been made in the months since, and I intend to follow it up as a matter of urgency, to make sure that all the problems are ironed out and that the payment is properly made.
Ms Keeble: As of today, that money had not been paid to my constituent, and he is very ill.
Paul Goggins: I assure my hon. Friend that I will follow the matter up first thing in the morning and ensure that any payment that is outstanding is made. I understand the circumstances in which that would happen.
My hon. Friend's second question was whether I would offer an apology to her constituent. Given my undertaking that I will follow up the inquiry with the ombudsman, I need to look at his findings before I make any firm commitment in that area. I also confirm tonight that I have decided to ask the director of prison health to arrange for an independent clinical review of this case and to report the outcome directly to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore be reassured to some extent that I want to deal with this case in as open and honest a manner as possible.
Ms Keeble: I understand that there are always cautions about making an apology, but does my hon. Friend accept that this matter is now six months on? If an ombudsman's inquiry would have sufficed, I would have left it at that. It seems, however, that at the very least my constituent has been given some very shoddy treatment, and it is fair that he should receive recognition of the fact that he has been badly treated—frankly, I would not treat a dog like that. That should be recognised and he should be given some form of apology for the suffering and hardship that he has experienced, which has been needless.
Paul Goggins: Rightly, my hon. Friend argues forcefully and powerfully again on behalf of her constituent. There is at least a possibility in relation to some of the assertions that have been made that that information would not be shared by the Prison Service or the medical staff within it. It is my responsibility as a Minister to weigh all the facts and to make a proper judgment in the light of all that as to whether an apology is owed. I will be the first to offer that apology if I judge that it is merited. I promise my hon. Friend that I will follow this issue through as swiftly as I can.
As I said at the outset, this debate takes place within the context of a major reform in the delivery of health services for prisoners that began in 2000 and has already led to significant improvements as services become mainstreamed within the national health service. With the exception of acute care, prison health services used to operate more or less independently of the NHS. This led to deep concern about growing isolation and the emergence of significant differences in the standards of health care afforded to prisoners compared with those enjoyed by the general public. In response to those concerns, the Government established a formal partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS in April 2000. Two new joint Home Office and Department of Health units—a prison health policy unit and a prison health care taskforce—were appointed to lead and manage a programme that was designed to modernise prison health services, increase NHS engagement with the prison population and introduce much improved performance monitoring arrangements. The organisational changes were accompanied by new investment to tackle substance misuse, mental health problems and communicable diseases.
The Prison Service has committed more than £60 million to improve health care centres and services in the three years since the new approach was adopted. All
128
prisons now have health needs assessment and improvement plans. They provide an important focus for prisons and their local health partners when planning and managing change and improving services. Increasingly, the plans are being incorporated in the local health economy, thus giving a clear signal that in future there will be full integration with local NHS planning.
A prison health work force strategy has been developed to broaden the base from which prison health workers are drawn, improve access to training and promote professional development, which was recommended by the report of the working group on doctors working in prisons and an earlier report on prison nursing. The appointment of a head of health care training at the Prison Service training college has also enabled robust and targeted training for health care workers to be developed.
Occupational standards have been introduced that reflect good NHS practice and provide the basis for an N VQ in custodial health care. Work is under way to ensure that prison-based health care staff have access to the same training opportunities as their NHS colleagues and that work force development confederations include prison staff in their planning and development activities.
Many of the worst examples of unsuitable and inflexible health facilities are being replaced or improved as part of a four-year capital investment programme that is worth more than £70 million. New purpose-designed health care centres are being built at Birmingham, Pentonville, Chelmsford, Hull and Feltham, where the quality of the existing health care facilities had frustrated modernisation and the introduction of much needed improvements to the quality of care for prisoners. Eight further substantial improvement schemes are planned for Liverpool, Norwich, Cardiff, Durham, Holloway, Parkhurst, Brixton and Dartmoor prisons. Improving arrangements for information sharing between the Prison Service and the NHS will help to improve the continuity of care for people as they pass between the community and prison.
Our plan for improving primary care in prisons is designed to increase integration with primary care planning through local primary care trusts. The publication of "Developing and Modernising Primary Care in Prisons" in June 2002 provided a framework for the development of primary care in prisons and practical advice on how change could be achieved.
The extent of mental ill health in the prison population is a particular cause of concern. In December 2001, we published a strategy for modernising mental health services in prisons that outlined how the provision of prison mental health care is expected to develop during the next three to five years. The plan included the development of day care provision and—building on the commitments in the NHS plan—of mental health in-reach services for prisoners with severe and enduring mental illness.
The plan stated that, by 2004, the 5,000 or so prisoners who will have a severe mental illness at any one time should receive more comprehensive mental health services in prison. All prisoners with severe mental illness will receive treatment and no prisoner with a serious mental illness will leave prison without a

129
proper care plan or a care co-ordinator. In the new partnership between the NHS and prisons, some 300 additional staff will be employed to help to achieve this objective.
Research indicates that current reception screening processes fail to identify up to three quarters of those prisoners who have a severe mental illness. To rectify that, new triage-based reception screening arrangements were developed and piloted at 10 local prisons during 2001–02. They focused on identifying and managing prisoners' immediate and significant health needs on their first reception into prison. The work is closely linked to the development of the Prison Service's suicide prevention strategy. I am pleased to say that the evaluation of the pilot sites shows a substantial improvement to the identification of prisoners with a severe mental illness. The introduction of the system to all local prisons is being phased in over a 12-month period from April 2003.
Prisoners often have to wait too long to obtain both emergency and routine dental care. Fewer than 20 per cent. of prisons are currently meeting NHS waiting time,, for access to routine and emergency dental services. The recently published "Strategy for Modernising Dental Services for Prisoners in England" sets out how we intend to develop and modernise the provision of dental services within prisons. A three-year investment plan has been put in place to support its implementation, which will enable regional prison health development teams to ensure the implementation of dental service action plans for those prisons currently not meeting access targets.
A new standard for clinical services for substance misusers was issued in December 2000. It is consistent with current Department of Health guidelines and forms the basis for ensuring that substance misuse services are available in all local prisons and remand centres to a level of quality that is at least comparable to those in the general community.
Every prison is now expected to have in place a range' of measures aimed at reducing the risk to prisoners, their families and the wider community of the transmission of
130
blood-borne viruses. For example, all prisoners should be offered immunisation against hepatitis B on reception in order to increase protection for individuals, reduce the risk of outbreaks of infection in prisons and increase protection for the wider community following a prisoner's release. All NHS organisations now have in place a system of clinical governance. Clinical governance must also become the framework within which health care in prisons is delivered.
On 1 April 2003, financial responsibility for prison health was transferred from the Home Office to the Department of Health in England and the Welsh Assembly. Funding transfers of £117.7 million for England and £2.2 million for Wales took place on that date. That was a logical development of the partnership between the Prison Service and the NHS and will ensure that prisoners can access the same range and quality of health services as the general public.
A development network of prisons and primary care trusts has been established to provide a test-bed for that transfer at operational level and is likely to lead to some PCTs assuming effective commissioning responsibility for prison health services in their localities from April 2004. By April 2006, responsibility for commissioning prison health services in England will be fully devolved to NHS PCTs, thus effectively mainstreaming that activity within the NHS.
The Government have made new money available to support that development. The Department of Health will be making available significant additional resources for prison health in England worth an extra £46 million a year by 2005–06. That is more than a third more than the Prison Service spent last year on health services. It will be targeted on areas of real need, including mental health, drugs and infectious diseases. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the programme of modernisation and reform of prison health care is very much on track.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by the Department over each of the last five years. [120860]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has been partially responsible for the implementation of one EU Directive in the past five years. The Women and Equality Unit, formerly part of Cabinet Office, implemented the Burden of Proof Directive (EC Directive 097/80/EC). However, the relevant statutory instrument, which came into force on 12 October 2001, was laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women, who has overall responsibility for women and equality issues.

  Directive 97/80/EC has effect in relation to the UK by virtue of Council Directive 98/52/EC, and is implemented in the UK through the Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001. Its aim is to ensure that any measures implementing the principle of equal treatment are made more effective, thereby providing victims of sex discrimination with effective access to justice. The Directive also defines the concept of indirect discrimination.

  EC Regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the member states, without the need for further incorporation into national law. However, some Regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable.

  The total number of EC, ECSC and Euratom Regulations made over each of the last five years is estimated to be:

  Number

  1998

  2,852

  1999

  2,802

  2000

  2,882

  2001

  2,600

  2002 (up to and including November)

  2,125

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

  It would incur disproportionate cost to identify which Government Department was responsible for each of these Regulations. The Cabinet Office rarely has lead responsibility for EC Regulations.

  Government Funding
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) non-departmental public bodies, (b) Government agencies and (c) other public sector bodies were receiving funding from the Government in 1997; and how many are doing so in the current financial year. [124955]

  Mr. Alexander
  Information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), including the amount of Government funding each receives, has been published annually in the Cabinet Office "Public Bodies" publication. Data for the 1,128 NDPBs in operation across the UK as at 1 April 1997 are published in "Public Bodies 1997". The latest available data are available in "Public Bodies 2002". Copies of these publications are held in the House Libraries.

  All Executive Agencies are Government funded, with the exception of Trading Funds, which are established using Government funds, but which become self-financing through their commercial activities. The June 1997 List of Ministerial Responsibilities shows 137 Executive Agencies and 87 are shown in the October 2002 List. These publications are held in the House Libraries.

  Information on other bodies funded by Government is not collected centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Conflicts of Interest
  David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the basis for his assessment that it was prejudicial to the safety of the state to allow the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to investigate whether Cabinet Ministers have ever had any conflict between their private interests and their public duties. [125679]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government have made clear that they believe personal information provided by Ministers to their civil servants should be treated in complete confidence. The decision to issue a notice in this case was taken because the Government concluded that the release of certain personal, private information would not be in the public interest.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  General Elections
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission whether the Electoral Commission is examining the case for changing the method of ordering candidates' names on ballot papers at elections. [125423]

  Mr. Viggers
  Yes. In its report, "Ballot Paper Design", published last month, the Commission indicated its concern that alphabetical discrimination could exist in multi-seat elections, while acknowledging that the information available at present was inconclusive.
  3W
  The Commission intends to support further research to establish the extent of the influence of alphabetic discrimination prior to making a final recommendation to the Government. In the meantime it has recommended that legislation be introduced to enable the piloting of alternative listing methods in order to assist in determining the impact of the present arrangements.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action the Department is taking to boost humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan. [124618]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID allocated £44 million to support humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan last year. For the financial year 2003–04 we have allocated at least £5 million. This will be focused on aid to returning refugees and internally displaced persons and vulnerable, particularly women-beaded, households. These are the largest groups in continued need of humanitarian assistance.

  The humanitarian situation has improved over the last 12 months with good rainfall over the winter and early spring. This has ameliorated the effects of the persistent drought.

  African Great Lakes
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when the Department will publish its joint strategy paper on the African Great Lakes region. [124937]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID intends to make publicly available in the next few weeks a short summary document on its overall strategy for the Great Lakes region. The individual strategies for Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda will be available at around the same time.

  Colonial Widows and Orphans Pension Schemes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what research he has commissioned into(a) the annual cost and (b) the numbers involved, if widows who married officers after they had retired from the Service were included in the Colonial Widows and Orphans Pension Schemes. [125227]

  Hilary Benn
  No research has been commissioned into the annual cost or the numbers involved. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The accuracy of DFID's records on contributors to the various Colonial Widows and Orphans Pensions Schemes is entirely dependent on the individuals concerned, keeping us informed of any changes in their marital status. Our records are, therefore, not necessarily up to date in respect of marriages which took place after the contributor's retirement.

  EU Aid
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if the Department will take steps to ensure that aid channelled through the EU that has until now been spent in the 10 EU accession states will from 2004 to 2006 be spent instead in(a) sub-Saharan Africa and (b) south Asia on (i) development and (ii) water, sanitation and hygiene improvements towards the Millennium Development Goals. [124441]

  Hilary Benn
  From 2004, the Pre-Accession budget will continue to provide funding for Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Unallocated funds within the budget are being retained to handle any possible additional funding requirements for any new candidates up to 2006.

  In 2004, Cyprus and Malta will join the Union and Turkey will move from the External Relations to the Pre-Accession budget. This will free up £150 million annually in the External Relations budget for new commitments.

  Earmarking a sensible margin to support Iraq's reconstruction and the Middle East Peace Plan are a UK priority for the 2004 budget. The UK is also pressing for increased commitments to low income countries in Asia, particularly Afghanistan and support for the Global Health Fund, which would both help increase the European Commission's development budget poverty focus.

  Assistance for sub-Saharan Africa is provided primarily through the European Development Fund (EDF), a separate off-budget fund replenished directly by member states contributions. Finds cannot be transferred between the EC budget and the EDF. Programmes under the EDF are based on the priorities of recipient countries and include water, sanitation and health programmes.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on co-financing operations with European non-governmental development organisations in fields of interest to developing countries, (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. [110536]

  Hilary Benn
  The EC NGO co-financing committee does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European Union member states. Since 17 April 2003, delegates from the 10 EU accession states have also been invited to attend most EU committees, including the NGO co-financing committee, as participating observers. The UK is usually represented on the EC NGO co-financing committee by one or two members of staff from the Information and Civil Society Department of DFID.

  The committee has met three times since January 2002, on 19 September 2002, 21 January 2003 and 3 June 2003.
  5W
  Agenda items considered on 19 September 2002 were:

  Information on 2001/2002 activities, and call for proposals for 2002

  Exchange of views on various co-financing instruments

  For opinion: framework agreements (in respect of 2000 call for proposals)

  Agenda items considered on 21 January 2003 were:

  Approval of co-financing instruments and envelopes for 2003

  Exchange of views on

  Activities in 2002

  New call for proposals 2003

  Co-financing instruments and envelopes for 2003

  Call for proposals for Framework Agreements in 2003

  Principle of an information exchange mechanism and setup

  Proposal of rules of procedure for the NGO co-financing committee

  Agenda items considered on 3 June 2003 were:

  Policy orientations 2004–05 for budget line B7-6000

  Exchange of views on

  Proposals assessment based on concept notes

  Role of the Committee and implications of the new financial regulation

  Exchange mechanism with member states

  Guidelines on principles and best practices for participation of non-state actors

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

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of the Committee. The second report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2002 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.

  Human Rights
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures the Department is taking to promote human rights in(a) Cuba and (b) Afghanistan. [124368]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not have a bilateral government-to-government aid programme to Cuba nor do we have plans to develop one. As a member of the EU we support the EU Common Position on Cuba which requires the Government of Cuba to enhance democracy and safeguard human rights as a precondition for establishment of a formal framework agreement. This Common Position is now under review as part of a range of measures that the EU has implemented in response to the recent deterioration in human rights.
  6W
  The promotion of human rights underpins DFID's strategy in Afghanistan. All our work seeks to promote human rights, and to improve Afghans' ability to participate in civic and political life. DFID aims to achieve this by supporting specific activities, such as livelihoods and humanitarian projects aimed at helping the most vulnerable, while also supporting the development of a democratic, inclusive state that can provide security and basic services to its citizens.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what aid has been given to agencies to provide support and assistance to victims of human trafficking for sexual reasons; what discussions she has had with(a) European and (b) other counterparts on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [124848]

  Hilary Benn
  The trafficking of people is part of a wider set of issues related to the migration of poor people to better their lives, and to their vulnerability to national and international smugglers and traffickers. Trafficking is an international problem requiring coordinated action. DFID's role is to work to eliminate the poverty and social injustice that can lead to such abuse. Through our programmes to promote sustainable development and end poverty, DFID is helping to reduce the circumstances that give rise to this appalling trade, and which make women and children especially vulnerable. With other Government Departments, we are supporting the efforts of Governments and international agencies to strengthen social protection and justice in line with the international treaty framework covering these issues.

  For example, in south-east Asia, we are supporting the International Labour Organisation's work to reduce the trafficking of women, many of whom would enter the sex industry, in Laos, Thailand, China (Yunnan), Cambodia and Vietnam. It involves a number of activities to raise awareness and prevent the trade. In the Balkans we recently supported the International Organisation for Migration in training the various agencies dealing with the victims of trafficking, including police, social workers and the legal profession, in order to create and disseminate models of good practice.

  I have had to date no discussions with my counterparts on this specific issue.

  Iraq
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the provision of humanitarian aid in Iraq. [124429]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has so far committed £154 million in the current crisis—including £35 million announced on 26 June in response to the United Nations Revised Humanitarian Appeal for Iraq of 23 June. Most of this finance is channelled through organisations such as United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs, which have the capacity
  7W
  and expertise to mount operations quickly and effectively on the ground. A further £56 million is available to meet additional needs as they emerge.

  On 3 July I placed in the Library of the House details of this funding, and the work that has been undertaken so far.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what proportion of the population in each district of Iraq is(a) homeless, (b) living in temporary accommodation and (c) living on food rationing. [124633]

  Hilary Benn
  Reliable statistics for homeless people and those living in temporary accommodation in Iraq are not available. It is estimated that, before the recent conflict, between 600,000 and 800,000 people were displaced in the north of Iraq, mainly from Kirkuk and Mosul, by the Saddam regime's Arabisation policies and inter-ethnic fighting; and between 100,000 and 300,000 Shia people were displaced in the south following the Gulf War and state-sponsored drainage of the marshes. Assessments are being made of displacement that has resulted from the recent conflict. These include Arab families who were living in homes now being reclaimed by returning Kurds; and a number of families rendered destitute by war damage and looting.

  The Iraqi Ministry of Trade's Public Distribution System for food aid, which was re-launched on 1 June 2003, aims to distribute food rations to the entire Iraqi population of 27 million people. The World Food Programme estimates that the June ration reached about 95 per cent. of intended recipients.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of the population in each district in Iraq have(a) access to clean water in their homes and (b) full time electricity. [124634]

  Hilary Benn
  Reliable statistics are not available by district in Iraq. Maintaining both clean water and electricity supplies has been a high priority for the coalition since the end of the recent conflict.

  In 2000, the World Health Organisation and UNICEF estimated that 48 per cent. of people in rural areas and 96 per cent. of people in urban areas had access to clean drinking water. The International Committee of the Red Cross has worked well with other humanitarian organisations, the UK military and local authorities to repair water facilities and provide water by alternative means while supplies have been disrupted, primarily by looting, after the recent conflict. The situation in many parts of the country, including Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul is now improving. Baghdad is now receiving 70 to 90 per cent. of its pre-war water supplies.

  Electricity installations did not sustain significant damage during the recent war, but power supplies are very variable as a result of previous lack of maintenance and subsequent looting and sabotage. Generation capacity is estimated at 50 to 60 per cent. of the country's needs.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the cost was to his Department of media and voice training for ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123119]

  Hilary Benn
  My department does not hold these costs centrally. However, in the last six financial years DFID is aware of spending on media and voice training only for officials as follows:

  £

  2002–03

  793

  2001–02

  0

  2000–01

  588

  1999–2000

  250

  1998–99

  0

  1997–98

  0

  Notes:

  The cost in 2002–03 and 2000–01 was for media training for one official in each year.

  The cost for 1999–2000 represents voice coaching for two officials.

  A more detailed answer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost as this would involve disaggregating the cost of media and voice training from the cost of other courses which may contain elements of media and voice training.

  Middle East
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the Department's assessment of the effectiveness of the principle of regional cumulation of goods in promoting(a) economic co-operation and (b) trade integration in the Middle East. [124172]

  Hilary Benn
  EU and Mediterranean partner trade ministers meeting in Palermo on 7 July 2003 agreed to extend the system of pan-European cumulation of origin to the Mediterranean partners (Algeria, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey). Cumulation of origin means goods can be processed using inputs from any source within the Euro-Mediterranean area, and take advantage of the system of preferential tariffs, which currently exists between Europe and the Mediterranean partners. As such, it should help to foster economic integration between Mediterranean partners and with Europe, enable goods to be produced more efficiently through sourcing the cheapest inputs, and encourage economies of scale. A subsequent assessment of the effectiveness of this agreement will eventually be possible.

  Ministerial Meeting
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development which countries will be attending the Cancun Ministerial Meeting this September; and if he will make a statement. [124523]

  Hilary Benn
  We expect most, if not all, of the 146 members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to attend the 5th Ministerial meeting in Cancun in September. We recognise, however, that the ability and resources of some developing country members to
  9W
  participate meaningfully in WTO negotiations can be limited. As a result, the Government have offered £40,000 to a WTO Trust Fund to enable Ministers and officials from the least developed countries to attend the meeting in Cancun.

  More generally, the Government have committed to spending £45 million by 2004 on trade related capacity building. Activities funded include improving developing countries' ability to negotiate favourable deals in the WTO talks trade negotiations, helping them interpret trade agreements, and supporting them in taking advantage of new international trading opportunities.

  Poverty Reduction Strategies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development pursuant to the answer of 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 432W, if he will list the countries whose poverty reduction strategy papers now include sanitation, water supply and hygiene as a result of pressure from her Department. [124442]

  Hilary Benn
  Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are intended to be country-driven and owned, based on broad participation in their design, implementation and monitoring. PRSPs provide a focus for joint donor efforts, and so it is not possible allocate particular elements of countries' PRSPs to the actions of any one donor. DFID participates in formal and informal donor networks around PRSPs, has co-funded World bank-led workshops and has been active on PRSP preparation committees and working groups.

  DFID's strong commitment to achieving debt relief and poverty reduction in the world's poorest countries means that we are working actively with their Governments to support production of PRSPs. We are also supporting the consultative process that the PRSP requires, to ensure the strategy is built on broad-based consensus in which the poor have a voice. The majority of DFID country offices support the national PRSP process by promoting official or Government participation. We also give direct support to civil society to strengthen the impact of public action on poverty, and to encourage progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. DFID has worked with the World bank on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Sourcebook. This is a guide to assist countries in the development of poverty reduction strategies and includes advice on issues such as health, education, infrastructure, water and sanitation, macroeconomic policy, gender and the environment.

  DFID also supports major multi-lateral initiatives, such as the Water and Sanitation Program, that work to support national Governments and civil society in national PRSP processes. Research undertaken by the Water and Sanitation Program of Full and Interim PRSPs in Sub-Saharan Africa has found that treatment of water and sanitation is not comprehensive and often inconsistent. In particular, sanitation and solid waste management received inadequate attention. Also, despite the significant continuing work on sector reforms (e.g. decentralisation, rural and urban water and sanitation), their incorporation in the country PRSP initiatives requires considerable strengthening.
  10W
  The Uganda PRS was a notable exception having good coverage of water and sanitation issues, and serves as an illustration of good practice.

  DFID has also commissioned a research and advocacy project in sub-Saharan Africa that is being undertaken by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and WaterAid. The project is investigating how resources allocated 10 water supply and sanitation in PRSPs in five countries in sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya, Malawi, Zambia, Madagascar and Uganda) are converting into actual expenditure on water and sanitation, and will make recommendations to improve the poverty reducing, impact of this work. This will be completed in 2004 and is an important opportunity to support the building of sustainable improvements in local capacity in a way that is consistent with nationally owned poverty reduction strategies.

  Romania
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance the Department has given to Romania in each year since 1997. [124478]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK provides assistance to Romania through its' contribution to European Commission aid programmes and through a bi-lateral aid programme focused on Public Administration Reform, Social Policy Reform, Child Welfare Reform and Regional Development.

  Details of assistance are shown in the following table.

  Assistance to Romania in each year from 1997

  £ million

  UK Bi-lateral

  EC aid

  Of which: UK share

  1997

  5.71

  76.54

  14.54

  1998

  4.14

  104.19

  19.90

  1999

  3.74

  150.63

  26.74

  2000

  3.44

  174.51

  34.31

  2001

  5.39

  345.12

  65.23

  2002

  5.80

  165.07

  32.02

  Europe and Central Asia Dept. 8 July 2003.

  Uganda
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian needs in Eastern Uganda as a consequence of the security situation. [125254]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 4 July 2003,Official Report, column 512W.

  WTO Negotiations
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if the Government will make it their policy to support France's call for a moratorium on export subsidies during the current round of World Trade Organisation negotiations. [124318]
  11W
  Hilary Benn
  The UK has supported the French Africa initiative to the G8, which recognises the damaging effects of agricultural subsidies on African economies. Discussions around the French initiative during the recent G8 summit at Evian were also important to reiterate the importance of finding solutions to the commodities' problem and to improve the way in which preferential access into developed countries' markets operates for the benefit of developing countries.

  In the WTO, the UK is committed to reaching agreements on long-term agricultural trade rules, which are fair and non-discriminatory. These multilateral rules should aim to create the stable conditions necessary for the private sector to make long-term investment in developing countries' agriculture. In this context, the draft agricultural trade framework agreement (put forward by Stuart Harbinson) proposes that developed countries phase out all export subsidies within 10 years.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what proposals her Department has for providing greater opportunities for poor countries competing for access to heavily protected markets in the developed world. [124319]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government believe that the current round of trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) will provide the best opportunity for improving developing country access to protected agricultural and non-agricultural markets in the developed world. Along with commitments to improve market access, the negotiations also aim to tackle developed countries' high levels of trade-distorting domestic support and use of export subsidies, which harm developing countries.

  At the fifth Ministerial meeting of the WTO in Cancun this September, Ministers will assess progress towards achieving the 'development' agenda set out in Doha in November 2001. This includes an assessment of the merits of already tabled proposals on market access. Specifically, the EU is pushing for an overall average tariff reduction of 36 per cent. in the agriculture negotiations, and a reduction of tariffs on nonagricultural goods to a maximum of 15 per cent. The EU is also pushing for all developed countries to fulfil their commitment to grant duty and quota free access for all products excluding arms originating in least developed countries.

  To ensure that trade rules benefit all individual developing countries, any new rules will have to consider the particular needs of countries in terms of development, food security and poverty reduction. For example, the current draft of WTO agricultural trade rules includes a number of special and differential provisions for developing countries, such as lower (subsidy and tariff) reduction commitments and longer implementation periods. Some provisions also aim to protect developing countries' food security by naming "special products" which would be subject to less market opening.

  The UK is a strong advocate of trade reform and a supporter of special and differential rules for developing countries. The recently agreed package of CAP reform is
  12W
  important in delinking subsidies from production which will help reduce the unfair competition against third parties, particularly developing countries.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if she will make a statement on the consultations held between her Department and campaigners for fair trade before the fifth World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancun. [124320]

  Hilary Benn
  As part of its continuing dialogue and consultation with UK non-governmental organisation and campaigners working on trade and development issues, DFID held its biannual open day to discuss these issues on 26 June 2003 and I spent an hour with campaigners to listen to their concerns about the expansion of the WTO negotiating agenda to include new issues such as investment. I also answered questions on the Government's position on various trade issues in the run up to Cancun. In addition to these formal consultations, DFID officials are in regular contact with campaigners to discuss the details of current policies and proposals.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if the Government will press its partners in the developed world to commit to quota and tariff-free access to European and US markets for all imports from low-income countries in Africa. [124321]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK was one of the strongest advocates of the EU Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, which allows duty and quota-free access into the EU for imports from Least Developed Countries.

  The UK is also very active within the G8 in finding ways to implement the Africa Action Plan, which include commitments to improve all existing preferential schemes, so as to ensure that these effectively benefit the targeted countries.

  In the WTO, the UK supports the Commission's proposal that 50 per cent of imports from developing countries into the developed countries should be duty free—including those from African low-income countries.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what proposals the Government has to revive negotiations over the implementation of the Doha Agreements to improve the access to markets for developing countries. [124322]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government are working for faster progress in the Doha round, especially on the issues that matter most to developing countries: agriculture, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health, and special and differential treatment. For example, we are in dialogue with the US and the pharmaceutical companies in order to find a way forwards on TRIPS and public health.

  The agreed package of reforms to the EU's Common Agricultural Policy is an important step towards making global trade in agriculture fairer for developing countries. In the context of the WTO negotiations, now

  13W
  that the EU has moved on agriculture, others must be prepared to follow suit. We hope that the CAP deal will inject new momentum into the Doha round.

  The Government are committed to doing what we can to ensure the Cancun Ministerial delivers real benefits to developing countries and helps keep the round to the 1 January 2005 deadline for negotiations to be concluded.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advantage West Midlands
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding Advantage West Midlands gave to projects in North Staffordshire in 2002–03; and what the(a) internal spending and (b) fundraising targets were for 2002–03. [122616]

  Jacqui Smith
  AWM funding to projects in North Staffs in 2002–03 was £19 million.

  It is not possible to provide the fund raising targets for these projects. The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the expenditure on information technology by the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary has been in each of the last five years. [124943]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  40,266

  1999–2000

  119,255

  2000–01

  147,701

  2001–02

  595,927

  2002–03

  456,493

  Due to the UKAEAC being a part of UKAEA all the IT services infrastructure is managed within the parent organisation's expenditure.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place a copy of the latest information technology strategy document for the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary in the Library. [124944]

  Mr. Timms
  The document referred to is classified Restricted and contains information which could potentially be of use to terrorists. It therefore cannot be made publicly available "under exemption 1(a) information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs; of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."

  BNFL (Safety)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what security considerations underpinned 14W
  the decision to withhold from publication the full safety analysis conducted by BNFL of its building B30 at Sellafield. [124836]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not Government policy to disclose information relating to civil nuclear facilities which could potentially be of use to terrorist "under Exemption 1(a) information whose disclosure would harm national security—of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information." A version of the report which did not include such sensitive information was placed in the Libraries of the House in June this year.

  Broadband
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the oral answer of the Minister for Energy, E-Comrnerce and Postal Services, of 3 July 2003,Official Report, columns 527-28, in which areas schools with wireless broadband access have become hubs for the local community; what external sources of finance were used; and if she will make a statement. [124354]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: Through the Alston Cybermoor project in East Cumbria, 600 homes are served by their local school connections, and a number of schools act as hubs in Co. Durham providing onbound access to both community, L. A. and business users. The Cumbria and Lancashire Education Online have also helped the small rural communities of Hawkhead and Coniston. The Buckfastleigh project is using a mixture of fixed-line and wireless connections. Jeff Joseph Sale Moor Technology College, Cheshire, has established an open-to-all wireless broadband access point located in a council house in the centre of a local estate. The wireless network is intended to give broadband access from anywhere in the college and up to 5km in to the local community.

  Other areas are looking into the possibility of becoming hubs, e.g. Kent LEA. Pilots in Surrey and Isle of White are in the development stage.

  All school wireless connections are government funded (Department for Education and Skills, and the DTI through the Regional Development Agencies), with non-school users only being charged for their share of the costs.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in her Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119818]

  Ms Hewitt
  The figures for my Department, based on headcount for the number of permanent staff, are as follows:

  Over age 50

  Under age 50

  Total

  1997–98

  49

  389

  438

  1998–99

  66

  502

  558

  1999–2000

  47

  585

  632

  2000–01

  110

  666

  776

  15W

  Over age 50

  Under age 50

  Total

  2001–02

  112

  843

  955

  Grand total

  384

  2,985

  3,359

  These are the overall figures for the Department, including its Agencies and include permanent staff transfers into the DTI from: (i) other government departments and (ii) as a result of machinery of government change.

  Compulsory Liability Insurance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average cost of an employer's compulsory liability insurance claim was in each year since 1998. [119393]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department published a first stage report on employers' liability insurance that looked at the issue on 3 June. Copies are in the Library.

  One of the key external stakeholders representing the insurance industry was the Association of British Insurers (ABI). They have calculated the average cost of Employers' Liability claims using historical patterns to estimate the settlement cost or claims which are currently outstanding. Their estimates are as follows:

  Estimated cost of outstanding claims

  £

  1998

  11,900

  1999

  13,100

  2000

  12,700

  2001

  16,000

  2002

  16,200

  Digital Broadcasting
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to publicise good practice in inclusive design and(b) provide data, guidelines and case studies relating to inclusive design to those involved in the design and production of (i) digital television products, (ii) digital radio products and (iii) telecommunications products. [111166]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is committed to encouraging good design and this is done principally through our involvement in standards work. The placing of accessibility features in standards ensures that all products of that type include them. We actively participate in drafting key standards. A major conference was held earlier this year by the European Standards Bodies in conjunction with the Commission to promote inclusive design.

  A task listed in the Action Plan of the Digital Television Project, jointly led by DTI and DCMS, is to "address human factors issues including access for disabled people". The DTI commissioned a scoping report from Loughborough University in 2002 and has commissioned follow-up work with Scientific Generics Limited including a report on inclusive design which is due in Q3, 2003. On 10 July 2003, DTI hosted an
  16W
  Intellect seminar on Digital Terrestrial Television Product Usability which was attended by a number of key manufacturers of television receivers."Usability for All" was the main theme of the seminar.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with manufacturers of digital radios on improving the accessibility of this equipment for visually impaired people. [111168]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI officials have regular discussions with manufacturers of radio receivers on the development of digital radio technology, applications and markers. Although UK sales of digital radio receivers have increased in recent months, the market is still at a very early stage. We expect to see a greater range of receivers on offer over the coming months, including those with larger clearer screens, which will make digital radio programmes more accessible to all, including visually impaired people. Options being considered by manufacturers for the figure include digital radios with audio guides which read alound what is currently displayed as text.

  Access to digital radio services is not limited to the current range of digital radio receivers. Many digital radio services can also be accessed by digital television receivers and computers, providing a greater range of options for the visually impaired and others.

  As noted in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question No. 111167, OFCOM will have powers to act to further the interests of consumers on such issues as ease of accessibility.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the provision of electricity from coal fired power stations displacing power from plants that are more environmentally friendly: and what efforts are being made to encourage the use of electricity from environmentally friendly plants in the future. [123282]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]: The choice of which generating plant to use to meet their contracts with electricity suppliers is a commercial matter for the electricity generating companies.

  Electricity generators face limits imposed by the environment Agency on a variety of emissions with environmental impacts. Examples of emissions limited by the Agency in this way include sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, emissions of which are generally higher from coal plant than from other types of generation.

  Coal fired generation also produces higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions than most other forms of generation. The Agency does not set limits for emissions of carbon dioxide from power stations. However, a trading scheme for carbon dioxide emissions is due to be launched by the European Union in January 2005. This scheme will cover all fossil fuelled power stations and will give generators direct financial incentives to reduce carbon emissions.
  17W
  Our February 2003 Energy White Paper sets out our strategy for using competitive markets to reconcile environmental considerations with the electricity needs of homes and businesses. The White Paper stated that,
  "we will make the new trading scheme a central plank of our future emissions reduction policies, through which the traded carbon market can set a signal for the value of carbon reductions in the economy".

  Although there are at present no direct incentives on electricity generators to reduce carbon emissions, we have put in place a number of other policies to encourage environmentally friendly forms of generation. The most significant of these policies are (a) the Renewables Obligation, launched in April 2002, which encourages electricity suppliers to contract for increasing quantities of power from renewable sources and (b) exemption from the climate change levy of electricity from renewable source and from good quality combined heat and power plant.

  The electricity sector has made significant progress in reducing environmentally harmful emissions over the past decade. Between 1990 and 2002, its emissions of carbon dioxide fell by about 20 per cent. and between 1990 and 2001 its emissions of sulphur dioxide fell by about 73 per cent. (figures for 2002 are not yet available). By contracts, emission of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide from all other sources over the same periods fell by 3 per cent. and 62 per cent. respectively.

  EU Contracts
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to reduce the procedural requirements involved in bidding for EU public sector contracts. [125298]

  Jacqui Smith
  The UK has taken an active part in the negotiations on the European Commission proposals to simplify, clarify and modernise the existing public procurement directives. The proposals have just completed their second reading by the European Parliament. Once adopted, the new public procurement directives will provide an up-to-date framework within which efficient and non-discriminatory procurement can take place.

  Everything but Arms Agreement
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 329W, on the Everything but Arms agreement, if she will assess the impact of the Everything but Arms agreement on trade exports to the United Kingdom by non-least developed countries in sub-Saharan Africa. [124219]

  Ms Hewitt
  Comparing figures for calendar year 2000 with the year to March 2003 shows trade exports to the United Kingdom by non-least developed countries (non-LDCs1) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) increased by 27 per cent. to £5.15 billion. Over the same period, the total value of exports to the United Kingdom from least developed countries (LDCs) in SSA increased by 82 per cent. though still at a relatively low level of £265 million. We hope to see these figures grow further as their economies adjust to the greater export opportunities offered by EBA, which came into effect in March 2001.
  18W
  1 Non-LDCs in SSA are: Senegal, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Gabon, Cent rat African Republic, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Swaziland, South Africa, Namibia, St Helen, Seychelles, British Indian Ocean Territories, Mayotte and Mauritius

  Innovation Budget (Textiles)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the projects supported by her Department's Innovation Budget involving technical textiles. [121944]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has supported the following individual technical textile projects under the Innovation Budget:

  Innovative non-woven rail foundation materials that will help to drain rainwater and stabilise the rail track-bed.

  Durability of geosynthetics to investigate the durability of geotextiles used in road construction.

  Flexible fire barriers that are light and strong to replace traditional construction materials.

  Conductive materials including `qwerty' keypad for use as pressure sensors.

  Electrically conductive fabrics for use in the "wearable computer"

  Technical textile bandages which provide a measured pressure to help treat leg

  Venous ulcer patients and to prevent deep vein thrombosis in long flight passengers

  Technical textile-based limb protectors and ballistic helmets, to provide lighter and stronger equipment for the armed forces and police

  Double cloth technology—to develop the capabilities of double cloth weaving for use in various fibres

  Fire resistant polypropylene yarns for use in cheap carpets and furnishing fabrics used in public spaces

  Hybrid laminates from adhesive thermo-bonding Universal insulation system to provide an improved balance in performance clothing between comfort and protection from heat

  Laser seaming of performance textiles to provide cloth seams of predictable and consistent strength

  Impact-resistant non-wovens for use as motorcycle protective clothing and body armour

  Fire resistant fabrics based on rare animal fibres that combine high performance with luxury finish for example in aircraft and yachts

  Designing advanced fibre ropes, e.g. for mooring oilrigs in very deep waters

  Technical textile CAD, develop and implement a Computer Aided

  Engineering (CAE) system in the technical textiles sector Textile-reinforced composites

  Warp/weft-knitted fabrics with metal wire content, for electromagnetic shielding that can fit around bodies

  Novel lap joint for non-wovens, which ensures the join is as strong as the rest of the material

  Long-staple yarn for technical textile applications, combining the best properties ty' natural and man-made fibres in high-strength materials

  3D seamless flatbed knitting with various applications e.g. in healthcare: seamless 'whole body bandages for burns victims and other skin treatments

  3D nonwovens—A project that will allow manufacturers to predict more closely the porosity and weight of a finished product such as a dust filter

  Technical Textile Project Co-ordinator, to help companies find partners and funding for R and D

  19W

  National Advisor on Technical Textiles to the industry-led Textile and Clothing Strategy Group

  Technical textile database, in order to help suppliers and manufacturers in the industry find partners for commerce and R and D.

  Media Training
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was to her Department of media and voice training for Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123138]

  Ms Hewitt
  There has been no cost to the Department for media and voice training for Ministers since 1997.

  For DTI officials, the majority of the Department's training budget is allocated to individual Directorates. Each Directorate has responsibility for managing, monitoring and evaluating at training events in line with the Departmental business and training plans. Disproportionate costs would be incurred to collate the data centrally for the purposes of answering this question.

  Mobile Phones.
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was to her Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123144]

  Ms Hewitt
  Responsibility for the provision of mobile telephones for official purposes and for payment of the associated call charges was dev Dived to individual directorates, agencies and NDPBs at the end of March 1993. Since August 1997, the DTI has increasingly made use of the central Mobile Telecommunications contract managed by the Office for Government Commerce. This contract provides a call-off arrangement for DTI users at advantageous prices ensuring that the Department obtains good value for money. Due to the devolved responsibility for mobile telephone management the only information that can be provided at non-disproportionate cost is expenditure with DTI's main suppliers of mobile telephony.

  The figures available are:

  £

  1998

  90,881

  1999

  263,123

  2000

  226,695

  2001

  342,964

  2002

  342,881

  Figures are not available for 1997 due to a change in the Department's Accounting System over that period.

  Post (Lost Items)
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many lost items of post there have been(a) so far in 2003 and (b) in each of the last five years. [125196]
  20W
  Mr. Timms
  This is an operational matter for Royal Mail Group plc, I have therefore asked the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Post Office
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect on the level of subsidy payable to post offices if the number of Post Office card accounts opened exceeds the Government's estimates; and if she will make a statement. [125271]

  Mr. Timms
  Government financial support for the Post Office network is not affected by any particular number of Post Office card accounts. Universal banking went live in post offices on 1 April 2003 as scheduled. There is an effect on payments to the Post Office through its contracts with government departments, but the Post Office is now providing electronic access to a wide range of bank accounts and is looking to extend these further.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have closed in Leicester since 1997; what research has been done by her Department into the closure of post offices in Leicester; and what representations she has received from honourable Members concerning the closure of post offices in Leicester. [125272]

  Mr. Timms
  Decisions on post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd and I have asked the Chief Executive to respond directly to the hon. Member about closures in Leicester. In addition to representations from the hon. Member for Leicester East., my hon. Friend has received one representation from Leicester city council.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the biomass fuel burnt under subsidy as an energy resource in the last 12 months came from(a) new sources of material, (b) material that would otherwise go to waste and (c) raw materials that can serve a useful purpose in industry; what the expected figures are for (i) 2005 and (ii) 2010; and if she will make a statement. [125164]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002 the following amounts of biomass fuel were used in the UK. Biomass used for electricity generation may be eligible for support under the Renewables Obligation or the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation and Climate Change Levy exemption.

  Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent

  Electricity generation

  Heating purposes1

  Wood waste

  —

  266

  Wood

  —

  204

  Poultry litter, meat and bone, straw, farm waste and short rotation coppice

  283

  72

  21W

  Thousand tonnes of oil equivalent

  Electricity generation

  Heating purposes1

  Municipal solid waste, general industrial waste and hospital waste

  672

  91

  1 No payments are made under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, the Renewables Obligation or the Renewables (Scotland) Obligation for the burning of biomass fuels for the provision of heat.

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  A more detailed breakdown is not available because it would disclose data for individual companies that are given to the Department in confidence. Only short rotation coppice is classed as "new sources of material". Information on the amount of wood and wood waste that could be used by industry as a raw material is not centrally available, but the Forestry Commission is currently undertaking a Woodfuel Resource Study. Estimates for 2005 and 2010 are not available.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 5 June 2003,Official Report, column 298, on renewable energy, if she will to meet the Director of the Wood Panel Industries Federation to discuss the impact on the industry of subsidised biomass fuel. [125280]

  Mr. Timms
  As the Minister for Energy I am in discussion with the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee about a meeting with a deputation of MPs and representatives of the Wood Panel Industries Federation to discuss the impact of the Government's renewable energy policy on UK wood-based panel manufacturing.

  Occidental Jetty
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation she has had with(a) the owners of the Occidental Jetty on Canvey Island and (b) others on future uses of that jetty in connection with the production of energy from wind. [123415]

  Mr. Timms
  None, although my officials are aware of local press speculation on this subject.

  Selby
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the assistance given by the Department in respect of redundancies at the Selby coal complex; and what the redundancy terms are. [125238]

  Mr. Timms
  On 16 July 2002 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the Government's intention to pay £10 million to UK Coal plc to support redundancy payments arising from the announced closure of the Selby coal mine complex in North Yorkshire by spring 2004, with the loss of approximately 2,000 jobs. The Government is providing this support as aid to cover exceptional costs under Article 7(2) and 7(3) of the Council Regulation on State aid to the coal industry. The European Commission 22W
  gave formal approval to the state aid on 27 May 2003. A first instalment of £1.8 million was paid to UK Coal in June. The assistance will allow UK Coal to extend pre-privatisation redundancy terms to affected employees until March 2005.

  The Government have also set up a regeneration programme for the local area, implementing the agreed recommendations of the report by Lord Haskins, Chairman of the Selby Coalfield Task Force.

  Small Businesses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in establishing a one-stop shop for the allocation of public funds grants and advice for small businesses. [124435]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As a result of feedback from key stakeholders, DTI has reviewed the support it offers to business. A simple more effective set of business support products is being put in place. A new web-based 'Business Support Directory' also provides information to customers and intermediaries on all of the current business support schemes and new business support products.

  Street Works
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 9 April 2003,Official Report, column 268W, on street works, what the agenda was for the discussions with telecom operators; what representations were made to her Department; what decisions were made; and if she will make a statement. [109560]

  Mr. Timms
  The discussions covered a number of regulatory issues of concern to the operators, including the impact of the proposed changes to streetworks legislation on the development of broadband. It was agreed that any new streetworks legislation should have regard not only to increased cost and disruption to the transport system, but also to the compliance cost on telecoms operators and their customers, and in particular its potential to distort or restrict competition in the telecoms market. The regulatory impact assessment required for any new legislative proposals will need to address these issues.

  Telecommunications and Broadcasting
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department has produced a policy statement on inclusive design in relation to consumer equipment in the(a) telecommunications and (b) broadcasting sectors; and if she will make a statement. [111167]

  Mr. Timms
  The powers and duties of OFCOM under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the current Communications B-11 will enable it to act decisively to further the interests of consumers and the community as a whole. I am sure that the benefits of inclusive design will be one area that OFCOM will be keen to encourage.

  Wood
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what research has been undertaken on the possible distortion of the wood supply market in the UK as a result of the Renewables Obligation; and if she will make a statement; [125113]

  (2) what measures she is taking to discourage the burning of wood products used in industry as a raw material as a subsidised biomass fuel for energy production. [125116]

  Mr. Timms
  The Forestry Commission, working with others, are currently undertaking a Woodfuel Resource Study, which will quantify the resource from traditional forests, sawmill co-product, arboricultural arisings and short rotation coppice. Defra and the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) have funded studies on the quantity and location of recovered wood.

  As a result of market pressures, the forestry industry has been investigating alternative end uses for its products. The forest industry regards energy generation using wood as an important new market to explore.

  I am aware that generators are also investigating the possibilities presented through the use of non-wood materials as a source of biomass for use in co-firing. At present, large co-firers are testing the feasibility of using wood as well as imported olive cake and palm oil husks.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to promote the use of wood wastes with no commercial value as a biomass fuel. [125114]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are providing support for the use of wood waste as a biomass fuel in a number of ways, as outlined in reply on 24 June 2003,Official Report, column 683W and 26 June 2003, Official Report, column 927W. This will help to deliver the Government's policy objectives on national energy production. The support schemes do not apply to other uses of wood waste.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she undertook prior to the introduction of the Renewables Obligation into its impact on the wood panel industry. [125170]

  Mr. Timms
  We carried out three full consultations on the Renewables Obligation before its introduction on 1 April 2002. The first consultation paper, "New and Renewable Energy: Prospects for the UK for the 21st Century", was issued in March 1999 and was accompanied by Supporting Analysis produced by ETSU. The report presented an up to date status report on new and renewable energy and flagged up issues concerning forestry wastes and also the socio-economic implications of renewables.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with representatives of the wood panel industry regarding the impact on their supplies of basic raw material of electricity generators using wood residues as a green fuel. [125171]

  Mr. Timms
  My officials are facilitating work between representatives of the UK wood industry and co-firing power stations to explore the opportunities offered by 24W
  co-firing under the Obligation for UK Forestry, and, in particular, the potential for using by-products from existing wood industries. Working groups continue to meet.

  It is hoped that this initiative, if successful, will have the dual benefit of reducing imports and making more biomass available for a larger market in the UK, thereby helping to stabilise prices.

  We understand from the forestry industry that it can meet demand from power generators from existing surplus forestry material.

TRANSPORT

  Air Safety
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents there have been in each of the last five years of objects falling from commercial airlines over the UK; and how many falling objects have caused(a) personal injury and (b) damage to buildings in each year. [125341]

  Mr. McNulty
  During the 5-year period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 there were 309 reports to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of objects falling from commercial airlines. A breakdown for each of the years is shown in the following table:

  Minor personal injury

  Third party building damage

  Total objects

  1998

  1

  21

  54

  1999

  0

  32

  66

  2000

  1

  36

  68

  2001

  1

  19

  59

  2002

  0

  27

  62

  Airports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total cost was of the consultation exercise on airports policy. [123863]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since July last year to date, "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" consultation is estimated to have cost around £4,200,000, inclusive of VAT.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about airport expansion. [125479]

  Mr. McNulty
  The national consultation ended on 30 June. We estimate that at least 300,000 responses have been received from across the UK. This includes formal responses, questionnaires, petitions and other representations.

  Buses
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local bus passengers there were in each year since 1998–99 in(a) London, (b) English metropolitan areas, (c) English shire counties and (d) England. [125343]
  25W
  Mr. McNulty
  Information on the number of local bus passenger journeys in each year since 1998–99 in each of the areas of England is published by the Department in Table 10 of "A Bulletin of Public Transport Statistics GB, 2002 edition". The publication is available in the Libraries of the House and on the Department's website at www.transtat.gov.uk/tables/ 2002/pts/pts.htm.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the public subsidy is for 2003–04 to local bus services for(a) London, (b) English metropolitan areas, (c) English shire counties and (d) England, separately identifying the (i) concessionary fare subsidy and (ii) fuel duty rebate. [125345]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local transport authorities make their own decisions on the amount to be spent on supporting local bus services and subsidising concessionary fares. No forecasts of the totals expected for the current year are available. However, the figures for 2001–02, the last year for which information is currently available, were:

  Public transport support for local bus services1

  £ million

  London

  193

  English met areas

  122

  English shires

  138

  Total England

  453

  1 Includes administration costs and expenditure met from the Department's grant schemes

  Concessionary fares reimbursement (for local buses)

  £ million

  London

  122

  English met areas

  194

  English shires

  131

  Total England

  447

  Expenditure by my Department in the current financial. year on payments to bus operators in England of Bus Service Operators Grant (formerly called fuel duty rebate) is forecast to total £335 million, of which about £75 million is expected to be to London operators. No estimates are available of the split of this expenditure outside London between operators in metropolitan areas and shire counties.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the financial assistance given by the Government to local authorities for the implementation within their areas of concessionary bus fares. [125500]

  Mr. McNulty
  In England about £450 million per year is spent by local authorities on concessionary travel by bus. That expenditure, along with other costs falling on local authorities, is covered by the contribution that the Government makes to local authorities through the annual grant settlement.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average number of passengers carried by a bus in general public service was in the last year for which figures are available. [125746]
  26W
  Mr. McNulty
  The average number of passengers carried by a local bus in England was nine in 2001–02, the latest year for which a figure is available.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average number of passengers travelling at any one time on a bendy-bus was in the last year for which figures are available. [125747]

  Mr. McNulty
  The average number of passengers travelling at any one time on a bendy-bus in London is 24.

  Car Travel
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average number of people travelling in a car on public roads was in the last year for which figures are available. [125751]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The National Travel Survey shows that in the three years 1999–2001 the average car occupancy was 1.6 people per car on public roads.

  Driving Tests
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the performance of the Driving Standards Agency booking hotline for practical driving tests; how many telephone calls have been received on average per day by the Driving Standards Agency booking hotline for practical driving tests; how 'many staff are employed to handle calls to the Driving Standards Agency booking hotline for practical driving tests; and what the average waiting time has been for allocation of(a) a driving theory test and (b) a practical driving test by the Driving Standards Agency. [125290]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driving Standards Agency has a single national telephone number for booking theory and practical driving tests. Over three quarters of those who call the number reach a call centre agent, and 93 per cent. of those who get through speak with an agent within 20 seconds.

  During 2002–2003, some 13,730 calls a day were made to the Driving Standards Agency's national practical test booking telephone line. The Agency currently employs some 220 call centre agents to handle calls for practical test bookings.

  During 2002–2003, 99 per cent. of theory test candidates got an appointment at their preferred test centre within two weeks of their preferred date. During the same period, the national average waiting time for a practical driving test was 7.8 weeks.

  Maritime Safety
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what revisions he proposes to make to maritime safety procedures off the West Coast of Scotland, with particular reference to the sinking of the Jumbo on 29 June. [125258]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We await publication of the report by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch into this incident and will consider carefully any recommendations for improving maritime safety procedures.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2003, ref 123834, if he will place in the Library the assessment his Department has made of the road safety implications of increasing motorway speed limits. [125186]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assessment carried out in 2001 into the possible effects of raising the motorway speed limit was an internal review of the available evidence. In its evidence to the Transport Select Committee on Road Traffic Speed, the Department gave both oral and written evidence to support its conclusion that the current motorway speed limit should be retained. The Select Committee's Report refers to this information together with other evidence. These documents are already available in the Libraries of the House.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental implications of increasing motorway speed limits to 80 mph. [125187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assessment carried out in 2001 showed that any increase in the motorway speed limit would result in an increase in both emissions and noise.

  Rail Accident (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) investigations and (b) inquiries he will conduct into the incident at Charlton, Worcestershire on Monday 7 July involving a mini-bus and First Great Western train; and if he will make a statement. [125052]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is an on-going British Transport Police (BTP) investigation into the accident at the Pools user worked level crossing, at Charlton in Worcestershire on 7 July involving a minibus and a First Great Western high-speed train. The Health and Safety Executive is providing technical support to the BTP-led investigation.

  Network Rail is carrying out a full internal investigation into the cause of the accident, to ensure that any lessons are learned to minimise the risks associated with this type of level crossing.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact the decision to cut funding for rail freight schemes will have on the environment. [125511]

  Mr. McNulty
  Suspension of the freight grant schemes was a short-term budgetary decision. The Strategic Rail Authority plan to reopen the Freight Facility and Track Access Grant schemes in the autumn for spend from April 2004, subject to available funding.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new safety standards have been put in place following the Hatfield rail disaster. [124486]

  Mr. McNulty
  Following the Hatfield derailment, Network Rail (then Railtrack), the infrastructure controller, made two significant changes to the way 28W
  railway maintenance safety standards are managed on the railways. The first specified more detailed and prescriptive requirements for the inspection and rectification of rails exhibiting rolling contact fatigue. The second involved the implementation of more stringent requirements for general track inspections to enable better monitoring of rail condition.

  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 and will help provide a safer, more reliable and efficient railway infrastructure.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage of train passengers who travel to and from stations by(a) car and (b) taxi. [125748]

  Mr. McNulty
  The National Travel Survey shows that, in the three years 1999–2001, where surface rail was the main mode of transport, a car was used for 30 per cent. of trips to travel to and from the station. A further 6 per cent. of trips involved the use of a taxi or minicab.

  Railways
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has(a) to refurbish railway stations and (b) to replace track from Liverpool Street to Romford. [125374]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail are responsible for the maintenance and renewal of all railway infrastructure, including track. They have a continuing programme of track maintenance and renewal between London Liverpool Street and Romford. Stations are being repainted along this section of line by the train operator. Further work on stations is being discussed in the negotiations for the letting of the Greater Anglia rail franchise.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries which have(a) agreed, (b) failed to agree and (c) not responded to his predecessor's statement of 10 June 1998 on multilateral agreements on 3rd and 4th freedoms at regional airports. [125342]

  Mr. McNulty
  Officials wrote to our bilateral aviation partners in June 1998 proposing to lift all capacity restrictions on services between UK airports, other than London Heathrow and London Gatwick, and points in the other country by airlines of both sides.
  29W
  The responses to the offer are:

  (a) accepted the offer

  Bahrain

  Belarus (subject to finalising air services agreement)

  Bulgaria

  Cameroon

  Fiji

  Hong Kong SAR

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Republic of Korea

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Mexico

  Namibia

  Pakistan

  Qatar

  Sri Lanka (not yet implemented)

  Tanzania

  Turkmenistan

  (b) rejected the offer

  Armenia

  Australia (to be considered as part of liberalisation talks)

  Azerbaijan

  Bangladesh

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Brunei

  Egypt

  Georgia

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Japan

  Kazakhstan

  Kyrgyzstan (originally rejected, but now reconsidering)

  Lebanon

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  Myanmar

  Nigeria

  Oman (originally accepted, but subsequently reconsidered)

  Saudi Arabia

  Seychelles

  Singapore (initially rejected, but capacity on all routes now
  unlimited)

  Syria

  Thailand (replied-still considering offer)

  Ukraine

  Vietnam

  Yemen

  30W
  (c) no reply

  Algeria

  Antigua & Barbuda

  Argentina

  Chile

  Congo Democratic Republic

  Cote d'lvoire

  Cyprus

  Ethiopia

  Gabon

  Ghana

  Hungary

  India

  Israel

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Morocco

  Nepal

  Philippines

  Russian Federation

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  South Africa (new offer made)

  Sudan

  Turkey

  Uganda

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  (d) We did not write to the following countries because the air service arrangements do not specify capacity or frequency limits, which in our view provides unlimited access to UK regional airports:

  All European Union Member States

  Angola

  Bahamas

  Barbados

  Bolivia

  Canada

  Costa Rica

  Czech Republic

  Dominican Republic

  Ecuador

  El Salvador

  Estonia

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  New Zealand

  Poland

  Rwanda

  Slovakia

  Switzerland

  Tunisia

  United Arab Emirates

  United States of America

  Uruguay

  Uzbekistan

  31W
  (e) Due to political and/or aviation bilateral considerations, we have not made the regional access offer to the following countries:

  Afghanistan

  People's Republic of China

  Colombia

  Gambia

  Iraq

  Liberia

  Libya

  Macao Special Administrative Region

  Taiwan

  Tajikistan

  Road Safety
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect of providing lighting on the whole of the motorway system on the number of recorded accidents. [125344]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No estimate has been made of the effect of lighting the whole of the motorway network. Research has shown that where motorway lighting is provided the number of reported accidents can be reduced by about 8 per cent. and can result in a reduction of night-time personal injury accidents by as much as 30 per cent.

  Lighting is generally only provided where there are particular problems and where the economic assessments show the cost of installation and operation of lighting is exceeded by the benefits of reduced nighttime accidents. At present, approximately 30 per cent. of motorways are lit.

  Roads
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many trunk road projects are proposed; [125512]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress with improving the road system. [125513]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is only responsible for road projects in England outside London. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's, statement to this House on 9 July made clear our commitment to improving the nation's roads and other forms of transport, in both the immediate and the longer terms.

  The Government's Target Programme of Improvements currently contains '72 major trunk road improvement proposals tackling congestion, providing safety benefits and relieving communities of traffic. Since June last year, 12 other major trunk road schemes have been opened. A number of other major trunk road improvements have been proposed, mainly through the multi-modal study process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement covered 11 of these studies. The Highways Agency have been asked to do further development work on over 30 road proposals, includingactive traffic management and other technology related improvements on various parts of the motorway and trunk road network. Similar work is
  32W
  also being carried out on other projects following our responses to eight other multi-modal studies within the last two years.

  Since December 2000, over 60 major road schemes, often bringing safety and quality of life benefits, have been proposed by local authorities and received provisional or full approval by the Government to proceed. We are expecting around 20 further such proposals to be submitted as part of this year's Local Transport Settlement process.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the backlog of road maintenance is in England; [125514]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the total cost of the local road maintenance backlog. [125710]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is not a backlog of maintenance on motorways and trunk roads in England.

  On local roads the maintenance backlogs were estimated in 2000 as £2 billion on carriageways and footways, £750 million on bridges and other structures, and £1

  billion on street lighting. Since then the Department, through the Roads Liaison Group, has been developing better inventory systems and condition indicators that will allow more accurate and up to date estimates to be made of backlogs.

  The Government is committed in the 10 Year Plan for Transport to tackling all the backlogs in local road maintenance by 2010 and is providing £31 billion of funding over the Plan's period for this purpose.

  Streetworks
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to release a consultation paper on street works legislation. [126022]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have held a series of consultations in recent years as part of revisions to the secondary legislation governing utility street works under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Most recently, consultation ended on 27 June on a revised version of the "Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street Works and Highway Works".

  Officials in my department have also held a series of consultative meetings recently with representatives of utility companies and local authorities about possible changes to the legislative framework governing utility works which might be included in a forthcoming Traffic Management Bill.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many extra trains will be able to run carrying passengers on the West Coast main line following the upgrade. [125752]

  Dr. Howells
  The West Coast Main Line Strategy, published by the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2003, provides for an 80 per cent. increase in the route's capacity for long distance passenger trains
  33W
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the anticipated rate of profit or loss on the West Coast mainline upgrade investment is. [125759]

  Dr. Howells
  The West Coast Main Line Strategy, published by the Strategic Rail Authority in June 2003, estimates the passenger and freight benefits of the upgrade investment to be more than twice the costs.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Athletics
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to promote increased participation in athletics in schools and sports clubs in England [125324]

  Mr. Caborn
  Athletics is benefiting from the Government's investment of over £8 million on building new, and strengthen existing, links between schools and sports clubs. This investment will build on the existing physical education and sport opportunities available to all young people in schools and increase opportunities for participation in national governing body affiliated, or otherwise accredited, clubs offering high quality sporting experiences.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the proportion of homes in(a) the North West of England, (b) Cumbria and (c) South Lakeland which are unable to receive the Freeview service; and if she will make a statement. [119255]

  Estelle Morris
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Independent Television Commission has produced a UK digital terrestrial television (DTT) coverage update including a coverage map. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The broadcasters have established databases which give coverage predictions by postcode for DTT across the UK. These can be consulted via the websites: www.dtg.org.uk; www.freeview.co.uk.

  EnglandNet Project
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the total cost to her Department of the implementation of the EnglandNet project. [124770]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total cost of the EnglandNet project is as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  DCMS grant-in-aid funding via ETC/ Visit Britain

  769,000

  265,000

  852,000

  1,886,000

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  50,000

  550,000

  0

  600,000

  Invest to Save Fund

  0

  1,328,000

  2,077,000

  3,405,000

  Total all funding

  819,000

  2,143,000

  2,929,000

  5,891,000

  34W
  In addition, £300.000 from the capital modernisation fund has been spent to enable tourist information centres to get connected to the internet, and thereby be able to use the extranet provided by EnglandNet, and £150,000 from the invest to save budget has been used to support work on e-business awareness and training for tourism businesses in rural areas.

  Gambling
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to legislate on the gambling industry; and when she plans to publish a White Paper on this matter. [125028]

  Mr. Caborn
  The White Paper, "A safe bet for success" (Cm 5397). was published in March 2002.

  We will bring forward legislation on the gambling industry as soon as Parliamentary time permits. We also intend that Parliament should have an opportunity to give our proposals pre-legislative scrutiny, and plan to publish draft clauses to that end.

  IT Projects
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what major IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 she authorised expenditure on in each of the last three financial years. [125715]

  Mr. Caborn
  Decisions on authorisation of expenditure are taken by the appropriate project or programme board. The word "authorised" has been interpreted to mean having an approved business case.

  The major IT projects which this Department took forward in each of the last three financial years are:

  2002–03

  Golden Jubilee Website

  Golden Jubilee Awards Database

  Redevelopment of the Department's website

  Redevelopment of the Department's Intranet

  Development of a staff skills database

  A pilot of Electronic Document and Records Management (on-going)

  2001–02

  Export licensing system

  Replacement of HR system

  2000–01

  Technology refresh

  Correspondence tracking

  Public appointments

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Department spent on IT(a) licences, (b) maintenance, (c) software and (d) hardware in the last financial year. [125733]

  Mr. Caborn
  DC MS spent £284,885 on software, which includes the costs of any licences, £146,174 on maintenance and £223,116 on hardware in the last financial year.

  Lottery Awards
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many lottery awards there were to organisations in the Poole constituency in each year since 1997; and what the average number of awards per constituency was in each year. [125036]

  Estelle Morris
  The number of lottery awards made in Poole, and as a constituency average across the UK, is shown in the table.

  Year

  Poole

  Constituency average across UK

  1997

  12

  22

  1998

  10

  13

  1999

  21

  31

  2000

  20

  36

  2001

  21

  31

  2002

  23

  39

  2003

  8

  15

  Note:

  The figures for 2003 refer to the period 'between January 1 and June 30.

  Major Sporting Events
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the major sporting events hosted by the UK and funded by UK Sport in each year since 1996–97 to the provisional programme for 2003–04. [125560]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following event; were hosted by the UK and funded by UK Sport in each year since 1996–97 along with the provisional programme for 2003–04.

  1996–97

  No events

  1997–98

  No events

  1998–99

  World Cross Country Championships

  1999–2000

  European Show Jumping Championships

  World Disability Water Ski Championships

  European Europe Class Sailing Championships

  World Judo Championships

  World Indoor Climbing Championships

  European Sports Aerobics Championships

  European Three Day Event Young Riders Championships

  European Junior Badminton Championships

  Pre Olympic and Pre European Boxing Championships

  Pre Olympic Women's Hockey Championships

  Junior European Target Championships (Archery)

  36W
  2000–01

  Modern Penthalon World Cup Qualifier

  Finn Gold Cup Sailing

  Canoe Marathon World Cup

  Spar European Athletics Cup

  European Young Riders Championships

  World Track Cycling Championships

  Rugby League World Cup

  European Badminton Championships

  World Curling Championships

  World Grand Prix Gymnastics Finals

  World Netball Youth Cup

  European Junior Top Twelve Table Tennis Championships

  World Indoor Bowls Ladies Singles Championships

  2001–02

  World Amateur Boxing Championships

  Canoe Marathon World Championships

  World Half Marathon Championships

  Commonwealth Shooting Federation Championships

  World Modern Pentathlon

  2002–03

  World Indoor Athletic Championships

  2003–04

  World Badminton Championships

  European Dressage Championships

  World Disabled Badminton Championships

  International 420 Class Sailing Championships World Triathlon Cup

  European Cross Country Championships

  European Junior Swimming and Diving Championships

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 31W, on the Millennium Commission, which of the major projects have received money from local authorities; how much was spent on each of the projects; when the money was spent by the local authorities on those projects; and if she will make a statement. [125989]

  Tessa Jowell
  I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chair of the Millennium Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the revisions to the National Lottery system will affect the distribution of funds to seaside resorts. [124764]

  Estelle Morris
  The changes to the lottery announced on 3 July 2003 include proposals to make it easier to apply for funding, to involve the public in how lottery money is spent and to make sure it's spent wisely. This should encourage people to play the lottery which, in turn, will provide revenue for the good causes and benefit all areas. Since the introduction of the 1998 Lottery Act and changes to policy directions, distributors have increasingly focussed on areas of social and economic deprivation including seaside resorts. The National Lottery has funded, and continues
  37W
  to fund, numerous projects which bring widespread benefits to many seaside communities across the country.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Department for Education on protecting school playing fields. [124880]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed school playing fields issues with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 24 June 2003.

  In addition, DCMS officials and those from the Department for Education and Skills have had regular discussions on playing field matters.

  These discussions have informed the Government's strategy for protecting school playing fields.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with(a) ministerial colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and (b) the Local Government Association about the provision of sporting facilities run by local authorities; and if she will make a statement. [125259]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the provision of local authority sporting facilities with representatives from the Local Government Association (LGA) on 11 June.

  A number of recommendations to improve delivery of sport by local government were put forward in Game Plan, the Government's strategy for delivering sport and physical activity objectives. This Department is committed to working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the LGA towards achieving these objectives.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance is available to develop areas of sustainable tourism; and if she will make a statement. [124753]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sustainable tourism is relevant to all tourism areas, including coastal resorts, historic and modern cities, rural areas and man-made visitor attractions. We set out the policy framework necessary to achieve progress in the Tomorrow's Tourism strategy. To implement sustainable tourism requires action by a wide range of partners, including Government Departments and their agencies, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), local authorities, the tourism industry and organisations with environmental, conservation or social exclusion remits. Actions initiated by DCMS include giving VisitBritain a remit to market England to encourage domestic tourism and the `Fitness for Purpose' initiative to provide customers with a firmer assurance that hotels, and the restaurants within them, are fit for trading. RDAs are promoting sustainable tourism as part of their enhanced role in the 38W
  strategic leadership of tourism, which links with their statutory remit for sustainable development. Local authorities can help promote sustainable tourism through spatial planning and approaches to visitor management and Business Links provide practical guidance to tourism businesses on matters such as energy efficiency and reducing waste. Everyone has something to contribute towards achieving sustainable tourism in every part of the country and it is in everyone's interest to do so.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to ensure that the Access All Areas programme is being promoted in all tourist areas [124762]

  Mr. Caborn
  Access All Areas is a nation-wide award scheme run by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Launched in May 2003, the scheme runs until September, and aims to recognise and congratulate small businesses and organisations, of all types, which offer accessible and innovative services for disabled people. Through DWP's efforts the scheme has been promoted by VisitBritain, both on its web site and in an e-mail newsletter sent to 200,000 tourism businesses, and by the Tourism Skills Network, who advertised the award on its web site. DCMS sponsors VisitBritain as the lead body for tourism, and has communicated Access All Areas to those responsible for accessible tourism in England's regional tourist boards.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what type of marketing procedures have been used to promote VisitBritain to local communities [124765]

  Mr. Caborn
  VisitBritain uses a range of corporate communication tools to inform local tourism communities about its activities, including e-mail, a dedicated trade website, press releases, a quarterly corporate newsletter, press and trade-dedicated information leaflets and brochures. It also provides regional tourist boards, and other destination marketing organizations, with feature articles for use in their own communications.

  VisitBritain's representatives regularly meet tourism businesses at regional events and hold trade surgeries throughout the country.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much she estimates will be spent by her Department on funding the e-commerce impact assessment c n the UK tourism sector. [124771]

  Mr. Caborn
  The e-commerce impact assessment on the tourism industry was commissioned and managed jointly by this Department and UK Online for Business. This study was one of a series assessing the impact of e-commerce on more than 50 key sectors, all of which were funded by UK Online for Business. The costs for this study, including consultancy, printing, dissemination and publicity were approximately £68,000.

  Tourism (Disability Access)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has to introduce an indicator for disability access friendly services within the tourism sector [124767]
  39W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Tourism For All National Accessibility Standard was agreed in 1993 as a mechanism for assessing the accessibility of tourist accommodation, both serviced and self-catering, and to help operators promote these facilities. It was reviewed, expanded and relaunched as the National Accessible Scheme in 2002.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what types of incentives are available for tourism-related small businesses that are renovating their premises to improve access for people with disabilities [124768]

  Mr. Caborn
  In October 2004 the final phase of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 comes into force. Organisations that provide a service to the public, which includes most small businesses in the tourism sector, are required to tackle physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled customer to use their service.

  However, the DDA only requires service providers to make "reasonable" adjustments. The Act allows flexibility for service providers in considering how to make their services accessible to disabled people. All circumstances would be considered when interpreting what is "reasonable", including the cost of an adjustment, its practicality, and the extent of a service provider's resources. What might be considered reasonable for a national hotel chain may not be so for a small guesthouse. Financial incentives should not therefore be needed, apart from the clear business case for providing good service for disabled people and their family and friends, whose overall annual spending power is estimated at £45 billion.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle were slaughtered owing to bovine TB in each year since 1997(a) in Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) in Shropshire [123694]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The data requested are not available for the parliamentary constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham. However, the number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB measures in Shropshire, from 1997 to 2002, is given in the following table:

  Number of cattle slaughtered in Shropshire under bovine TB control measures 1997–20021

  Number of cattle slaughtered

  1997

  28

  1998

  40

  1999

  36

  2000

  221

  2001

  120

  2002

  48

  1 TB Reactors plus direct contacts.

  Note:

  In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests, which would have had a longer
  40W
  period in which to contract the disease. Also, the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, the number of TB reactors identified and slaughtered in 2002 is not comparable to those identified and slaughtered in previous years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of cattle herds in(a) the south-west region and (b) England and Wales suffered an incidence of bovine TB in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002.
  [124314]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The table provides information on the incidence of bovine TB in(a) State Veterinary Service (SVS) west region and (b) England and Wales between 1999 and 2002. There is no SVS south-west region, but west region, which includes the counties listed, covers the south-west of England.

  Area TB herd incidence 1999–20021

  Percentage

  1999

  2000

  2001

  x2002

  (a) West region

  4.04

  4.82

  5.96

  7.35

  Avon

  2.58

  3.70

  7.41

  5.97

  Cornwall

  3.67

  4.70

  5.55

  7.97

  Devon

  2.93

  3.49

  5.79

  5.50

  Dorset

  2.31

  1.18

  3.74

  4.27

  Gloucestershire

  8.82

  10.85

  9.47

  14.64

  Hereford and Worcester

  6.40

  7.65

  9.17

  11.70

  Shropshire

  0.22

  1.72

  2.37

  3.29

  Somerset

  2.71

  4.35

  3.45

  4.88

  Wiltshire

  6.77

  5.20

  6.02

  8.55

  (b) England and Wales

  2.55

  3.14

  4.19

  4.52

  England

  2.63

  3.29

  3.94

  4.78

  Wales

  2.15

  2.47

  5.10

  3.61

  1 Confirmed new herd incidents as a percentage of tests on unrestricted herds.

  Note:

  In 2001, the TB testing and control programme was largely suspended due to the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak. Since testing resumed in 2002, resources have been concentrated on herds with overdue TB tests, which would have had a longer period in which to contract the disease. Also, the proportion of high risk herds being tested post-FMD is greater than that prior to the outbreak. As a result, herd incidence in 2002 is not comparable to that of previous years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress in respect of the TB Forum; and when it is expected to reach conclusions. [124316]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The remit of the TB Forum is 'to consider new measures which might be taken to control TB in cattle'. The Forum is a consultative group, with no formal advisory or decision making role. It is the main vehicle for informing key interest groups on developments on policy in bovine TB and it provides a sounding board for exploring new policy options. The Forum met last on 23 June 2003.

  The EFRA Committee in its report on Badgers and Bovine TB, Seventh Report of Session 2002–03, recommended that members of the Forum should reassess what role it should play and that Defra should consider redefining its remit. In its response, published on 24 June 2003, by the Committee as the Eighth Special Report of Session 2002–03, the Government explain that relationships between the Government and

  41W
  stakeholders will be addressed in light of the Animal Health and Welfare Interim Strategy and in the development of a new TB Strategy.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the consultation documents issued by her 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. [124574]

  Alun Michael
  Defra believes that policy development should be carried out in close consultation with stakeholders. Formal consultation documents are only part of this process, which can also include, for example:

  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

  roadshows and exhibitions.

  The specific information requested is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a list of all written consultations exercises carried out by Defra since its formation, including copies of the documents, can be obtained from the Department's website at: www.defra.gov.uk in the section entitled "Consultations".

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months, and at what cost. [106387]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have not done so.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Committee on Statistics relating to the trading of goods with non-member countries, 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. [110496]

  John Healey
  The Committee on Statistics relating to the trading of goods with non-member countries does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 member states. Delegates from the 10 EU accession states attended the last meeting as active observers. The UK Government are represented by officials from HM Customs and Excise, occasionally accompanied by an official from the Office for National Statistics, depending on the agenda.
  42W
  Since January 2002, the Committee has met five times on:

  7 March 2002;

  27 to 28 June 2002;

  14 to 15 November 2002;

  12 to 13 March 2003; and

  25 to 26 June 2003.

  Agenda items considered and decisions made by the Committee since January 2002 all relate to the implementation, interpretation and application of EC legislation dealing with the collection of extra EC trade statistics. The main items under discussion by the Committee during the period in question have been the impact of EU enlargement, actions relating to the collection, processing and dissemination of data and work programmes intended to improve data quality.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process: documents which fall within the Scrutiny Terms of Reference are deposited within Parliament along with an Explanatory Memorandum for examination by the Scrutiny Committees.

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

  The Commission is obliged to publish an annual report on the workings of the Committees. The latest report (Com (2002) 733 final, dated 13/12/02) has been published and was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 10 January 2003.

  The UK Government have also 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.

  Information Technology
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much she spent on IT(a) maintenance, (b) licences, (c) software and (d) hardware in the last financial year. [125717]

  Alun Michael
  During the financial year 2002–03, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (excluding Agencies and NDPBs) spent £6,225,184 on IT maintenance, £308,342 on licences, £3,910,025 on proprietary software and £12,088,211 on hardware (including operating system software on PCs and servers and first year maintenance where appropriate). The software spend includes some licence costs, which cannot easily be identified without disproportionate cost.

  These figures include payments to Fujitsu Services Ltd., with whom the Department has a framework contract, of approximately £4,090,033 on IT maintenance, £320,000 for licences, £1,500,000 for proprietary software and £11,866,000 for hardware purchases.

  Marketing Budgets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 767W, on marketing budgets, if she will place evaluations of the campaigns funded in the Library. [124722]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Regarding general consumer information on organic food, no evaluation is available since the possibility of providing such information is still under consideration. As was said in the response to the question from the Member for Bridgwater, direct funding is not available from Defra to support advertising campaigns.

  On the marketing of organic and other quality agricultural products under the Rural Enterprise Scheme, funding is offered to individual businesses or representative organisations to assist with marketing initiatives. These projects are commercial in nature and the information is treated as confidential. Expected outcomes from these, and all other Rural Enterprise Scheme projects, are considered as part of the scheme's application assessment process against published aims for the scheme and to ensure that the Government investment achieves good value for money. The performance of each project is monitored during its lifetime to ensure agreed output targets are achieved. The effectiveness of RES support will be evaluated as part of Defra's normal policy evaluation programme.

  Certain information on individual awards made under the Rural Enterprise Scheme can be provided by Defra on request. More detailed information about projects which are likely to be of particular public interest are announced through Defra News Releases, available on the Government News Network website.

  Ministerial Visits (Scotland)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many times she has visited Scotland on official duties each year since 2000; and what meetings were held on each occasion. [103616]

  Margaret Beckett
  I visit Scotland from time to time on official duties. In line with Exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings or their content, as some of these discussions may have taken place on a confidential basis.

  Overseas Trips
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the overseas trips made by(a) herself, (b) her ministerial team and (c) departmental staff in each month since 1 October 2002, broken down by (i) the participating Ministers, (ii) the destination of the trip, (iii) the purpose of the trip and (iv) the cost of the trip. [117534]

  Margaret Beckett
  I and members of my ministerial team make frequent overseas trips at EU and UN fora and more widely in pursuit of Defra business. The Government publish an annual report of ministerial travel overseas. All travel by Defra civil servants is 44W
  conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code. The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost in total is of completing the mapping exercise under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [123406]

  Alun Michael
  The cost of implementing Part 1 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in England was £13.5 million to the end of March 2003.

  The Countryside Agency has estimated that the remainder of the mapping exercise including contractor costs, staff and publicity will require a further £22.1 million. This is an estimated cost and there are still large external factors to be taken into account, such as the number of comment forms received from the public which need to be determined and the number of appeals to be heard. These variables could have a large impact on the final costs of the mapping exercise.

  The Planning Inspectorate has spent £1.5 million up to the end of March 2003 and has a budget of £2.5 million this year. It is not possible to give a total cost for the Planning Inspectorate as this will depend on the number of appeals received.

  Information on costs in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124814]

  Alun Michael
  Since August 2001, when the current planning regulations on mobile telecommunications masts came into force, there have been three planning applications (relating to one site only) and no applications for prior approval to locate mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department.

  Village Grants
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about Vital Village grants; and if she will make a statement. [124884]

  Alun Michael
  We have received 14 representations from MP's and members of the public about uncertainty that was caused by the temporary hold the Countryside Agency put on decision making in the Vital Villages grant programme.

  The Countryside Agency lifted the hold on decision making in the first week of July 2003 and is now assessing grant applications.
  45W
  The Agency tells me that the hold was put in place in order to decide how to cope with a very high demand for grants. High demand for the Vital Villages grant scheme is a feature of its success, but the Agency has reviewed its priorities and will ensure that those communities in most need receive support.

PRIME MINISTER

  Department for International Development
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in the last six months regarding the future of the Department for International Development as an independent Department; and if he will make a statement. [125352]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings with ministerial colleagues and others on a wide range of subjects and will continue to do so. As with previous Administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions, under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Child Guardianship
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many children are awaiting decisions from CAFCASS on whether they should be removed from the care of their parents or guardians. [120370]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) does not make the decision to remove children from the care of their parents or guardians, or hold hearings on future guardianship. Court hearings are held to determine these questions. A CAFCASS practitioner represents the interests of a child during proceedings. The court considers all the evidence before it, including CAFCASS reports, and makes the decision about the child's future. At the end of April 2003, CAFCASS were dealing with 12,245 public law cases (care, adoption, freeing orders and guardianship) that were at various stages between application and final hearing. Information on how many children are awaiting hearings on future guardianship is not held centrally and could not be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what forum he intends prosecutions for human rights abuses, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq be tried. [125026]
  46W
  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 246W.

  No decision has yet been made in what forum prosecutions for human rights abuses, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Iraq will be tried.

  We believe that it should be for the Iraqi people to decide whether and how to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against them, with suitable international help.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his memorandum to the, Foreign Affairs Committee of 16 June, which documents were examined which were found to be forgeries; which documents on Iraq's alleged uranium procurement are under consideration; and if he will make a statement on the procedure being used to distinguish between genuine and forged documents. [123655]

  Mr. Rammell
  We understand that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) acquired documents on this subject in February 2003. These documents did not originate in the United Kingdom. Some of these turned out to be forgeries. We have now seen the documents passed to the IAEA and agree that some of them are forgeries. Others are, still under consideration. We do not know the precise origin or history of these documents.

  I cannot comment on procedures to distinguish between different documents or on the documents themselves, as it is the longstanding policy of successive governments not to comment on intelligence matters.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the good and unforged evidence that Iraq sought materials from Niger mentioned by Sir Jeremy Greenstock in his interview with David Usborne of the Independent was passed to the International Atomic Energy Authority. [124906]

  Mr. Rammell
  The evidence referred to by Sir Jeremy Greenstock does not derive from UK sources. We have encouraged all states to make available to the International Atomic Energy Agency any evidence which they possess.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the UK Government have officially informed the International Atomic Energy Authority that they do not concur with its conclusions on allegations that Iraq sought to procure substantial quantities of uranium from Africa. [124927]

  Mr. Rammell
  No. We have, however, made a number of public statements to the effect that we believe that there is good evidence to support our assertion that Iraq tried to procure uranium.

  Mr. Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 2003,Official Report, columns 46-7W, on visas (Syria), how many (a) applications

  47W
  from students and (b) entry clearance applications to (i) visit the UK and (ii) settle in the UK were approved in each year. [123903]

  Mr. Mullin
  I regret that the figures in my answer to my hon. Friend on 16 June 2003,Official Report, columns 46-7W, were not accurate. The correct figures are as follows:

  In the calendar year 2000, the British embassy in Damascus received 815 student applications. Of these, 535 visas were successful. In the financial year 2001–2002, 845 student applications were received and 502 visas were issued. In the financial year 2002–2003, 657 student applications were received and 432 visas were issued.

  The number of visit visa applications received in Damascus in the calendar year 2000 was 5,720. Of these 4,263 were successful. In the financial year 2001–2002, 3,758 applications were received and 3,525 visas were issued. In the financial year 2002–2003, 5,068 applications were received and of these 4,208 were successful.

  In the calendar year 2000, our embassy in Damascus received 140 settlement applications. Of these, 71 were successful. In the financial year 2001–2002 165 applications were received and 178 visas were issued. This apparent discrepancy is due to the fact that applications can be carried forward from one month to the next before being resolved. In the financial year 2002–2003, 368 applications for settlement in the United Kingdom were received. Of these, 280 were successful.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK Government is taking to promote human rights in Iraq. [124110]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) on 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 558W.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK Government is taking to ensure implementation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 57/232 on deployment of human rights monitors. [124112]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of Stale at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 471W.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which countries Ministers in his Department conducted arms promotion activities in(a) 2002 and (b) 2003 to date; and if he will make a statement. [112293]
  48W
  Mr. Straw
  [pursuant to the answer, 15 May 2003, Official Report, c. 403W]: An administrative error led to an omission in my answer of 15 May to the right hon. Member. The correct answer should read as follows:

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers regularly conduct overseas visits in the course of which they promote British exports, including those of defence equipment. For 2002, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers carried out such promotion activities in Chile, India, and Singapore; and in 2003 to date, Singapore. In 2002, Ministers also carried out promotion in the Czechoslovakia Republic, Slovakia and Tanzania, but while in the UK. In 2003, Ministerial promotion also took place in India, but while the Minister was in the UK.

  Bali
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what intelligence his Department received in advance of the terrorist attack in Bali of 12 October 2002; whether this was reflected in advice to travellers on the Department's website; and if he will make a statement. [124979]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary to the House on 21 October 2002,Official Report, columns 21-24.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116089]

  Mr. MacShane
  Membership of EU Committees and Working Parties is not fixed. Depending on the subject matter under consideration, the most appropriate policy officials, including those on the staff of the UK Permanent Representatives, therefore attend the meetings of EU Committees and Working Parties. Given the wide-ranging and fluctuating nature of the subject matter, attendance can vary significantly from meeting to meeting. The precise details of attendance are therefore not available, and would incur disproportionate cost to compile.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the US administration on the timescale for the construction of court rooms at Guantanamo Bay. [124228]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  We continue, however, to press the US to resolve the position of the detainees.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on proposals to construct an execution chamber at Guantanamo Bay. [124229]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are not aware of a US decision to construct such facilities.
  49W
  The US is aware of the UK's fundamental opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the US administration on the future of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. [124230]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Chris Mullin) on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 751.

  We continue to press the US to resolve the position of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the US to set a date for bringing to trial the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. [124231]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Chris Mullin) on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 751.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received on(a) the total number of UK citizens who are prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, (b) their country of origin, (c) how many have been returned to their country of origin and (d) what their ages are. [124233]

  Mr. MacShane
  The British Government are not party to this information as a matter of course.

  I understand, however, that there are approximately 680 detainees of 42 nationalities in Guantanamo Bay of which 3 are under 16.9 of the detainees are British. I also understand that 41 detainees have been released by the US Government.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from human rights organisations on the treatment of detainees who are UK citizens at Guantanamo Bay. [124234]

  Mr. MacShane
  There is regular contact between the FCO and human rights NGOs, including on the question of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South tabled on 18 June. [125640]

  Mr. Rammell
  My hon. Friend received an answer to his question on 10 July. I apologise for the delay.

  Piracy
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many recorded incidents there were of piracy and armed robbery on the seas around the British Isles during the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [125228]
  50W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There has been no recorded incidents of piracy or armed robbery on the seas around the British Isles in the last five years. The United Kingdom Government have taken positive steps to identify and deal with the problem of piracy against ships at sea. This includes readily available guidance to UK seafarers and ship owners on how to avoid or deal with acts of piracy.

  Qatar
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when since 1 January 1999 Ministers in his Department have held meetings with the Government of Qatar; which Ministers in his Department attended each of these meetings; and where each of these meetings was held. [123014]

  Mr. Rammell
  FCO Ministers frequently meet members of the Qatari Government. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met the Foreign Minister of Qatar on 14 April in Doha.

  Syria/Iran
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to(a) Syria and (b) Iran on the fate of missing Israeli service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [124591]

  Mr. Rammell
  We condemn hostage taking under any circumstances and have made a number of representations to governments in the Middle East about the missing Israeli servicemen. On each occasion we emphasise that hostage taking is wrong and that those holding hostages should free them at once. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last raised the matter with Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi on 6 February 2003 and my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Mike O'Brien) raised it with Syrian Foreign Minister Shara'a during President Al-Assad's visit to the UK on 16 and 17 December 2002. We have also raised the issue with Hizbollah.

  United States
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the US Administration for the UK to benefit from the US Visa Waiver Scheme. [125625]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Kingdom is already one of 27 countries whose nationals benefit from the US Visa Waiver Programme when travelling to the US on a full British passport for a visit of less than 90 days. Officials are in discussions with their US counterparts to ensure that the maximum number of UK nationals will continue to benefit from the programme following the introduction of tighter US entry requirements over the next couple of years.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the dissolution of the Sahara Section of the Forum for Truth and Justice as a result of a judgment by the Laayoune Court of First Instance; and how many members of the Sahara Section of the Forum for Truth and Justice are in prison. [123462]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials are in contact with a number of different organisations in Morocco and in Western Sahara, including the Forum for Truth and Justice. We were aware that the court in Laayoune had recently formally dissolved the Forum's section in Western Sahara. However, the Forum's section in Western Sahara had been inoperative and effectively without a membership for over a year.

  Some former members of the Forum continue to monitor the situation in Western Sahara and to undertake case work.

  As the British Government would never have had access to the Forum's membership record and effectively the Western Sahara section of the Forum no longer exists we are therefore unable to comment on the number of former members of the Forum, their current locations or activities. We are aware of specific cases involving individuals previously associated with the dissolved section, for example, Ali Salem Tamek whose case officials have raised with the Moroccan authorities.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when hon. Members will be able to view pre-legislative scrutiny proceedings or-line in their offices; and if he will make a statement. [125001]

  Michael Fabricant
  Following a successful pilot project, a webcasting service will be established on a permanent basis later this year and will be accessed through the www.parliamentlive.tv website. Links will be provided from the webcasts to details of witnesses and other background material. The service will provide coverage of both Chambers, sittings in Westminster Hall, and some Select and Standing Committees. Audio and video coverage will be available for any committees that are televised. Audio-only coverage will be provided for most other committees. Therefore, if a committee chooses to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, or if a special committee is appointed for that purpose, it is likely that its proceedings will be webcast either in audio-only or both in audio and video.

  Any material webcast will be available on demand from an archive that will hold about 14 days' worth of material. There are plans to make the webcasting service available to all users of the parliamentary network, but this is dependent on an upgrade to the network that is planned for this summer, which will provide greater transmission capacity.

SCOTLAND

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003£04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114118]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Department does not set separate energy efficiency targets, but seeks to operate within the Government's environment and climate change commitments.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement, in relation to his Department and each Agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures, (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108868]

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

  Information in the form requested is not available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Scotland Office does not set separate energy efficiency targets, but it seeks to operate within the Government's environment and climate change commitments.

  Hepatitis C (Compensation)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Health Minister to discuss compensation for hepatitis C sufferers in Scotland. [125646]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have frequent discussions with Scottish Executive Ministers on a wide range of issues.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if he will publish the results of such an audit. [117431]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scottish Executive completed an equal pay review, that included staff of the Scotland Office, at the end of April 2003. The initial review considered gender. Race and disability will be considered at a later stage, programmed for completion by the end of April 2004.

  A summary of the main findings of the review and what measures will be taken to ensure the pay system is free from bias will be issued to staff shortly.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in the Department have been on long-term sick leave in each of the last two years. [115859]

  Mrs. McGuire
  One.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time-period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if he will make a statement. [112394]

  Mrs. McGuire
  None.

  Supreme Court
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet(a) Scottish Law Lords, (b) the judiciary in Scotland, (c) the Law Society of Scotland and (d) the Faculty of Advocates to discuss the proposals for a Supreme Court. [122718]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government will fully consult these bodies and other interests in Scotland on their proposals for a Supreme Court. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has already had helpful and constructive meetings with the Lord Advocate to discuss the interests of the Scottish Executive and with the two Scottish Law Lords.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug Testing and Treatment Orders
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve joint working between the police, the criminal justice system and the NHS on the implementation of Drug Testing and Treatment Orders. [125066]

  Caroline Flint
  The successful delivery of the Drug Treatment and Testing Order (DTTO) involves the Probation Service, treatment providers, the courts and the police, working effectively in partnership together.

  In April 2002, over 97 per cent. of all Drug Advisory Teams (DATs) had a joint commissioning group in place, ensuring that best practice is followed in developing and providing appropriate treatment.

  An increase of nearly 10 per cent. on the previous year. Last year 6,140 DTTOs were made, exceeding the Government's target of 6,000 Orders demonstrating that current partnership arrangements are working.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the pay and conditions of the Metropolitan police. [125067]

  Ms Blears
  We have received representations from hon. Members, members of the public and others about the pay and conditions of the Metropolitan police. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets regularly with the Commissioner and the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority, at which a range of issues are discussed, including pay and conditions.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the two-year probationary period to qualify for indefinite leave to remain will come into force. [125068]

  Beverley Hughes
  The two-year probationary period on marriage was introduced as one of a number of changes made to the Immigration Rules on 1 April 2003.

  The changes were part of a package of measures to tackle the growing menace of fraudulent or abusive marriages to circumvent immigration control. Other changes were:

  introducing a 'no switching' into marriage provision after entry to the United Kingdom for those coming for a short period of six months or less;

  removing the probationary period where a marriage or relationship has existed for more than four years and the couple have been living abroad;

  preventing someone from acting as a sponsor in a marriage or fiancé application until they are 18 years of age; and

  preventing fiancé (e)s under the age of 16 from applying for leave to enter; and removing the 'legally unable to marry requirement' for those seeking to enter or remain as an unmarried partner.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants for asylum were granted permission to work in 2002. [123775]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am afraid that the information is not held centrally and could be obtained only by examination of individual case files. The employment concession for asylum seekers was abolished on 23 July 2002. Prior to its abolition asylum seekers could seek permission to work if their application for asylum remained outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made on it.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been refused support by the National Asylum Support Service under sections 55 or 57 of the Nationality Asylum and Immigration Act 2002(a) in total and (b) in each month since January. [124915]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 came into force on 8 January 2003, restricting the availability of National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support to those asylum seekers who make an asylum application as soon as reasonably practical.

  Of the total (4,365) cases referred to NASS for a Section 55 decision in the first quarter of 2003:

  2,850 were refused NASS support on the grounds that their claims were not made as soon as reasonably practicable.

  325 were granted MASS support on the grounds that they were made as soon as reasonably practical.

  685 were exempted from consideration under Section 55 on the grounds of being a family application.

  505 were exempted from consideration under Section 55 to avoid a breach of ECHR rights.

  55W
  Following the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal, a number of decisions made early in the quarter are now being reviewed to ensure compliance with the current decision making process.

  Information on Section 57 cases is not available.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of asylum seekers living below poverty levels. [125054]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are committed to meeting our international obligations with regard to asylum seekers. This includes providing support to eligible asylum seekers and their dependants who would otherwise be destitute. Levels of support are app roved by Parliament.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what conditions an asylum seeker might continue to receive benefits after his or her case has been refused; which benefits are available; and how many such cases arose in each of the last five years. [125340]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: For single asylum seekers and childless couples the legislation allows for support to be provided to asylum seekers until a final decision is made on their claim and, in the case of unsuccessful applicants, for 21 days after the receipt of the final decision on the claim. In the case of families including children under the age of 18, support is provided unless and until the family fails to comply with removal directions or until the youngest child reaches 18.

  In the majority of cases there is nothing to prevent the failed asylum seeker from leaving the country once their asylum claim has been finally determined. Letters sent at this stage to failed asylum seekers provide details of the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), who will assist the person to make a voluntary return, and also the Immigration Service who will arrange for them to return to their home country.

  Failed asylum seekers may be provided with accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act). As a matter of policy accommodation is only provided to those unable to leave immediately through no fault of their own e.g. because they are suffering from a temporary physical incapacity or need a travel document to enable them to go. Accommodation provided is full board and will usually be outside London. The legislation does not allow for payment of cash support.

  Section 4 of the 1999 Act came into force on 11 November 1999. There are no published statistics on the number of failed asylum seekers who have been provided with accommodation under section 4. This information could only be obtained by examination of individual case records.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support he is giving to asylum seekers in Glasgow. [125076]

  Beverley Hughes
  The support available to asylum seekers is consistent across the United Kingdom. Eligible asylum seekers and their dependants may be provided with support if they would otherwise be destitute. The provision of support may be subject to 56W
  conditions. Generally speaking, support is provided until a final decision is made on the claim, but can be terminated early if the asylum seeker fails to comply with the conditions on which support is offered.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [125070]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 55, which came into operation on 8 January 2003, is one of a package of new measures to move towards a more streamlined and cohesive asylum system. Statistics on the operation of section 55 up to 31 March 2003 were published at the end of May 2003, and we are continuing to monitor the impact closely.

  Child Protection
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with promoting(a) Child Rescue Alert and (b) the Safety House project as national child protection schemes. [125071]

  Paul Goggins
  A Child Rescue Alert scheme completed its pilot in Sussex at the end of May 2003. Its purpose is to find children who have been abducted. The Homicide Working Group of the Association of Chief Police Officers has recommended that the scheme be implemented under nationally agreed standards. Sussex police are currently waiting for the British Safety House Association to provide more details about the Safety House project, before they give further consideration for this development.

  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce new laws to combat the trafficking and sexual exploitation of children within the UK; and if he will make a statement. [125074]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act introduced a new criminal offence of trafficking for control over prostitution with a maximum penalty of 14 years.

  The new Sexual Offences Bill also introduces a new offence of commercial sexual exploitation of a child, which will protect children up to 18, covering a range of offences, including buying the sexual services of a child, and causing, facilitating or controlling the commercial sexual exploitation of a child in prostitution or pornography.

  Prisons
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in dealing with prison overcrowding. [125072]

  Paul Goggins
  Where imprisonment is the most appropriate punishment, it should be used. An additional 4,500 prison places will be provided over the next three years. Other reforms include the use of Home
  57W
  Detention Curfew; this will help create a more appropriate balance between the use of custody and community supervision.

  Passports
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to reduce passport fraud. [125073]

  Beverley Hughes
  As indicated in its 2003–08 Corporate and Business Plan, the UK Passport Service is taking forward a range of initiatives to reduce passport fraud through improved fraud detection and prevention. These include:

  establishing from December this year a new more comprehensive database for the recording and dissemination of lost, stolen and recovered passport information;

  exploring the benefits of using private sector and other Government databases in establishing identity;

  introducing secure delivery for the despatch of all passports;

  increasing the professionalism of its fraud investigation capability through the creation of fraud and intelligence units in each of its offices, and strengthening training and support for these units;

  developing its IT systems to undertake more automatic checks, to better link passport records to an individual, and to identify passport fraud;

  investigating the use of biometrics to improve the security of the passport book;

  changing the law to make passport fraud offences arrestable, and by creating a new offence relating to being in possession or control of false identity documents, without reasonable cause; and

  actively working with law enforcement agencies to apprehend, disrupt and dismantle the activities of those involved in passport fraud.

  These initiatives build on the successful implementation of a number of anti-fraud measures, including the prevention of fraudulent applications using the identity of dead children, and strengthening of the counter-signatory requirement for passport applications.

  Illegal Immigration (France)
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has agreed with the French Government to ensure that illegal immigration from the Calais area is not displaced to other routes. [125075]

  Beverley Hughes
  We have agreed with the French to establish juxtaposed controls at Dunkirk and Boulogne as well as Calais. This will help counter immediate displacement from the Calais area by those seeking to use documents to board ferries. In addition those hiding in freight traffic bound for the United Kingdom are being targeted by the use of UK personnel detection technology loaned to French ports. Calais already has the capability to screen 100 per cent. of freight and screening will be introduced at Dunkirk and Cherbourg.

  We continue to meet regularly with the French to discuss how these projects and others relating to increased cross channel border security can best be taken forward. We are also in the process of providing new detection technology to Belgian ports.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the effectiveness of the Crime Fighting Fund. [125077]

  Ms Blears
  None. The Crime Fighting Fund has proved extremely effective in helping to deliver record numbers of police officers. By September 2002 the police service had 131,548 officers in England and Wales.

  Anti-Drugs Projects
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Answer to the honourable Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) of 30 June, Official Report, column 11W, on drugs, if he will list the anti-drugs projects funded from recovered assets, and the amount of money awarded in each case. [124958]

  Caroline Flint
  In 2002–03 16 anti-drugs projects were awarded funding for 1-3 years from recovered assets at a total cost of £6.5 million. The projects were:

  Rehabilitation/Treatment

  South Buckinghamshire Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (Slough)—"Criminal Justice Treatment Project"—to set up a drug treatment clinic with a doctor, nurse and counselor—£220,000

  Community Focus (Hull)—"User Involvement Project—to involve drug misusers in identifying and reviewing service provision—£99,400

  West Glamorgan Council on Alcohol and Drugs Abuse (Swansea)—"Community Outreach Drug Prevention Initiative"—to provide equipment and advice to heroin addicts and get new people in to treatment—£136,718

  No Limits (Southampton)—"Young People's Substance Misuse Project"—to provide advice and counselling on drugs issues—£219,472

  Brigend County Borough Council—"Brigend Rapid Access Points"—to offer a rapid appointment for assessment and access to treatment for drugs misusers—£462,500

  Gwellheans Recovery (Cornwall)—"Caseworker"—to focus on relapse prevention and positive re-integration back into the community—£66,671

  North East Council on Addictions (Newcastle)—"The Integrated Treatment/Outreach Programme"—to provide a range of services to prolific substance misusers—£189,612

  Reading Drugs Action Team—"Oxford Road Drugs and Street crime Initiative"—Full-time worker to provide advice and support to homeless drugs misusers—£155,000

  Diversionary Activities for Young People

  Southern Focus Trust (Portsmouth)—"Havant Young People's Access"—a drop-in facility to divert young people from drugs and crime—£276,659

  Corby Borough Council—"Project Diversion"—working with disengaged or at risk young people £37,000

  Torfaen County Borough Council (Pontypool)—"Musical Youth"—to engage young people through the medium of music—£82,627

  59W
  Pro-active Drugs related Projects

  Lancashire Constabulary—"Drugsfine"—Confidential telephone line for the public to contact the police with drug related information—£47,685

  Drugscope (London)—"Drug Education for Hard to reach Parents"—to provide information and education about drugs issues—£81,334

  Surrey Drug Action Team—"Confidential no-fault Inquiries into Drug Deaths in Surrey"—£10,000

  Clouds (Wiltshire)—"Interventions towards the Significant Other"—to provide support for carers of substance misusers—£253,699

  Merseyside Police—"Middle Market Drugs Investigation"—to disrupt Class A drug trafficking—£4,236,379

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many decisions were made on asylum applications in each year from 1997–2002; and what percentage were granted asylum, including those granted on appeal; [125338]

  Table 1: Initial asylum decisions in the United Kingdom1, 2, 1997 to 2002

  Number of principal applicants

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20013

  20023

  Total initial decisions4

  36,045

  31,570

  33,720

  109,205

  119,015

  82,715

  Cases considered under normal procedures5

  Total

  36,045

  31,570

  21,305

  97,545

  119,015

  82,715

  Granted asylum

  3,985

  5,345

  7,815

  10,375

  11,180

  8,100

  Granted asylum (percentage)

  11

  17

  37

  11

  9

  10

  Granted ELR

  3,115

  3,910

  2,465

  11,495

  19,845

  19,965

  Granted ELR (percentage)

  9

  12

  12

  12

  17

  24

  Refused

  28,945

  22,315

  11,925

  75,680

  87,990

  54,650

  Refused (Percentage)

  80

  71

  52

  78

  74

  66

  Backlog clearance exercise6

  Total

  —

  —

  12,415

  11,660

  —

  —

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  —

  —

  11,140

  10,325

  —

  —

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria (percentage)

  —

  —

  90

  89

  —

  —

  Refused under backlog criteria7

  —

  —

  1,275

  1,3365

  —

  —

  Refused under backlog criteria7 (percentage)

  —

  —

  10

  11

  —

  —

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  3 Figures for 2001 and 2002 are provisional and subject to change.

  4 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  5 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  6 Cases decided under measures aimed at reducing the pre 1996 asylum application backlog.

  7 Includes some cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  Table 2: Outcome of asylum appeals determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, 1997–20021,2

  Number of principal appellants

  Total determined

  Allowed (percentage)

  Dismissed (percentage)

  Withdrawn (percentage)

  1997

  21,090

  6

  86

  8

  1998

  25,320

  9

  84

  7

  1999

  19,460

  27

  57

  16

  2000

  19,395

  17

  80

  2

  20013

  43,415

  19

  79

  2

  20023

  64,405

  22

  76

  3

  1 Figures (other than percentages) rounded to the nearest five.

  2 Appeals figures do not necessarily relate to initial decisions made in the same period.

  3 Figures for 2002 are provisional and subject to change.

  60W
  (2) how many applicants for asylum were granted exceptional leave to remain in each year from 1997–2002; and what percentage this was of the total number of applications. [125339]

  Beverley Hughes
  Following changes to policy in relation to granting of exceptional leave to remain (ELR) in the second half of 2002, the proportion granted ELR fell in Q3 2002 and in Q4 2002.

  The available information is provided in the tables. This shows that the initial decision figures for any given year do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same year. Similarly, appeal outcomes for any given year do not necessarily relate to initial decisions in the same year.

  It is estimated that (up to and including appeals at the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) 19 per cent. of applications made in 2000 and in 2001 resulted in grants of asylum. The corresponding figures for grants of ELR for applications made in 2000 and in 2001 were 14 per cent. and 23 per cent. respectively.

  Precise information on the number of appeals that result in a grant of asylum or ELR could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Domestic Violence
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on tackling domestic violence. [125069]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Domestic violence is a serious and appalling crime. It represents around a quarter of violent crime. Every week, two women die as a result of such violence.

  On 18 June we published "Safety and Justice", a consultation paper outlining proposals to help prevent and tackle the consequences of domestic violence. We want to prevent domestic violence occurring in the first place and to intervene early where it does occur. We want to protect victims and bring offenders to justice, and we want to support victims and their children in rebuilding their lives.

  We want this consultation to be as wide as possible because it is important that we get it right.

  Human Trafficking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of human trafficking for sexual purposes, have been discovered in each of the last three years; from which countries the persons arrived; and how many successful prosecutions have resulted. [124845]

  Beverley Hughes
  There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study `Stopping Traffic' (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000) indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries.

  The Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Act 2002 created a new offence of trafficking for the purpose of controlling someone through prostitution, the relevant sections of which came into force on 10 February 2003. Given that the powers came into effect very recently there is not any information yet held centrally about numbers of victims of this crime. Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic given the reluctance of the victims of trafficking to report to the police.

  The current pilot project for victims of trafficking will provide us with a clearer idea on scale of trafficking problem and enable better assessment to be made of the needs of victims.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedure is followed upon the discovery of individuals trafficked into the UK for sexual purposes; what factors underlie decisions to return them to their home country; and if he will make a statement. [124846]
  62W
  Beverley Hughes
  The White Paper "Secure Borders Safe Haven", published last year, set out a comprehensive approach for supporting the victims of trafficking. It included a commitment to make arrangements for victim protection and support.

  In March this year we established a pilot scheme, working with Eaves Housing, a voluntary sector organisation, to provide support and assistance to victims of trafficking to enable them to make an informed decision about co-operating with the authorities. The pilot scheme will initially run on a trial basis for a period of six months so that we can evaluate its impact.

  Under the terms of the scheme victims are referred to Eaves housing by the police, via a voluntary organisation or self-referred. There is an assessment made of their needs and they get information about the consequences of co-operating with a prosecution. Their immigration status is considered, and it is recognised that if they co-operate with the authorities then it may be appropriate to allow them to remain in the United Kingdom. This assessment is made on a case by case basis. If they decide to return home, arrangements are made through the International Organisation for Migration, which has a well established voluntary assisted return programme, to assist the woman to reintegrate back into her home society.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the extent of the trafficking of individuals for sexual purposes into the UK; and what discussions he has had with European colleagues on the issue. [124847]

  Beverley Hughes
  Forming an accurate estimate of the levels of trafficking in people is problematic given the reluctance of the victims of trafficking to report to the police. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study 'Stopping Traffic' (Police Research Series 125, published in 2000) indicated that there was intelligence to suggest that some women and children are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of sexual exploitation. This was estimated at between 140 and 1,400 per year but it was impossible to make a more accurate assessment of numbers. The report concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that this was on a large scale compared with other European countries.

  The Government have announced their intention to tackle the heinous crime of trafficking through a four-pronged approach set out in the White Paper 'Secure Borders Safe Haven' published last year. This approach encompasses legislation, enforcement, victim support and international co-operation. In the context of this last point, the UK has been working hard to push trafficking up the international agenda. We were at the forefront of work to draft the United Nations trafficking protocol and subsequent EU framework decision on trafficking. We have been closely involved in Europol's work to counter trafficking including establishing a joint intelligence sharing team with Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands on Bulgarian trafficking gangs. The UK also hosted the first EU prosecutors conference on trafficking last year and are closely involved in follow up work. We are also actively shaping EU consideration of

  63W
  next steps on trafficking through the formation of a new experts group on trafficking that the UK is helping to steer towards tangible action to tackle this form of organised crime.

  Immigration Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the criteria were upon which sites selected for consideration as possible locations for accommodation centres for immigrants seeking political asylum were rejected. [124082]

  Beverley Hughes
  All prospective sites for accommodation centres are evaluated against a set of criteria including size, configuration, location, technical characteristics and planning considerations. A large number of sites have been rejected following evaluation against these criteria. A smaller number of sites were included on the shortlist, having met these criteria, but were subsequently rejected for site-specific reasons.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the criteria were upon which the Daedalus site at Lee-on-the-Solent was selected for consideration as a location for a possible accommodation centre for young male immigrants seeking political asylum. [124083]

  Beverley Hughes
  The site at HMS Daedalus was selected for further assessment because it met both the general criteria for site selection and the requirements of the alternative model. Our detailed assessment of the site continues.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the expected costs of creating accommodation centres for immigrants seeking political asylum, distinguishing between(a) capital costs of construction and (b) annual total running costs. [124084]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are in the process of running a competitive tender for the delivery of accommodation centres. Information about costs is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on local facilities at Lee-on-the-Solent resulting from the possible introduction of young male immigrants at an accommodation centre. [124085]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are talking to local authorities and service providers in the area as part of our assessment of the site. Our aim is to minimise the impact on local services by providing as many as possible of the necessary services on-site.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis the Department made the statement that the introduction of an accommodation centre for immigrants in a locality would have no impact on house prices. [124086]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office position is that there are many factors that may impact on property prices, both short and long term. We do not accept that the presence of an accommodation centre in a locality would necessarily depress house prices.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from members of the armed forces who believe that they have been encouraged to leave the Service before they have completed enough years to qualify for a pension; and what action he will take to investigate the complaints.
  [125377]

  Mr. Caplin
  Central records of applications for Redress of Complaint have been maintained only since 1997. Since then there have been two applications relating to the manning control policy, which were resolved before submission to the Army Board. In these cases, manning control action was terminated and the individuals concerned continue to serve on their original engagement.

  The Manning Control Points have never been used as a way of avoiding pension commitments.

  Iraq
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made in respect of partners and orphans of Service men and women killed in action in Iraq; and if he will make a statement.
  [125642]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave on 1 May 2003,Official Report, columns 452-53W to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird).

  MOD Police (School Anti-drugs Projects)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Ministry of Defence Police's support for DARE anti-drug projects in schools. [124789]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence Police continue to provide support for the Drugs Awareness Resistance Education projects at schools attended by the dependants of Service personnel and at some locations utilised by United States visiting forces.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Fareham will receive an answer to questions 117883 and 117884, tabled for answer on 5 June 2003 and questions 118799, 118800, 118801 and 118802, tabled on 9 June 2003. [125773]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information requested is not held centrally and needs to be collated from a number of sources. This is still being worked on.

  I expect to reply to the hon. Member before the summer recess.

  Pay 2000 Computer System
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effectiveness and performance of the PAY 2000 computer system.
  [118284]
  65W
  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: The Pay 2000 computer system has generally performed well for both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Some programming problems have been identified affecting some Army personnel, which are being addressed with a package of work entitled "Pay 2000 Follow on Work". In the meantime, Regimental Administrative Officers at all army units have the facility to arrange manual payment in any cases where problems are found.

  Queen's Birthday Flypast
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what height RAF aircraft flew over the coast of Suffolk on 10 June 2003 in practising for the Queen's Birthday flypast; and at what distance they flew from the Sizewell nuclear power station. [125167]

  Mr. Caplin
  The aircraft flew between 2,300 and 3,000 feet above mean sea level. It is not possible to determine the precise distance that aircraft flew from the Sizewell nuclear power station but I am able to confirm that no aircraft breached the restricted area around the power station, which is a zone extending to a height of 2,000 feet high by a radius of two nautical miles

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the delay experienced by members of the home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment in receiving their annual bounty; and when the annual bounty will be paid. [116964]

  Mr. Caplin
  Some part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment have experienced a delay in receiving their annual bounty for the training year 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. In some instances this was due to a computer programming error that has now been rectified.

  Out of a total strength of some 1,300 part-time personnel, only a handful of bounties remain unpaid. For those that remain outstanding, payment has, in some instances, been delayed due to the soldiers training year being extended, or as a consequence of processing delays due to soldiers leaving the Regiment.

  Service Accommodation (Colchester)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the terms of the sale to Annington Homes of Ministry of Defence dwellings at Colchester Garrison provide for their re-purchase if required by his Department; [124933]

  (2) if he will re-purchase the remaining stock of former Ministry of Defence dwellings at Colchester Garrison, occupied by military personnel, which were sold to Annington Homes. [124931]

  Mr. Caplin
  The 1996 sale to Annington Homes Ltd. of Service families accommodation in England and Wales was on the basis of a 999 year lease. The Ministry of Defence immediately leased back some 55,000 houses, initially for 200 years.

  There is no provision in the sale agreement for MOD to re-purchase any of the properties subject to these arrangements.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of all fires were started deliberately in each year since 1997. [125532]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Malicious primary fires as a proportion of all primary fires, United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  All primary fires

  Malicious

  Percentage

  Number

  1997

  200,564

  41

  82,613

  1998

  199,928

  43

  86,208

  1999

  218,404

  47

  103,006

  2000

  219,663

  51

  111,174

  2001

  228,229

  54

  123,184

  Notes:

  1. Malicious fires are those where deliberate ignition is proved or suspected.

  2. Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  3. Data for 2001 are provisional and the most recent year for which data are available.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of fires in the construction industry were attributed to arson in each year since 1997.
  [125742]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Malicious primary fires as a proportion of all primary fires on construction industry premises, United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  All primary fires

  Malicious

  Percentage

  Number

  1997

  459

  57

  261

  1998

  393

  64

  253

  1999

  386

  57

  222

  2000

  488

  70

  341

  2001

  372

  73

  270

  Notes:

  1. Malicious fires are those where deliberate ignition is proved or suspected.

  2. Primary fires are those which cause damage to property or involve casualties.

  3. Data for 2001 are provisional and the most recent year for which data are available.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much arson has cost retailers in each year since 1997. [125764]

  Phil Hope
  Information is available only for total commercial fires which includes fires in retail and non-retail premises. Information is available only for 1999 and 2000; that for 2001 will be published in due course.

  In England and Wales, the estimated cost of arson to the commercial sector, as measured by damage to property and loss of business, was £220 million in 1999 and £190 million in 2000.

  Council Tax (South-West)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much council tax was collected in each of the last three years in the south-west of England. [124675]

  Phil Hope
  Tabled are the figures showing how much council tax was collected in each of the last three financial years in the south-west of England.

  Total receipts of council tax

  £ billion South-west

  2000–01

  1.312

  2001–02

  1.406

  2002–03

  1.576

  Ethical Procurement
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he has given to local authorities on ethical procurement. [120158]

  Keith Hill
  Local authorities are independent and autonomous and responsible within the law for making their own decisions on procurement matters. In doing so, they will no doubt consider the case for ethical procurement on its merits, consistent with the EU Procurement Directives, domestic law including the duty of best value. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister set out views on the use of social clauses in contracting in Annex C of Circular 03/2003, "Local Government Act 1999: Part 1—Best Value and Performance Improvement".

  Fire Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to announce regulations to replace the current Fire Service(a) appointment and promotion regulations and (b) discipline regulations; and if he will make a statement. [125430]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper, "Our Fire and Rescue Service", presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 30 June 2003, announced that the Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion Regulations) 1978 would be amended to allow multi-level entry to the fire and rescue service and to support development and promotion opportunities for all fire and rescue service staff through the implementation of the Integrated Personal Development System. It also announced that the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations 1985 would be repealed and replaced with framework regulations based on the most up to date ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) best practice guidance.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to be able to announce the changes to be made to the appointments and promotion regulations by the end of October this year. The final content and promulgation of the regulations will, of course, be subject to parliamentary approval. The replacement of the discipline regulations is expected to be subject to the same timetable.

  Fires
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average cost of a domestic fire was in each year since 1997. [125203]

  Phil Hope
  Information on the cost of a domestic fire is not available before 1999. The estimated average cost of a domestic fire in 1999 was £21,500 and in 2000 it was £24,700. Some of the difference between these figures is due to changes in the way that costs are calculated: using the 1999 methodology, the estimated cost of a domestic fire in 2000 is £23,800.

  2000 is the last year for which figures are available; those for 2001 will be published in due course.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people have died as a result of malicious car fires in each year since 1997. [125204]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is tabled. 2001 is the most recent year for which data are available.

  Fatalities from malicious car fires, United Kingdom, 1997–2001

  Number

  1997

  20

  1998

  19

  1999

  19

  2000

  21

  20011

  12

  1 Figures for 2001 are provisional.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of accidental car fires were caused by an electrical fault in the last year for which figures are available. [125206]

  Phil Hope
  In 2001, of 18,135 accidental car fires in the United Kingdom, 47 per cent. (8,494 fires) were caused by an electrical fault, related either to the wiring on the car or its batteries (7,540 fires) or due to the ignition system (954 fires).

  Funding Schemes
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the(a) business and commercial property gap funding scheme, (b) housing gap funding scheme, (c) heritage approval scheme and (d) land remediation scheme were finalised; when he expects guidance to prospective applicants to be published in respect of each of the above schemes. [125347]

  Keith Hill
  The UK Government notified the European Commission of their proposals to use public sector funds to assist regeneration in order to comply with the state aid rules. The notifications were approved on the following dates:

  (a) business and commercial property gap funding—24 May 2002;

  (b) housing gap funding—8 July 2002;

  (c) heritage aid—13 May 2002; and

  (d) land remediation ('dereliction aid')—11 June 2003.

  It is for the regeneration bodies; English Partnerships, Regional Development Agencies (including the London Development Agency) and local authorities to decide whether and for what purpose they use the approvals in their areas. Except in the case of the housing approval,

  69W
  where English Partnerships has developed a standard appraisal process, they are responsible for any application forms and guidelines to developers.

  Housing
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government took water requirements into account when proposing their new house-building programme. [125509]

  Phil Hope
  Discussions were held with water companies by the consultants who undertook the growth area studies published last year. More detailed local studies are now under way in most areas, which will help in more detailed assessment of infrastructure requirements. Further discussions with the water industry have taken place since publication of the Sustainable Communities Plan and these will continue involving the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Water UK, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the individual water companies concerned, the Environment Agency and OFWAT.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many social houses are being built this year in each local authority; and how many families are on the housing waiting list in each local authority. [124631]

  Keith Hill
  Estimates of the number of social dwellings (for rent by registered social landlords and local authorities) built are based on local authority P2 housing returns to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and National House Building Council (NHBC) data.

  Local authorities in England report the numbers of households on their housing register (excluding tenants awaiting a transfer) as at 1 April in their Annual Housing Investment Programme returns.

  The latest available annual data from these two sources are available in the Library of the House.

  Housing Gap Funding Scheme
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many grants have been made in respect of the housing gap funding scheme; what their total value is; to whom they have been made, and in respect of what total area of land; and what proportion of the land was previously undeveloped. [125346]

  Keith Hill
  English Partnerships, in consultation with the Regional Development Agencies (including the London Development Agency), are currently drawing up an appraisal guide for the implementation of the housing gap funding scheme. It is expected that this guidance will be released for final public consultation in due course.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total net yield from council tax, after council tax benefit and single person's discounts, for(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in each year from 1997–98 to 2003–04. [125287]
  70W
  Phil Hope
  Tabled are the figures showing the estimated council tax receipts collected in England in each financial year from 1997/98 to 2002/03. The receipt information is the best estimate of council tax yield collected after council tax benefit and all discounts have been taken into account. The information shows the total amounts collected within each financial year irrespective of the financial year that the receipt relates to.

  Total council tax receipts net of benefits and discounts

  £ billion

  1997–98

  9.5

  1998–99

  10.5

  1999–2000

  11.3

  2000–01

  12.2

  2001–02

  13.2

  2002–03

  14.5

  Source:

  QRC4

  Figures for Wales and Scotland are a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government and Scottish Parliament respectively.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to introduce an easier and more affordable way for people to appeal against decisions made by the Planning Inspectorate. [124622]

  Keith Hill
  None.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 619W, on regional assemblies, if he will list the opinion polls which were included in his calculation; and if he will place copies of the results in the Library. [125792]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister considered the findings of 28 opinion polls that provided supporting evidence on the question of the percentage of people in favour of holding a referendum. Information about these polls is laid out in paragraphs 44 to 59 of the "Your Region, Your Say" document that summarises the information, evidence and views that he considered before deciding to direct the Boundary Committee for England to carry out local government reviews in the three northern regions. Copies of "Your Region, Your Say" and the opinion polls were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 16 June 2003.

  Thames Gateway
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Cabinet Committee Misc22's report on the funding of the Thames Gateway project will be published. [125350]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is hoping to make an announcement shortly on taking forward the Thames Gateway.
  71W
  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding each Thames Gateway project will receive as part of the funding announced in the Communities Plan. [125351]

  Keith Hill
  Earlier this year, as part of the comprehensive programme to take forward the Communities Plan, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced investment of £446 million for the Thames Gateway. Proposals have been brought forward by the three Sub-regional Thames Gateway Partnerships. These are currently being considered.

  Warden Schemes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what alternative funding mechanisms are in place to assist local authorities to retain street and neighbourhood warden schemes following the withdrawal of Government funding. [118160]
  72W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is keen that all funded schemes continue. However, Government funding for warden schemes was awarded on a short-term basis, and it was clear from the start that this financial support would only be for a limited period. Additionally, local authorities have requested that we reduce area-based initiatives, in order that they have more flexibility in how they spend their own funds. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister already has examples of local authorities and housing associations that are mainstreaming schemes.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with all schemes in the development of their future sustainability plans. Events are being held and guidance has been produced for scheme managers. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is promoting the wardens approach, particularly as a key element of neighbourhood management.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Adult Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of(a) economically inactive people on (i) incapacity benefit and (ii) other disability benefits and (b) lone parents were on income support without a first Level 2 qualification in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [114488]

  (2) what the duration of claims by (a) economically inactive people on (i) incapacity benefit and (ii) other disability benefits and (b) lone parents on income support without a first Level 2 qualification was in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114489]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available.

  However, the Labour Force Survey shows that 69 per cent. of disabled people receiving Incapacity Benefit and 78 per cent. of lone parents receiving Income Support have qualifications below level 2.

  This is why Jobcentre Plus training is strongly focused on basic skills and more appropriately targeted training, ensuring that this is linked to the labour market rather than just a qualification. Our evidence suggests that a Level 2 qualification is not, in general, the most significant milestone in terms of employability. There is a much bigger difference in terms of employment rates between those with no qualifications and a qualification of any kind, and particularly between those with or without basic skills, than between Level 2 and lower qualifications.

  Benefits Payments
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) child benefit customers, (b) veterans agency customers, (c) pensions customers and (d) Jobcentre Plus customers received their payments by means of a Post Office card account as at 27 June 2003. [125381]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The question cannot be answered in the format requested. Information available on the number of child benefit, veterans agency, pensions and Jobcentre Plus customers that have received their payments by means of a Post Office card account as at various dates in June 2003 is shown in the following table.

  The numbers are expected to grow rapidly in the coming months as 20 week order books begin to expire and customers begin to receive payment direct into their card accounts.

  Number of customers paid through card account

  Customers

  Number

  Child benefit

  508

  Veterans agency

  109

  Pensions

  246

  Jobcentre Plus

  2,856

  Disability Benefits
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has 74W
  received from disability organisations concerning the Cumulative Rule for withdrawal of disability benefits for people in hospital. [125425]

  Maria Eagle
  We have received no recent representations from disability organisations about the rules which treat periods of hospital in-patient treatment separated by no more than 28 days as a single period for the purpose of determining when payments of disability living allowance or attendance allowance can be made. We believe that these rules are fair and reflect that all the disability related needs of severely disabled people entitled to those benefits are met free of charge by the national health service when they are in hospital.

  Ductile Iron Gas Mains
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether the medium pressure ductile iron gas mains within 30 metres of buildings owned and recently discovered by Transco was replaced by 30 April 2003. [120476]

  Mr. Browne
  Transco completed the replacement of the outstanding quantity of medium pressure ductile iron mains within 30 metres of buildings by 30 April 2003 in various locations across Great Britain. Originally Transco calculated the length was 11.382 km. However, further site investigation revealed some pipe was not in fact ductile iron and the total replaced was 10.69 km.

  Health and Safety
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the role competition can play in health and safety regulatory functions other than building control; and if he will make a statement. [123218]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 4 July 2003]: The basic framework set out in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, places a duty to manage and control risk on those who create it and be responsible for the protection of workers and the public from any consequence of their work activity. Enforcement by health and safety inspectors is an essential element of the basic framework, which has stood the test of time. The possibility of contracting out health and safety inspection was however, considered and rejected in the course of the 1996 quinquennial review.

  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2003, ref 121171, when he expects to receive the report from the Health and Safety Commission. [123680]

  Mr. Browne
  We expect to receive the report from the Health and Safety Commission by the end of the year.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the level of funding was for the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last 10 years. [122516]

  Mr. Browne
  The following table reflects the funding for the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1993–94:
  75W

  Health and Safety Executive funding

  £ million

  Cash budget1

  Resource budget

  1994–95

  188.4

  —

  1995–96

  186.8

  —

  1996–97

  2179.5

  —

  1997–98

  174.1

  —

  1998–99

  175.7

  —

  1999–2000

  180.6

  —

  2000–013

  181.3

  —

  2001–024

  —

  199.4

  2002–03

  —

  210.4

  2003–04

  —

  225.5

  1 The funding has been interpreted as the total amount voted by Parliament.

  2 On 1 April 1996 the accounting arrangements changed as the Health and Safely Laboratory was set up as a net running cost regime (separately identifiable for financial reporting purposes).

  3 The budget for 2000–01 was the last under the cash budget system.

  4 The increase in the funding was due to the introduction/ implementation of Resource Accounting and Budgeting in Government Departments. Under RAB, all departments produce budgets and accounts on an accruals basis, which include costs for depreciation, cost of capital and provisions for liabilities. Therefore, Resource Budgets for years from 2001–02 are not directly comparable with previous cash budgets.

  Hepatitis C
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met the Scottish Health Minister to discuss compensation for the hepatitis C sufferers in Scotland. [125647]

  Maria Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met the Scottish Health Minister to discuss this issue. However, Ministers are in regular contact with the devolved Administrations over a wide range of issues.

  Income Replacement Benefits
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to bring(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and
  (c) carers allowance into line with income replacement benefits for people who stay in hospital. [125429]

  Maria Eagle
  None. We believe that the current rules are fair. The changes we have made ensure that for most people the benefits they receive for every day living are not touched while they are in hospital. This recognises that hospital in-patients are likely to have on-going costs of maintaining their homes. Disability living allowance and attendance allowance, however, help with the disability-related needs of severely disabled people. These needs are met by the national health service when the recipients are in hospital, and so payment of these benefits stops after 4 weeks. Entitlement to carer's allowance can continue throughout breaks in care for holidays or for hospitalisation of the carer or disabled person. Provided the DUVAA remains in payment, these breaks can total 12 weeks in a period of 26 weeks.

  IT Specialists
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of British IT specialists seeking employment in each year since 1999. [120300]
  76W
  Mr. Browne
  It is not possible to estimate the number of IT specialists seeking work in the economy as a whole. Jobcentre Plus does however keep records of the number of IT specialists seeking work through their offices, however this is not broken down by their nationality. The available information is in the table:

  Number of IT specialists seeking work

  Calendar year

  Number seeking work that year

  1999

  5,600

  2000

  11,279

  2001

  22,921

  2002

  27,601

  20031

  6,658

  1 Figures are for January to May 2003 inclusive.

  Source:

  Labour Market System

  Minimum Income Guarantee (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much money was claimed in minimum income guarantee in Scotland in 2002–03, broken down by local authority. [124839]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Local authority

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Total Scotland Government Office Region

  447

  Aberdeen City

  14

  Aberdeenshire

  13

  Angus

  8

  Argyll and Bute

  9

  Clackmannanshire

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  Dundee City

  18

  East Ayrshire

  12

  East Dunbartonshire

  6

  East Lothian

  7

  East Renfrewshire

  4

  Edinburgh, City of

  30

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (previously Western Isles)

  4

  Falkirk

  11

  Fife

  22

  Glasgow City

  92

  Highland

  16

  Inverclyde

  9

  Midlothian

  4

  Moray

  5

  North Ayrshire

  12

  North Lanarkshire

  31

  Orkney Islands

  1

  Perth and Kinross (previously Perthshire and Kinross)

  9

  Renfrewshire

  16

  Scottish Borders, The

  7

  Shetland Islands

  2

  South Ayrshire

  9

  South Lanarkshire

  29

  Stirling

  6

  West Dunbartonshire (previously Dumbarton and Clydebank)

  11

  West Lothian

  12

  Notes:

  1. MIG expenditure relates to program money payable to the individual and does not include the cost to DWP of administering the benefit.

  2. The Expenditure for 2002–03 reflects the latest benefit-bybenefit estimate of out turn for the year and not the amounts voted by Parliament.

  77W

  3. Amounts shown are in £ millions cash terms on a Resource Accounting and Budgeting basis and are consistent with the Budget 2003 forecasts and departmental expenditure tables.

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

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

  6. Because of relatively small sample sizes at local authority level the figures are subject to a greater margin of error than would be associated with national level expenditure estimates; all results are rounded to the nearest £1 million, but may not be accurate to this level.

  New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints against providers of New Deal placements and training have been made; how many New Deal placement and training providers have had their contract cancelled owing to(a) ineffective training and (b) poor employment practices; what other action has been taken against providers of ineffective training and poor employment practices; how the training quality of New Deal placements is assessed; and if he will make a statement. [122467]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested regarding numbers of complaints against New Deal providers and numbers of contracts cancelled is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  All New Deal providers are subject to thorough contractual and quality audits. Individual contract reviews are conducted by Jobcentre Plus contract managers and District Programme Quality Management Teams. Reviews assess the administration, delivery, quality and propriety of the provision being delivered against the requirements set out in providers' contracts. In addition, the Adult Learning Inspectorate in England, and Estyn in Wales, play a pivotal role in the quality assurance of New Deal provision, under the provisions of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. All inspection under the requirements of the Act is carried out in accordance with the Common Inspection Framework. The framework focuses on the learner, and on evaluating the effectiveness of education and training in meeting all learners' needs.

  New Deal providers who fail to meet their contractual requirements, or who fall below accepted quality levels, are subject to thorough improvement strategies and action plans agreed between them and Jobcentre Plus. Where no improvements have taken place within agreed

  New Deal for Young People—Spending on options

  £ million

  Option

  1997–981

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–032

  Full-time Education and Training

  0

  19

  36

  34

  23

  18

  Voluntary Sector

  0

  13

  38

  39

  36

  26

  Environment Task Force

  0

  12

  42

  42

  42

  27

  Employment

  0

  19

  28

  18

  15

  16

  1 NDYP started in January 1998 and, as participation in the New Deal options normally commenced after a four month Gateway period, the spend on the NDYP options was very small and so is rounded to zero.

  2 Estimated out-turn as Jobcentre Plus accounts for 2002–03 are not yet finalised. Figures will be available when the Jobcentre Plus Annual Report is published later this year.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus
  78W
  timescales, action is taken to terminate the contract in accordance with contractual terms and conditions. When re-tendering or extending contracts, such quality issues are considered and, where relevant evidence exists, this is considered as part of the decision to award or extend. Where a serious irregularity or fraud is identified, Jobcentre Plus retains the right to terminate contracts with immediate effect.

  New Deal for Young People
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much funding his Department and its predecessors allocated to the full-time education and training option under the New Deal for Young People in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114472]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on spend on the New Deal Full Time Education and Training Option is in the table:

  New Deal for Young People full-time education and training option spend

  £ million

  Spend

  1997–981

  0

  1998–99

  19

  1999–2000

  36

  2000–01

  34

  2001–02

  23

  2002–032

  18

  1 Minimal spend incurred on the Full Time Education and Training Option during January-March 1998 and so is rounded to zero.

  2 Estimated out-turn. Figures will be available when the Jobcentre Plus Annual Report is published later this year.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus

  An allocation figure for 2003–04 is not available. The New Deal for Young People programme budget is now allocated to Jobcentre Plus Regions where decisions on how funding is spent on each New Deal Option are based on meeting the local needs of participants.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent each year on each of the options within the New Deal for Young People. [114551]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is in the table:
  79W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of New Deal for Young People participants found work on(a) the Gateway and (b) the Extended Gateway, in each year since 1997. [121221]

  Mr. Browne
  In exceptional circumstances, New Deal for Young people (NDYP) participants can have their Gateway period extended. However, these cases are not recorded separately.

  The available information is in the table:

  New Deal for Young People: Participants leaving Gateway to an unsubsidised job

  Proportion (percentage)

  1998

  48.5

  1999

  44.6

  2000

  44.3

  2001

  41.8

  2002

  40.2

  2003 (January to March)

  37.1

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of starts on each of the New Deal for Young People options have led to sustained unsubsidised employment. [121222]

  Mr. Browne
  By the end of March 2003, 427,900 young people had gained work through the New Deal for Young People (NDYP). The information requested is in the table:

  New Deal for Young People Options

  NDYP option

  Number of starts

  Numbers moving into sustained unsubsidised employment

  Proportion (percentage)

  Employment

  67,400

  30,000

  44.5

  Education/Training

  118,800

  33,200

  27.9

  Voluntary Sector

  70,000

  20,700

  29.6

  Environmental Task Force

  67,100

  19,200

  28.6

  Note:

  Included within the number of starts are 21,800 people who are currently still participating on an NDYP Option.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Operational Intelligence Units
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether Scotland is classified as a nation or a region for the purposes of the National Model for the Operational Intelligence Units. [124947]

  Mr. Pond
  The National Model for the Operational Intelligence Units is based on the organisation of Jobcentre Plus which was established in April 2002. Jobcentre Plus is made up of the countries of Scotland and Wales and the nine English regions.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people are employed in the East of Scotland Operational Intelligence Unit; [124948]
  80W
  (2) how many jobs will be lost as a result of the closure of the East of Scotland Operational Intelligence Unit; [124949]

  (3) how many people are employed in the Glasgow Operational Intelligence Unit; [124950]

  (4) whom he consulted prior to the announcement of the closure of the East of Scotland Operational Intelligence Unit. [124951]

  Mr. Pond
  There are currently 21 officers employed in the East of Scotland Operational Intelligence Unit and 25 officers in the Glasgow Operational Intelligence Unit.

  By the end of 2003–04 it is planned to transfer the work of the Edinburgh unit to the Glasgow site in order to improve co-ordination of the delivery of Operational Intelligence Unit services across Scotland.

  The centralisation of the Operational Intelligence Unit in Glasgow will result in no job losses. The staff currently employed in Edinburgh will remain at this location and be allocated other counter fraud work and the Glasgow Operational Intelligence Unit will eventually employ a total of 49 staff.

  The decision to transfer the counter fraud work from Edinburgh to Glasgow did not involve the closure of any Jobcentre Plus office or result in any job losses. Therefore it was felt that this was an internal management matter and so, apart from consultation with local union officials, consultation outside Jobcentre Plus was not appropriate.

  Pensioners (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Shrewsbury and Atcham have been(a) sent details of the new pension credit scheme and (b) informed of the phasing out of pension books. [125628]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the form requested. The Pension Service began in April 2003 to write to pensioner households to explain pension credit and to invite applications. The order in which households are contacted has been designed to produce a controlled and measured build up of applications, evenly distributed throughout the UK. The households to be contacted before October represent a cross section of the pensioner population, including pensioners of all age groups and likely levels of eligibility for pension credit. By June 2004, all pensioner households will have been contacted. As part of a separate exercise, The Pension Service also began in April to write to pensioners to invite them to convert to direct payment into an account. This exercise will be completed by October 2004.

  Pensions
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations his Department has received in relation to charity sector involvement in the new Employers' Task Force on Pensions; and whether the Employers' Task Force on Pensions will be seeking further representations from the charity sector. [120043]
  81W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Charity Finance Director's Group (CFDG) have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to Sir Peter Davis, Chairman of the Employer Task Force on Pensions, regarding charity sector involvement.

  Membership of the Employer Task Force was announced in the answer given by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Hollis, on 5 June 2003, Lords Official Report, column 188-89WA. Within a small Task Force not all sectors could be individually represented. However members have been appointed on their own merit and Lucy Anderson brings experience of the charity sector, from her previous work at SCOPE.

  CFDG have also provided a submission to the Task Force. It will be for Sir Peter Davis and the Task Force to consider whether they wish to seek further representations from the charity sector.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) estimated current level of funding of occupational pensions schemes and (b) proportion of

  Estimates based on current MFR basis

  Estimates based on MFR basis operating in May 1997

  Level of funding against the MFR taking together all schemes subject to the MFR1(Percentage)

  106

  98

  Proportion of schemes below 100 per cent, funded on the basis of the MFR2(Percentage)

  50

  75

  Aggregate MFR deficit across all schemes below 100 per cent, funded on the basis of the MFR3 (£ billion)

  30

  60

  1 These estimates indicate total scheme assets expressed as a percentage of totalscheme MFR liabilities.

  2 Rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  3 Rounded to the nearest £5 billion.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes have been made to the basis for minimum funding requirement since May 1997; and what effect the changes have had on the demonstrated level of funding of a typical pension scheme. [124023]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The actuarial basis for the minimum funding requirement (MFR) is kept under review by the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries. They have recommended two substantive changes to the basis since May 1997, and both were implemented. From 15 June 1998 the factor for the equity market value adjustment, which generally applies to the calculation of liabilities for scheme members below pension age, was reduced from 4.25 per cent. to 3.25 per cent. and the gross yield on the FTSE Actuaries All-Share Index was replaced with the net yield on the same index. From 7 March 2002 the factor for the equity market value adjustment was further reduced, from 3.25 per cent. to 3.00 per cent. The changes were intended to address movements in the strength of the MFR test resulting from changing economic and demographic trends. In addition to these changes there have been a number of minor technical amendments to the actuarial guidance which governs the calculation of a scheme's MFR liabilities.

  It is not possible to define a typical pension scheme, but estimates1 about the effect of these changes on the aggregated MFR funding levels of all schemes subject to
  82W
  schemes in deficit is, with the aggregate size of those deficits, is using (i) the present basis for minimum funding requirement and (ii) that which operated in May 1997. [124022]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information about scheme funding levels as assessed on the basis of the minimum funding requirement (MFR) is not routinely collected. Estimates prepared by the Government Actuary's Department, based on economic conditions in June 2003, are set out in the table1.

  1 These estimates are based on MFR data collected from the actuarial profession from consulting actuaries and insurance companies on the MFR funding levels of a sample of just over 1,000 schemes that had an MFR valuation with an effective date between April 1997 and April 2000. The sample may under-represent certain types of schemes, for example smaller schemes. These data have been broadly adjusted to reflect economic conditions in June 2003 using assumptions about the investment policies of the schemes involved: figures for a different date could well give different results depending on movements in market conditions. However, the exact position now on the MFR basis as it operated in 1997 cannot be known exactly, as the financial indicators specified for use in the calculations originally are no longer publishd in the same form.

  the MFR have been prepared by the Government Actuary's Department. These indicate that the change which took effect from 15 June 1998 may have increased aggregate funding levels against the MFR by around 5 per cent. and that the change which took effect in March 2002 may have further increased aggregate funding levels against the MFR by around 3 per cent.

  1 These estimates are based on MFR data collected from the actuarial profession from consulting actuaries and insurance companies on the MFR funding levels of a sample of just over 1,000 schemes that had an MFR valuation with an effective date between April 1997 and April 2000. The sample may under-represent certain types of schemes, for example smaller schemes. These data have been broadly adjusted to reflect economic conditions in June 2003 using assumptions about the investment policies of the schemes involved.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list, for each constituency in Wiltshire(a) the numbers of pensioners aged 80 and over in receipt of state pensions and (b) the total number in receipt of state pensions; and what percentage of the total number pensioners aged 80 and over represent. [120983]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pursuant to my written answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, columns 85-86W.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is shown in the table:

  83W

  State Pension recipients aged 80 and over as at 30 September 2002

  Thousand

  Total number of State Pension recipients aged 80 and over

  Total number of State Pension recipients

  Percentage of those over 80 in receipt of State Pension

  North Wiltshire

  4.2

  17.5

  24.0

  Salisbury

  5.6

  20.5

  27.3

  North Swindon

  2.4

  12.5

  19.2

  South Swindon

  3.1

  15.9

  19.7

  Westbury

  5.3

  21.2

  24.9

  Devizes

  4.4

  19.5

  22.7

  Note:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  2. Numbers are based on 5 per cent, sample, and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  3. Parliamentary Constituencies are allocated using the relevant Office for National Statistics postcode directory.

  Source:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002.

  Rodenticides
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what part of his Department has special responsibility for(a) assessing the impact of rodenticides on non-target wildlife, (b) producing guidelines on good practice in the use of rodenticides and (c) ensuring that rodenticides are used in accordance with legal requirements. [124635]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety Executive has recently taken over responsibility from DEFRA for the registration and assessment of rodenticides under the Control of Pesticides Regulations. Five Government Departments are signatories to these regulations, DWP, DEFRA, DH, Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. The policy lead for vertebrates and wildlife issues remains with DEFRA. Rodenticides will be among the first chemicals to be reviewed under the EU Biocidal Products Directive next year and controls

  Date

  Payment in advance

  Payment in arrears

  Thursday, 11 September 2003

  Man becomes 65 years

  Monday, 15 September 2003

  Receives £77.45 full week's payment for the forthcoming week

  Receives £44.28 (4/7ths of £77.45) for the period 11 September 2003

  Regular weekly payments continue

  Monday, 22 September 2003

  Receives full week's SP for the period 22 September 2003 to 28 September 2003

  Receives full week's SP for the period 15 September 2003 to 21 September 2003

  Wednesday, 24 September 2003

  Man dies

  Monday, 29 September 2003

  No entitlement

  3/7ths of SP for the period 22 September 2003 to 24 September 2003 due to the estate

  Tax Credit Claims Forms
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the average time taken to claim forms for the pension credit. [124312]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 84W.

  Workstep
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has undertaken of the effectiveness of Workstep as a replacement for
  84W
  under this Directive will replace those that currently exist under the Control of Pesticides Regulations. HSE is the Competent Authority for the Biocidal Products Directive in the UK. The evaluation of products includes an assessment of the possible effects to non-target species.

  The HSE has produced guidance on the safe use of rodenticides on farms and holdings, and is currently compiling specific guidance for the safe use of rodenticides in urban areas. A copy has been placed in the Library. Information and advice for the user of a rodenticide on how a product should be applied is given on the product label, and is specific for each product.

  The enforcement of the Control of Pesticides Regulations is split between the relevant enforcing bodies, which include HSE, Local Authorities and DEFRA. Which authority carries out the enforcement action is dependant on whether the product was used by a member of the public or someone employed to carry out a treatment, where the product was used and whether people, animals or the environment could have been affected by the treatment. The HSE free leaflet `Reporting Incidents of Exposure to Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines' (INDG14) provides advice to members of the public on which body to contact and is available from HSE Books. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  State Pension (Arrears Payment)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will pay all pensioners in receipt of state pension in arrears; and if he will make a statement. [124237]

  Malcolm Wicks
  State pension has always been paid in advance. Groups representing pensioners advise that they wish these arrangements to continue, simply because it is financially advantageous to the beneficiary concerned, as the following table illustrates:

  the assisted places scheme for people with learning and physical disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [123352]

  Maria Eagle
  Jobcentre Plus plans to undertake a five year evaluation of Workstep. It will look at the impact of the programme on employment among disabled people, the service processes and outcomes for individual participants and the financial costs and benefits of the programme.

  The evaluation will include interviews with customers, providers, disability employment advisers together with longitudinal case studies. Results of the evaluation will be published as they become available.
  85W
  Jobcentre Plus has published a report: "Results-based Funded Supported Employment: Avoiding Disincentives to Serving People with Greatest Need" (W160 March 2003), a copy of which has been placed in the Library. This paper looks at the various results-based funding models and aims to inform development of Workstep funding.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autism
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people suffer from autism in Northern Ireland. [123718]

  Angela Smith
  Information on numbers of individuals diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Belfast Education and Library Board
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been allocated in each year since 1997 to the(a) controlled, (b) maintained, (c) integrated and (d) Irish Language sectors of education in the Belfast Education and Library Board area in each year since 1997. [123802]

  Jane Kennedy
  Resources are not allocated to specific sectors but rather are targeted to meet the needs of individual schools.

  Recurrent Funding

  Schools are allocated funding under the appropriate LMS Scheme and the Board also provides services for schools that are not disaggregated by individual sector or school, for example school meals, school transport and the Curriculum, Advisory and Support Services (CASS). I have been advised that recurrent expenditure in each sector for the period requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Controlled1

  Maintained

  Grant Maintained Integrated

  Irish Medium

  1997–98

  56.5

  59.6

  2.9

  1.8

  1998–99

  56.7

  61.8

  3.8

  1.9

  1999–2000

  62.4

  63.3

  5.1

  2.4

  2000–01

  67.8

  69.7

  5.7

  2.8

  2001–02

  69.9

  74.9

  5.7

  3.0

  2002–03

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1 Including Controlled Integrated Schools

  2 Figures not yet available

  Belfast Royal Hospital for Sick Children
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many scheduled operations were deferred in the last two years at the Belfast Royal Hospital for sick children. [123804]

  Angela Smith
  A total of 168 operations have been deferred at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children over the past two years. These have been due to a variety of social, medical and resource reasons, including at the
  86W
  request of the patient's family, the patient being unfit for the opeation, the patient no longer requiring the procedure and staff shortages.

  Buses
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Ulster buses and (b) City buses of the Translink fleet are (i) under two years, (ii) between two and five years, (iii) between five and 10 years and (iv) over 10 years old. [125184]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink has advised that the age profile of its bus fleet as at 30 June 2003 was as follows.

  Citybus

  Ulsterbus

  Total

  Under two years

  0

  59

  59

  Between two and five years

  73

  133

  206

  Between five and 10 years

  62

  191

  253

  Over 10 years

  121

  807

  928

  Total

  256

  1,190

  1,446

  Classroom 2000
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the outcome was of the Classroom 2000 project; and what targets have been set for the project. [123792]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Classroom 2000 project, now known as "C2k", is still being implemented. The provision of equipment and services to over 900 primary schools was completed by the target date of December 2002, with the exception of six schools in the process of rebuilding or refurbishment. Delivery and installation of the service to 285 post-primary and special schools is due to commence in September 2003 and be completed by March 2004.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost was of hospitality provided by the Northern Ireland Office in each year since 1997. [125310]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office provided the following hospitality since 1997:

  £

  2002–03

  369,505

  2001–02

  241,760

  2000–01

  286,442

  1999–2000

  343,789

  1998–99

  681,670

  1997–98

  252,585

  Fatal Car Accidents
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to
  87W
  prevent deaths through car accidents on the main road between Belfast and Bangor in North Down. [125810]

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

  Hospital Admissions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to make an assessment of how many residents of the Irish Republic require admission to hospitals in Northern Ireland. [124688]

  Angela Smith
  I have no immediate plans to make such an assessment. However, I would expect information on likely cross-border patient flows to be collected in the future as part of the implementation of Developing Better Services.

  Indoor Arenas
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations were received during the public consultation on the licensing of indoor arenas; and how many were(a) in favour and (b) opposed. [125554]

  Mr. Spellar
  Out of a total of 54 responses to the Consultation Paper, 38 supported the proposals contained in it, eight were opposed and eight did not express a preference.

  Irish Language
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 965W, on the Irish language, what costs have been incurred since 1998 as a result of Irish language policy by (a) the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, (b) the Department of Education and (c) other government departments. [122343]

  Angela Smith
  The costs incurred since 1998 as a result of Irish Language policy by the(a) Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, (b) Department of Education and (c) other Government Departments since 1998 are as follows:

  £

  (a) DHSSPS

  306,188

  (b) DE

  47,802

  (c) Other Departments

  75,445

  Total

  429,435

  Local Councillors
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a review of attendance allowances for local councillors in Northern Ireland is in progress. [124406]

  Angela Smith
  Yes. A review of councillors' personal allowances is currently being undertaken by the Department of the Environment. Attendance allowance is one of the factors which will be taken into account as part of that review.

  Maternity Hospital, Belfast
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he estimates the business plan for the new regional maternity hospital in Belfast will be completed. [124518]

  Angela Smith
  On 27 June I wrote to the Chairman of the Royal Group of Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust requesting that he proceed immediately with the preparation of the business case for the new regional maternity hospital in Belfast. It is estimated that the business case will take approximately six months to complete.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he estimates construction of a new regional maternity hospital in Belfast will begin; and when it will become fully operational. [124519]

  Angela Smith
  Subject to the business case and approval process, it is anticipated that construction work will begin on-site in 2005 and will take approximately five years to complete.

  MMR Vaccine
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent research has been conducted on the MMR vaccine. [123719]

  Angela Smith
  Primary MMR research has not been undertaken in Northern Ireland, mainly due to the small size of our population. However large studies addressing the issues of MMR safety and effectiveness have been carried out in the UK and other European countries. The most recent of these is a Danish study which was published at the end of 2002. This study looked at the effects of MMR in over half a million Danish children. The study concluded that there was no link between MMR and autism or any other neurodevelopment disorders.

  DHSSPS receive advice on immunisation policy from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) who keep all national and international research under regular review. The JCVI continues to recommend the use of MMR vaccine for all children.

  Further information is available on the websites of the Medical Research Council, www.doh.gov.uk and www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk.

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the Northern Ireland Housing Executive monitors the community background of contractors to which it awards work. [125312]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, in line with other public sector bodies, does not monitor the community background of contractors to which it awards work. However, there is a requirement that all contractors sign a Fair Employment Declaration which must be submitted with each tender. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland monitors contractors' compliance with current employment legislation.
  89W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts have been awarded by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for all types of work in each year since 1997. [125313]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of contracts awarded is as follows:

  Number

  1997–98

  599

  1998–99

  390

  1990–2000

  342

  2000–01

  270

  2001–02

  257

  2002–03

  292

  Adaptation work (which is not included in the table) is let as individual schemes under 'umbrella' contracts. There are currently 91 'umbrella' contracts ongoing. These are let on a one-year term, renewable for up to five years. This figure would be similar for each year from 1997–98.

  In addition, at any given time there are some 750 ongoing response maintenance contracts. These contracts are let for periods of between one and five years and are re-tendered on expiry.

  Police Investigation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has taken to ensure that Sir John Stevens has sufficient resources to complete his investigation. [124333]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Sir John Stevens reports to the Chief Constable of the PSNI and his investigation has been funded by the PSNI. The resourcing of his ongoing investigation is therefore a matter for the Chief Constable.

  Press Offices
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost is of the press offices of each department in Northern Ireland. [123956]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The costs of the NIO press office and the press offices of each of the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland administration for the financial year 2003 are as follows:

  Department

  £

  N10

  1,877,494.31

  OFMDFM

  1,145,463.02

  DARD

  229,487.58

  DCAL

  111,480.29

  DE

  198,343.96

  DEL

  185,700.00

  DETI

  187,000.00

  DOE

  194,000.00

  DFP

  150,455.00

  DHSSPS

  291,725.00

  DRD

  156,000.00

  DSD

  267,250.00

  The figure for OFMDFM includes costs associated with the co-ordination and corporate service functions in support of the Executive Information Service across
  90W
  the 11 Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments. For example all press releases for NI Departments are despatched through OFMDFM.

  Royal Group of Hospitals
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the accessing by terrorist organisations of medical records at the Royal Group of Hospitals. [124142]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  One individual, who was an employee of the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH), has been charged in relation to intelligence gathering at the RVH. The individuals affected by the intelligence gathering have been informed by the PSNI. The RVH is doing everything possible to assist the police in their investigations.

  In addition, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), has asked the Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety to undertake a full and thorough review of patient data security arrangements at all HSS Trusts. A report is expected in the Autumn.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost has been to the public purse of the Saville Inquiry broken down by(a) legal fees, (b) accommodation, (c) transportation, (d) provision of IT equipment and (e) hiring of halls. [123998]

  Mr. Spellar
  Up to end June 2003 the cash spend by the Northern Ireland Office on the Bloody Sunday Inquiry was a total of £89.2 million. Breaking this down in the categories requested gives the following figures:

  £ million

  (a) legal fees,

  38.194

  (b) accommodation,

  7.283

  (c) transportation,

  2.043

  (d) provision of IT equipment

  12.273

  (e) hiring of halls

  5.492

  (f) other1

  23.915

  1 Figure includes salary costs of Tribunal members (except Lord Saville) and Inquiry staff, witness expenses, expert witnesses, office services and security, telecommunications and other miscellaneous office expenditure.

  Security Services
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what savings have been made since August 1989 as a result of reductions in the strength of security services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [123663]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Ministry of Defence does not hold information in the form requested for the period of time in question and therefore an answer could not be compiled with any accuracy. Reductions to armed forces levels in Northern Ireland do not necessarily result in a saving, to the Defence Budget as these resources are often re-deployed to other commitments.

  The expenditure and manning levels for the Police Service of Northern Ireland (formerly the RUC) for the period in question are as follows.
  91W

  1989

  2002

  Budget (£ million)

  420.6

  654.2

  Manning levels

  Regular Officers

  8,264

  7,041

  Full-time Reserve

  3,018

  2,256

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed in combating fraud in social security in Northern Ireland. [125308]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Social Security Agency has 385 staff who are involved in a number of activities to combat social security fraud, including the:

  measurement of the levels of fraud and error.

  analysis of the reasons and causes of fraud and error.

  reviewing of cases to identify inaccuracy at initial claim stage and within existing claims.

  In addition to that, the agency also employs a further 184 staff in benefit security services who are dedicated to the identification, investigation and referral for prosecution of all cases of social security fraud.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been prosecuted for fraud in relation to social welfare and benefit payments in each year since 1997. [125309]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of successful prosecutions for social security fraud in each financial year since 1997 is listed in the table.

  Financial year

  Successful prosecutions

  1997–98

  430

  1998–99

  448

  1999–2000

  519

  2000–01

  623

  2001–02

  520

  2002–03

  340

  Physiotherapy Vacancies
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many NHS physiotherapy vacancies there are in Northern Ireland. [124691]

  Angela Smith
  As at 30 September 2002 there were physiotherapy vacancies amounting to a whole-time equivalent of 42.63. Physiotherapy vacancies detailed by trust are given in the following table.

  Health and social services (HSS) trust

  Whole-time equivalent

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  4

  Causeway HSS Trust

  4

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  10

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  2.63

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  2.5

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  3.5

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  1

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  2

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  3

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  3

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  7

  92W

  Health and social services (HSS) trust

  Whole-time equivalent

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  —

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  —

  Foyle Community HSS Trust (including Westcare)

  —

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  —

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  —

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  —

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  —

  Total

  42.63

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 443W, on asbestos, if he will list buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122974]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Within my Department there are only two buildings which are known to contain asbestos; Mowden Hall in Darlington and Caxton House in London. As mentioned in my reply of 20 June my Department will comply fully with the new asbestos regulations.

  Biology Teachers
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Teacher Training Agency plans to take to ensure that all newly qualified biology teachers have sufficient training to enable them to deliver basic out of classroom teaching in biology and other scientific disciplines. [125268]

  Mr. Miliband
  As one of the statutory requirements to be met before qualified teacher status can be awarded, trainee secondary teachers must be able to demonstrate a secure knowledge and understanding of the subject they are trained to teach. They must also be able to demonstrate that they can plan opportunities for pupils to learn in out-of-school contexts, including school trips, museum visits, field-work and employment-based settings, with the help of other staff where appropriate.

  Carers Grant
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to assist young carers. [122427]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 1 July 2003]: We are taking a number of steps to help young carers.

  We are providing funding through the Carers Special Grant. The grant is worth £100 million in 2003/04, of which 20 per cent, is earmarked for children's services, including young carers, which enable young carers to have a break.

  We are also funding The Children's Society to undertake a three-year project, The Young Carers Initiative. This has involved direct consultation with young carers, leading to the publication last November,

  93W
  with the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, of "Making it Work, Good practice with young carers and their families".

  The Initiative supports more that 250 projects or groups across the country working with young carers, where they can go for advice, information and support or leisure. The Initiative has just entered its final year and is concentrating on developing standards for work with young carers.

  Further, we are ensuring that young carers' needs are taken into account in developing work such as the National Service Framework for Children.

  For further information I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) by the then Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) on 21 May.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many children with a learning disability took short breaks enabled by funding from the carers grant in each year since 1997–98, broken down by each social services authority; [122336]

  (2) what net expenditure from the carers grant on children with a learning disability by each social services authority in England (a) was in each year since 1997–98 and (b) is projected for the financial year 2003–04; [122384]

  (3) how many children took short breaks enabled by funding from the carers grant in each year since 1997–98, broken down by social services authority. [122385]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since it was introduced in 1999, the funding for the carer's grant has increased year by year, and will continue to do so, as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  50

  2001–02

  70

  2002–03

  85

  2003–04

  100

  2004–05

  125

  2005–06

  185

  20 per cent. of the carer's grant is earmarked for children's services. It is a matter for local authorities to determine local needs and distribute the carer's grant as they see fit. For this reason, information about how much money each local authority spends on services for children in general, and children with a learning disability, is not held centrally. Details about how many children with a learning disability from each social services authority took short breaks funded by the carer's grant are also not held centrally.

  In 2001–02, 52,481 families were supported by children's services using the carer's grant. Before this date we did not collect data on the breakdown of spending of the carer's grant between children's and adult's services. This information will continue to be collected in future years.

  Chair of Governors Award
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many individuals have studied successfully for the Chair of Governors award; and if he will make a statement on his policy on attracting, training and supporting school governors. [125021]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since June 2000, 21 governors from Essex, Cambridgeshire, Lewisham and Thurrock have been awarded the BTEC Higher Certificate for the Chair of Governors award developed by Essex LEA.

  My right hon. Friend's policy on attracting, training and supporting school governors is to empower local education authorities and schools to deliver high quality support locally. The Department's school governor recruitment strategy offers support to locally based governor recruitment activities by LEAs and schools. We have produced the Help Schools Help Children information leaflet which promotes governorship and a supporting toolkit which offers advice and guidance on recruitment activities as well as publicity materials which can be adapted for local use. My Department also funds the School Governors' One Stop Shop which was established in November 1999 to recruit governors with business and management skills for inner city schools in Excellence in Cities (EiC) areas. In September 2002 this remit was extended to a number of other areas known to have serious vacancy problems.

  Under my Department's National Strategy for Training and Supporting School Governors the first priority was to develop a National Training Programme for New Governors to ensure that all governors have the information they need to fulfil their statutory functions. The programme, which is delivered by LEA governor trainers, has been operating since September 2001. A Clerks' National Training Programme, developed for the Department by Consortium 52, a partnership involving LEAs in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and Humberside regions, together with the local diocesan bodies, is being rolled out to LEAs this summer. The programme supports a national job description for clerks, agreed after extensive consultation last year, and should increase awareness of this important role as well as ensure that clerks have the necessary skills and knowledge to support governing bodies effectively.

  The third strand of the strategy is a National Development Programme for Heads and Chairs, which is currently being developed by the Eastern Leadership Centre (an Affiliated Centre for the National College of School Leadership) in partnership with governor services in nine eastern region LEAs in association with local Anglican and Catholic dioceses. The programme will provide skills training for chairs as well as joint development for heads and chairs linked to supporting a school improvement activity in the participants' schools, to develop joint leadership and effective team working. The Programme is due to be delivered to the Department at the end of March 2004.

  All of these programmes build on existing good practice, provide mixed media resources, and offer self study as well as taught course materials to cater for a wide variety of preferred learning styles and access arrangements.

  Child Care
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to(a) train and (b) recruit people in the child care sector; and if he will make a statement. [122221]

  Margaret Hodge
  Good quality child care helps to enhance outcomes for children. A skilled and qualified child care workforce is essential to meet our objectives to increase the availability of high quality child care for all age groups.

  We provide for the training of child care workers through the Learning and Skills Council, and through funding allocated to local authorities and their Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. It is for local LSCs and local authorities to assess needs in their areas and develop plans to ensure the training delivered best meets them. We issued joint guidance with LSC to encourage local planning for workforce development.

  A national child care recruitment campaign has been running since 2000 to encourage people to consider a career in child care. It includes television and media advertising, a variety of customised information and materials, a national order line and a website with order facility. Local authorities promote careers in child care using a range of materials and events, working with local partners such as Jobcentre Plus, Careers Services, providers and sector organisations to provide practical help to potential recruits.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the reasons why local authorities make reciprocal arrangements to pay for(a) nursery and (b) child care facilities. [121264]

  Margaret Hodge
  Prior to April 2003, cross border disputes arose typically because of differences between local education authorities' (LEAs') eligibility criteria and grant distribution. Guidance issued by the Sure Start Unit encourages LEAs to make reciprocal arrangements or otherwise to consider funding on a case by case basis. Nursery education funding is now allocated to LEAs through their Education Formula Spending Share. This is calculated on the basis of the latest data on pupil numbers and reflects provision for all children taking up a free place, regardless of where they live. From April 2004, there should be no need for reciprocal arrangements since all LEAs will have a statutory duty to provide a free nursery education place for every three year old whose parents want one.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the average cast for full day child care in each local education authority in England was in 2001–02; [120625]

  (2) when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington North, ref 120625 tabled on 17 June. [125633]

  Margaret Hodge
  110 of the 150 local authorities responsible for reviewing child care in their areas supplied figures to the Department for the average weekly cost of full day child care in their areas in 2001–02. Their figures are not directly comparable since they may have been collected at different times during 96W
  the year. The are now somewhat out of date and they reflect figures given to us by the local authorities themselves.

  £

  Local authority

  Average weekly cost of full day child care, 2001–02

  Barnsley

  100

  Bath and North East Somerset

  124

  Bedfordshire

  127

  Bexley

  122

  Birmingham

  95

  Blackburn with Darwen

  80

  Blackpool

  84

  Bolton

  102

  Bournemouth

  110

  Bradford

  92

  Brent

  105

  Brighton and Hove

  111

  Bristol

  116

  Bromley

  160

  Calderdale

  95

  Cambridgeshire

  120

  Camden

  115

  Cheshire

  111

  Cornwall

  95

  Coventry

  100

  Croydon

  110

  Cumbria

  80

  Darlington

  89

  Derby

  86

  Devon

  81

  Doncaster

  100

  Dorset

  96

  Dudley

  92

  Durham

  100

  Ealing

  150

  East Sussex

  125

  Enfield

  144

  Essex

  120

  Greenwich

  130

  Halton

  141

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  174

  Harrow

  134

  Hartlepool

  84

  Havering

  131

  Herefordshire

  64

  Hertfordshire

  156

  Hillingdon

  157

  Hounslow

  170

  Isle of Scilly

  90

  Isle of Wight

  48

  Kensington and Chelsea

  126

  Kingston upon Hull

  91

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  175

  Kirklees

  100

  Knowsley

  90

  Leeds

  143

  Leicester

  117

  Leicestershire

  110

  Lincolnshire

  86

  Liverpool

  88

  Luton

  108

  Manchester

  108

  Medway

  111

  Merton

  150

  Middlesbrough

  55

  Milton Keynes

  109

  North East Lincolnshire

  89

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  140

  Newham

  101

  North Lincolnshire

  86

  North Somerset

  90

  North Tyneside

  111

  North Yorkshire

  90

  97W

  £

  Local authority

  Average weekly cost of full day child care, 2001–02

  Northamptonshire

  60

  Northumberland

  123

  Nottingham City

  92

  Nottinghamshire

  95

  Oldham

  85

  Oxfordshire

  116

  Poole

  90

  Portsmouth City

  107

  Reading

  150

  Redbridge

  99

  Redcar and Cleveland

  75

  Rotherham

  99

  Rutland

  110

  Sheffield

  110

  Shropshire

  95

  Slough

  156

  Solihull

  101

  Somerset

  92

  South Gloucestershire

  123

  South Tyneside

  114

  Southampton

  125

  Southwark

  102

  St. Helens

  89

  Stockport

  126

  Stoke-on-Trent

  77

  Suffolk

  97

  Tameside

  91

  Thurrock

  104

  Torbay

  86

  Wakefield

  88

  Walsall

  76

  Warrington

  110

  Warwickshire

  110

  West Berkshire

  136

  West Sussex

  126

  Westminster

  120

  Wigan

  88

  Wiltshire

  92

  Wirral

  106

  Wolverhampton

  93

  Worcestershire

  93

  York

  108

  Note:

  Full day child care includes care for children under age eight for more than four hours in settings which are not domestic premises. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole pound.

  Child Guardianship
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, how many children have been awaiting CAFCASS hearings on future guardianship for(a) three to four weeks, (b) five to eight weeks, (c) nine to 12 weeks and (d) more than 12 weeks. [120386]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) does not make the decision to remove children from the care of their parents or guardians, or hold hearings on future guardianship. Court hearings are held to determine these questions. A CAFCASS practitioner represents the interests of a child during proceedings. The court considers all the evidence before it, including CAFCASS reports and makes the decision about the child's future. At the end of April 2003, CAFCASS were dealing with 12,245 public law cases (care, adoption, freeing orders and guardianship) that were at various stages between application and final hearing. Information on how many 98W
  children are awaiting hearings on future guardianship is not held centrally and could not be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Children at Risk Green Paper
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 25 June, ref 121620, to which other reports the Green Paper on Children at Risk will make a substantive response. [122766]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: The Green Paper on Children at Risk will make a formal response to the joint chief inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children" and the Victoria Climbie Inquiry report.

  Children's Centres
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of children's centres will be funded exclusively by his Department in(a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005. [121894]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: The Government are allocating resources to develop children centres, arid to create 43,000 new child care places—£435 million in this spending review period, including £317 million capital. Local authorities are responsible for deciding how and where children's centre services will be delivered. The majority of centres will be developed from sure start local programmes, neighbourhood nurseries and early excellence centres. However, the sure start unit is also encouraging development from other existing provision in the maintained, voluntary and private sectors. Local authority strategic plans are due by mid October 2003; we cannot estimate what proportion of centres will be fully funded by DfES until these are received.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [124579]

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

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of three year-olds have access to early years education in(a) the Bury St Edmunds constituency, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Essex and (e) Cambridgeshire. [120411]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The available information is shown in the table.
  99W

  Number of free early years education places taken up by three year olds January 2002

  Local education authority area

  Number of free early years education places taken up by three year olds

  Suffolk

  4,200

  Norfolk

  4,800

  Essex

  8,700

  Cambridgeshire

  2,700

  We have made the commitment that by April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all three year olds whose parents want one, will have access to a free, part-time early education place.

  Latest figures on three year olds in early years education providers were published by the Department in the Statistical First Release "Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England: January 2003 (Provisional) (15/2003)" in May 2003, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what additional funding over and above the standard allocations(a) was spent and (b) has been allocated by the Learning and Skills Council to assist colleges in financial health category C in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03 from (A) participation, (B) Standards Fund and (C) other budget heads; [124702]

  GCSE/GNVQ achievements of 15-year-old pupils in schools in England, 1995 to 2002

  Academic year

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Sports colleges

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  —

  —

  —

  99.8

  99.2

  98.8

  98.8

  97.1

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.8

  1.2

  1.2

  2.9

  Technology colleges

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  100

  100

  99.4

  98.9

  98.7

  98.4

  98

  95.5

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  0

  0

  0.6

  1.1

  1.3

  1.6

  2

  4.5

  Language colleges

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  —

  100

  99.9

  99.8

  99.3

  99.2

  99

  98.1

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  —

  0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.7

  0.8

  1

  1.9

  Arts colleges

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  —

  —

  —

  98.9

  99.3

  99.1

  98.8

  96.6

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  —

  —

  —

  1.1

  0.7

  0.9

  1.2

  3.4

  Grammar schools

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99.9

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.1

  Secondary moderns

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  100

  100

  99.6

  99.5

  99.3

  98.8

  98.5

  96.7

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  0

  0

  0.4

  0.5

  0.7

  1.2

  1.5

  3.3

  Non specialist comprehensives

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  100

  100

  99.8

  99.7

  99.5

  99.3

  99

  97.6

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  0

  0

  0.2

  0.3

  0.5

  0.7

  1

  2.4

  Specialist comprehensives

  Percentageof total points from GCSEs

  100

  100

  99.5

  99.1

  98.8

  98.7

  98.4

  96.3

  Percentageof total points from GNVQs

  0

  0

  0.5

  0.9

  1.2

  1.3

  1.6

  3.7

  100W
  (2) how many further education colleges were assessed by the Learning and Skills Council or its predecessor bodies as being in financial health category C at (a) 31st March 2000, (b) 31 March 2001, (c) 31 March 2002 and (d) 31 March 2003; [124703]

  (3) what steps have been taken by the Learning and Skills Council since April 2000 to assist colleges in financial health category C to improve their position. [124704]

  Alan Johnson
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  GCSE/GNVQ Point Scores
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proportion of the average capped GCSE/GNVQ point scores was obtained by(a) GSCE results and (b) GNVQ results by pupils in (i) sports colleges, (ii) technology colleges, (iii) languages colleges and (iv) arts colleges in each year between 1995 and 2002; [123587]

  (2) what proportion of the average capped GCSE/GNVQ point scores was obtained by (a) GCSE results and (b) GNVQ results by pupils in (i) grammar schools, (ii) secondary modern schools, (iii) non-specialist comprehensives and (iv) specialist comprehensives in each year between 1995 and 2002. [123591]

  Mr. Miliband
  The proportions of the GCSE/GNVQ point scores obtained by GCSEs and by GNVQs are shown in the table. The GCSE/GNVQ point score that has been used is the total uncapped GCSE/GNVQ point score, rather than the average capped GCSE/GNVQ point score, in order to be consistent with earlier years' data which were uncapped.

  Growing Schools Programme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Chesham and Amersham were involved in the Growing Schools Programme in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [123916]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  No schools in either Chesham or Amersham were involved in the Growing Schools programme in either 2001–02 or 2002–03. However, three schools from Buckinghamshire LEA, High Wycombe CE Primary, The Wycombe Grange Pupil Referral Unit and Verney Avenue Special School, were involved. They participated in one of the five flagship projects managed by Berkshire College of Agriculture and National Association of Principal Agricultural Education Officers between April 2002 and April 2003.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prosecutions in relation to the inadequacies of boarding quarters have been brought by the National Care Standards Commission against(a) the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference and Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and (b) other independent boarding schools in each of the last five years. [125172]

  Mr. Miliband
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) does not prosecute independent schools if there are inadequacies in their boarding provision. It reports deficiencies to the Department for Education and Skills which is the registration authority for independent schools.

  My officials press independent schools to respond quickly to concerns raised by NCSC, and schools that fail to address these concerns may be served with a Notice of Complaint setting out the remedies we are seeking. If the concerns set out in the Notice of Complaint are not addressed, the Department will deregister and close the school.

  During the last five years four boarding schools have been served with a Notice of Complaint on welfare grounds. One of these schools belonged to the Incorporated Association of Independent Schools, the others did not belong to the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference or any other association affiliated to the Independent Schools Council.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the relationship is between(a) Connexions, (b) LEAs, (c) young offenders institutions, (d) Jobcentre Plus and (e) learning and skills councils. [121776]

  Margaret Hodge
  They provide different forms of support to young people and adults. Where young people are at risk, it is particularly important that they work closely together.

  The Connexions service provides information, advice, guidance and access to personal development opportunities for 13 to 19-year-olds. Its focus is on helping young people stay engaged in education, training and employment. Connexions partnerships support LEAs in a number of ways. For instance fines
  102W
  agree with them how they will contribute to the achievement of reducing unauthorised absence of young people from school.

  Young offender institutions accommodate 15 to 21-year-olds. Many of these young people face many barriers to taking part in education, training or employment—e.g. they may have been in care, are substance abusers, and have mental health problems. Connexions provides access to holistic support that overcomes these barriers. Connexions partnerships are therefore developing strong links and formal agreements with young offender institutes in their areas.

  Connexions and Jobcentre Plus work in close partnership to provide an efficient, supportive and integrated service to young people claiming benefit, with particular emphasis on those aged 16-17.

  The Learning and Skills Council is responsible for all post-16 education and training. Connexions partnerships and local learning and skills councils have joint working strategies to ensure that all young people aged 16-19 receive appropriate learning and development opportunities.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he supports to ensure that those with learning disabilities are not disadvantaged within the examination system. [124754]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Joint Council for General Qualifications (JCGQ) is responsible for determining the detailed regulations and guidance relating to candidates with particular requirements.

  We support special measures that help those candidates for whom the standard arrangements for the assessment of their attainment may present an unnecessary barrier, where such measures do not affect the validity of the assessment.

  Literacy (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effect of the national literacy strategy on literacy skills amongst primary school children in Battersea. [123670]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The National Literacy Strategy (together with the National Numeracy Strategy) has transformed standards in our primary schools and the 2002 test results at age seven and 11 were the best ever. Nationally, 75 per cent. of pupils achieved level four or above in the 2002 Key Stage 2 English tests, 10 percentage points more than in 1998. Compared to 1998, about 60,000 more 11-year olds achieved the expected level for their age in English.

  The achievement gap between high and low performing schools and local education authorities (LEAs) has also narrowed significantly. The lowest achieving LEA is now performing at around the level of the average LEA of five years ago and the percentage of schools achieving below 65 per cent. in English and maths has been roughly halved since 1998.
  103W
  The improvement of literacy standards of pupils in Wandsworth LEA is broadly in line with the national improvement. In 1998 64 per cent. of pupils achieved level four or above in English at Key Stage 2. In 2002 the figure was 73 per cent. The Key Stage 2 results are provided at national, LEA, and school level. We are unable to disaggregate results for Battersea schools.

  London Challenge Initiative
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) professional staff, (b) administrative staff and (c) consultants work on his Department's London Challenge initiative; what the total budget is for the initiative; and if he will make a statement. [123365]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The London Challenge is a major new programme of work to raise standards in London schools. Our recently published strategy document "The London Challenge: Transforming London Secondary Schools" sets out a comprehensive programme of work, including 20 new schools and 30 academies, intended to create a city as renowned for its learning and creativity as it already is for so many other things.

  In announcing the London Challenge, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), announced that £25 million would be set aside over three years for the implementation of new initiatives arising from the programme, including £7.5 million for a major programme of leadership training and support in schools and £10 million for a new London gifted and talented centre. In addition, the programme of work set out in the strategy document involves a major focusing of national programmes (including, for example, the academies programme) on London—so that there will
  be very significant new investment in London over the next three years.

  The programme is currently staffed by:

  (a) 10 professional staff

  (b) Nine civil servants

  (c) One consultant.

  Millennium Volunteer Projects
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he issues to Government regional offices regarding the distribution of funding for millennium volunteer projects. [123288]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The funding which is to be allocated for 2004–05 and 2005–06 to each region will be finalised in September 2003. Government Offices for the Regions will be able to take decisions on how funding for local millennium volunteers activity in 2004–05 and 2005–06 is to be distributed within their regions. These decisions will take account of regional needs and will be informed by local discussions with key partners as well as the outcomes of a review of the formula which will determine the allocation of funds to each region. In making their decisions in late autumn, Government offices will take into account existing provision, the needs of young people, particularly those at risk, and the coverage across their region.

  Minister for Children
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what age range the Minister for Children's responsibilities cover. [121827]

  Margaret Hodge
  My responsibilities cover the policies of the Department for Education and Skills for children, young people and their families from the child's conception to age 19, plus specific responsibility for certain vulnerable groups beyond 19 such as young people leaving care. Particular services and programmes may cover different age groups, depending on the nature of the service. I work closely with Ministers in a range of other Government departments responsible for delivery of services to children.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the Minister for Children has responsibility for(a) children in prison, (b) asylum-seeker children and (c) children of domestic violence victims in refuges. [121828]

  Margaret Hodge
  My responsibilities cover the services provided by the Department for Education and Skills for children in these particular situations. These include:support for unaccompanied asylum seeking children;
  ensuring an appropriate education for children of asylum seekers, young people in secure establishments, and children living in domestic violence refuges;
  Connexions services for any of these young people aged 13-19;
  SureStart programmes for families in refuges;
  programmes supporting these children funded by the Children's Fund;
  social care for all children and young people in secure establishments, and children living in domestic violence refuges.

  I am also working with Ministers from other Departments in fulfilling their responsibilities for these children as follows:
  the Home Office for services to children and young people in secure establishments, for asylum seeking children (both accompanied and unaccompanied);
  the Department of Health, for healthcare for children; and
  the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on funding for domestic violence refuges and their services.

  As Minister for Children my role is to put children's needs at the heart of our services and to facilitate co-operation between different agencies and providers.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times he and his predecessors met the Mayor of London in official meetings at the Department in each of the past three years. [122140]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the Mayor of London from time to time, but detailed information requested is not maintained in the form requested.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123111]
  105W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is in the table. This information includes the total running cost for the Department for Education and Skills and its predecessor, the Department of Education and Employment.

  Financial year

  Running cost (£ million)

  2002–03

  2.2

  2001–02

  2.1

  2000–01

  2.3

  1999–2000

  2.0

  1998–99

  1.9

  1997–98

  1—

  1 Information not held in format requested

  Education Provision (The Wrekin)
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 11-year-olds in The Wrekin have achieved level 4 in each year since 1997 in(a) English and (b) maths. [124609]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above in the Key Stage 2 English and maths tests in maintained schools in The Wrekin constituency between 1997 and 2002:

  The Wrekin

  England

  English KS2 test

  1997

  62

  63

  1998

  67

  65

  1999

  71

  71

  2000

  77

  75

  2001

  78

  75

  2002

  75

  75

  Maths KS2 test

  1997

  62

  62

  1998

  61

  59

  1999

  68

  69

  2000

  73

  72

  2001

  69

  71

  2002

  73

  73

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students there were in further education in The Wrekin in each year since 1997. [124611]

  Alan Johnson
  The numbers of people resident in The Wrekin constituency who were students at Further Education colleges in each year since 1997/98 are shown in the table below. Due to the way the data are collected, figures prior to 2000/01 are only available for students funded by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), or as it was then, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC). Those not funded by the council are included for 2000/01, the latest full year for which information is available.

  Numbers of people resident in The Wrekin constituency studying at Further Education colleges by year (thousands)

  Academic year

  Council funded

  Non-council funded

  1997/98

  6,000

  n/a

  1998/99

  6,200

  n/a

  1999/00

  6,000

  n/a

  2000/01

  6,500

  1,600

  Source:

  Individualised Student Record
  106W
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) classroom assistants in schools there were in The Wrekin in each year since 1997. [124610]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of regular teachers and teaching assistants in maintained schools in Telford and Wrekin local education authority since 1999. Prior to this Telford and Wrekin was part of Shropshire LEA. 2002 is the latest year for which teacher data are available.

  Regular teachers1

  Teaching assistants2,3,4,

  1999

  1,360

  260

  2000

  1,340

  280

  2001

  1,410

  370

  2002

  1,420

  390

  20035

  —

  480

  1 Full-time equivalent teachers in post in the maintained schools sector.

  2 Includes nursery assistants, special needs support staff, minority ethnic pupil support staff.

  3 Includes non-maintained special schools and special and general hospital schools.

  4 Includes both full-time and the full-time equivalent of part-time.

  5 Provisional

  Qualified Teacher Status
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the oral answer of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 1047, how many of the additional 25,000 teachers have qualified teacher status; what status the remaining teachers have; and what their distribution is by (a) primary and (b) secondary sectors. [123152]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The number of regular teachers in the maintained sector in England increased by 24,800 between January 1997 and January 2003 (provisional). The number of teachers with Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) rose by 12,500. The number of teachers with professional qualifications obtained in countries outside the European Economic Area and instructors with special qualifications or experience of particular skills or subjects rose by 8,500. The remaining 3,800 of the increase is comprised of mature career-changers working towards QTS while working as teachers on employment-based training routes like the graduate teacher programme. These routes, which were first established in 1998, already provide over 10 per cent. of all newly-qualified teachers. Since autumn 2000, the earliest date for which these data are available, over 5,000 teachers on employment-based training programmes have been awarded QTS. Almost 900 of those have gamed QTS since January 2003.

  Data about teachers by phase of employment for January 2003 are not yet available in the form requested. Of the 24,800 increase 5,800 were in the maintained nursery and primary phase, 17,600 were in the maintained secondary phase and. 1,400 were in maintained special schools, pupil referral units or education elsewhere.

  Research
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much his Department has spent on research to help achieve its aims and objectives in each year since 1997. [124582]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: The Department has spent the following each year since 1997:

  Research funding

  £ million

  1997

  4.4

  1998

  4.8

  1999

  6.2

  2000

  10.6

  2001

  8.2

  2002

  9.2

  Sight Problems
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is introducing to improve screening of schoolchildren for sight problems. [119559]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department of Health is responsible for the provision of eye checks undertaken by local primary health care teams in accordance with professional advice. The principal threats to eye health and impaired vision development should be detected, at or before school age, through health development checks or through a visual screening on school entry. Older children may develop myopia (short sight) which is usually recognised when they complain of difficulty seeing clearly at distance. Since the onset of myopia commonly occurs between the ages of nine and 16 it is not possible to identify optimum ages for screening. Children may "pass" a routine screening examination only to find problems within the next few months. Whenever parents or carers suspect that there is a problem with their child's sight they should take them to an optician. All children up to the age of 15 are entitled to free sight tests, as are children aged 16-18 if they are in full time education.

  The Special Educational Needs Code of Practice provides practical advice to local education authorities, maintained schools and others on carrying out their statutory duties to identify, assess and make provision for children's special educational needs, including for children with visual impairment. The Code aims to promote consistency of approach, but, within its guidelines, it is for schools and LEAs to determine appropriate intervention based on an assessment of each child's individual needs and circumstances.

  Teacher Leavers
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have left the profession in each year since 1997. [125367]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the numbers of teachers leaving1 full-time or part time2 service in the maintained schools sector in England since 1997. Data to 2001 are the most recent available.
  108W
  1 Leavers are those who were in full-time or part-time teaching in the maintained schools sector immediately before the period shown, who were not in service in that sector at the end of the period shown. It includes teachers that have retired. Teachers leaving are based on pension returns. Some teachers may have moved from known service to service not recorded on the teacher pension return. Some leavers will be taking career breaks and will return to service at a later date.

  2 Around 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers may not be included.

  Teachers leaving

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  35,650

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 19981

  39,050

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  31,910

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  34,930

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  35,440

  1 Higher than usual numbers of premature retirements, following changes to the retirement regulations, contributed to the high levels of leavers in 1997–98.

  In 2000–01 40,300 teachers entered teaching full-time or part time in the maintained sector in England, including 13,000 teachers that had returned to teaching after previously leaving the profession.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of outstanding student loans are(a) loans for maintenance and (b) loans for tuition fees. [124668]

  Alan Johnson
  Under current student support legislation, all outstanding student loans relate to loans for maintenance.

  Teachers
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers have been employed in Leicestershire local education authority area in each year since 1996–97. [125251]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table shows the number of regular teachers in maintained schools in Leicestershire since January 1997. Prior to 1 April 1998 Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland were part of the former Leicestershire local education authority. 2002 is the latest year for which teacher data are available.

  Full-time equivalent regular teachers (excluding occasional) in service in the maintained schools sector

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Former Leicestershire

  7,690

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Leicestershire

  n/a

  4,800

  4,860

  4,930

  5,020

  5,040

  Leicester

  n/a

  2,570

  2,660

  2,600

  2,760

  2,710

  Rutland

  n/a

  250

  260

  220

  240

  250

  n/a=not applicable

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of teenage pregnancy literature produced by the Government; and if he will make a statement. [120771]
  109W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Teenage Pregnancy Strategy national campaign was launched in October 2000 with advertisements, aimed at boys and girls aged 13-17, running in popular teenage magazines and local independent radio. The campaign is supported by a freephone advice line and website. Local materials are also available for use by local teenage pregnancy strategies.

  In the tracking survey carried out as part of the independent national evaluation of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, over 70 per cent. of 13-17 year olds recognised the advertisements, a level of recall associated with television advertising. The early success of the campaign was also recognised in the first annual report of the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy (2001). Since October 2000 the freephone advice line has advised over 8 million young people, around 50 per cent. of who were boys.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the impact of the cross-cutting teenage pregnancy strategy since its introduction in 1999. [120772]

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

  These are early encouraging signs of progress towards meeting the Government's target to halve the under 18 conception rate by 2010 and increase to 60 per cent. the participation of teenage parents to reduce their long term risk of social exclusion.

  However, evidence suggests that it takes many years to bring out the societal and behavioural changes required. That is why the Government have set out a 10-year Strategy.

HEALTH

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place copies of the strategic and operational plans that identify age discrimination as referred to on page 172 of the National Service Framework for Older People in the Library. [124584]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Copies of local plans are not held centrally. Information collated through strategic health authorities indicated that 91 per cent. of National Health Service organisations' strategic and operational plans include action to address identified age discrimination.

  Ambulance Service
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the restructuring of ambulance services in Coventry; and what estimate he has made of the likely savings to be made from the restructuring. [124508]
  110W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Coventry Primary Care Trust (PCT) is responsible for commissioning services for the local health community. I understand that West Midlands Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust currently provides emergency ambulance cover to Coventry and the surrounding area.

  I understand that, from 1 April 2004, Coventry PCT will be commissioning emergency ambulance services for the local health community from Warwickshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust. This decision is supported by the local health community and is part of a long-term strategy to deliver an emergency care network across Coventry and Warwickshire, with one ambulance service provider.

  I am advised that this decision is a strategic one and not about reducing costs. The investment in ambulance services by Coventry PCT will remain broadly the same.

  Ashworth Special Hospital
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what his policy is on the re-engagement of retired employees at Ashworth Special Hospital to vacant posts at the establishment; [123555]

  (2) what his policy is on employees of Ashworth Special Hospital and the statutory retirement age; and if he will make a statement. [123556]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Members of staff who have retired from Ashworth Hospital are not re-employed into substantive positions.

  In common with other National Health Service organisations, employees who have retired at Ashworth are not formally re-employed. However, there are occasions when retired staff can return to work at the hospital on a 'temporary basis'.

  Audit Commission Acute Hospital Survey
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the cost is of the Acute Hospital Portfolio survey by the Audit Commission; and if he will make a statement; [125563]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the Compare CD rom by the Audit Commission, detailing performance of primary care trusts under the Acute Hospital Portfolio in the Library. [125564]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Audit Commission is an independent body and inquiries about its operations should be addressed to the Commission itself.

  National Blood Service
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact on the annual blood supply there will be from the introduction of short-term donation bans on donors who have visited areas where emerging pathogens and viruses are notified. [123389]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Service (NBS) has recently introduced deferral bans for blood donors, which apply to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and West Nile Fever virus. The NBS expects that this will reduce donations by 15,000 units.
  111W
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish national guidelines on alternatives to blood transfusions; [123382]

  (2) when the National Network of Transfusion Committees will publish its guidance on better blood transfusion and alternatives. [123384]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Service appropriate use of blood group is drawing up specific guidance on strategies for the appropriate use of blood and the use of alternatives to don or blood. Guidance is expected to be available for consideration by the Chief Medical Officers National Blood Transfusion Committee later this year, when a publication route and timetable will be discussed.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to publish the results of the survey of hospital transfusion committees on Appropriate Use of Blood HSC 2002/009; [123386]

  (2) when he will publish the results of the National Transfusion Committee audit of blood transfusion initiatives. [123387]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An audit by the National Blood Service to review the implementation of Health Service Circular 2002/009, Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate Use of Blood, issued in July 2002 is currently underway. The results will be submitted to the National Blood Transfusion Committee later this year when the publication route and timetable will be discussed.

  In addition, the Royal College of Physicians and the National Blood Service National Comparative Audit Team are undertaking collaborative transfusion audits.

  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of red blood cells were commissioned for use in the NHS in each of the last five years. [123388]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of red cell units issued by the National Blood Service to hospitals in England and North Wales for the last five years is shown in the table.

  Red cell units issued

  1998–99

  2,213,000

  1999–2000

  2,243,000

  2000–01

  2,229,000

  2001–02

  2,206,000

  2002–03

  2,186,000

  Notes:

  1. This includes issues to private hospitals

  2. The figures shown include paediatric red cells. As these smaller units are produced by dividing a donation of blood, the numbers of these units have been aggregated into full unit equivalents and added to the total.

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by strategic health authority how much money has been allocated to cancer services(a) overall and (b) by specific area in each of the financial years from 2003 to 2006. [124347]
  112W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Resources for funding cancer services have been included in general primary care trust (PCT) allocations for 2003–04. PCTs are receiving an additional £12.7 billion over the three years from 2003–04 to 2005–06. It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national priorities, including the targets set for cancer in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: the next three years—Priorities and Planning Framework 2003 to
  2006."

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government plans to spend to modernise cancer equipment over the next three years; and which pieces of cancer equipment will be replaced with new equipment. [124393]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Over the next three years, £165 million will be invested by the Government to modernise equipment used for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.

  Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scanners installed in or before 1996, and linear accelerators installed in or before 1995 will be replaced through the central investment.

  Children's Fund
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used to award grants from the Children's Fund; and if he will list the(a) recipients and (b) amounts received of awards from the Children's Fund since it was established. [122461]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the shadow commissioners who have been appointed to help establish the new Commission for Healthcare and Inspection which will be operational from April 2004; and for which companies they work. [124392]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The following have been appointed as shadow commissioners.

  Khurshid Alam is a personnel manager with St. Mungo's Housing Association. Previously he was Chief Executive of the National Association of Race Equality Councils. He is Chair of Race Agenda and a lay member of the Employment Tribunal, a lay member for Mental Health Review Tribunal and member or chair of a number of community organisations.

  Sarah Blackburn is chief executive of a consultancy specialising in the development of business risk management assurance and audit capabilities. She has been head of internal audit and risk management in Argos plc, Kingfisher plc, RAC plc and Exel plc. She is a member of the Audit Committee of the Open University and the Internal Auditing Committee of the Audit and Assurance Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. She chairs the Technical Development Committee of the Institute of Internal Auditors.
  113W
  Michael Hake is Corporate Director, Social Care and Performance at Solihull Metropolitan Council. He has been a board member of the National Care Standards Commission since its establishment in April 2001. He is also a member of the Patient Information Advisory Group (Advisory NDPB) and of the Health Records and Data Protection Review Group.

  Bruce Keogh is a consultant cardiothoracic surgeon at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust where he has been Associate Medical Director for Clinical Governance. He is a member of the NHS Standing Medical Advisory Committee, the National Taskforce for Coronary Heart Disease and a Commissioner of the Commission for Health Improvement (CHI). He chairs the joint CHI and Audit Commission National Service Frameworks Programme Board which reviews the implementation of the National Service Frameworks in England and Wales. He is active in the NHS Information Authority, Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal College of Surgeons and internationally.

  Melinda Letts is a self-employed health policy consultant and executive/life coach working with voluntary, public and private sector clients. She is also Chairwoman of the Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance, an alliance of 118 health charities working for people with long-term conditions, was chief executive of the National Asthma Campaign from 1992 to 1998 and is Deputy Chair of the General Practice Airways Group, an educational charity for health professionals in respiratory care. She has been a Commissioner with the Commission for Health Improvement since November 1999 and a member of the NHS Modernisation Board since September 2000.

  Nicholas Partridge is Chief Executive of the Terrence Higgins Trust, the leading HIV/AIDS charity in the UK. He is Chair of Consumers in NHS Research and Development, a Trustee of International Family Health and has been a Commissioner for the Commission for Health Improvement since November 1999.

  Kamlesh Patel is Director of the Centre for Ethnicity and Health and current Chairman of the Mental Health Act Commission. He is also a non-executive board member and Chairman of the Audit Committee of The National Treatment Agency, a member of the Department of Health Mental Health Workforce Task Group and is non-executive board member, executive member and Trustee of a number of voluntary organisations including Lifeline UK, DrugScope UK, Men's Health Forum.

  Shirley Pearce is Pro-Vice Chancellor and Professor of Health Psychology at the University of East Anglia. She is a clinical psychologist by profession and has been employed in both NHS and University settings. She led the development of health professional education and research programmes at the University of East Anglia which includes the University's successful bid for, and implementation of, a new medical school. She is currently the Director of the Centre for Inter-professional Practice at UEA and a non executive director of Norfolk Suffolk and Cambridgeshire SHA.

  John Scampion is the Commissioner for Immigration Services. For five years he was the Social Fund Commissioner for Great Britain. He is a member of the
  114W
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and a former non-executive director of South Warwickshire Combined Hospital NHS Trust. He was Town Clerk and Chief Executive of the Metropolitan Borough of Solihull from 1977–1995.

  Iqbal Singh is a Consultant Physician in Medicine for the Elderly and a Professor in Ethnicity and Health. He is also the Regional Sub-Dean for the Royal Society of Medicine and has played a significant role in providing leadership to various professional organisations including as Director of the Indian Medical Association, Divisional Chairman of BMA and ODA and Member of the BMA's National. Committee on Community Care. His interests include professional development and training and diversity, social cohesion and delivery of health care to ethnic communities for which he had contributed nationally and internationally.

  Paul Streets is the Chief Executive of Diabetes UK. He is a member of the NHS Modernisation Board and the only lay member of the Royal College of Physicians Council. In 2002 he chaired the Board advising on the transition to the new patient and public involvement structures within the NHS.
  Stephen Thornton is Chief Executive of The PPP Foundation (shortly to become The Health Foundation), an independent foundation encouraging leadership and innovation in healthcare. He was previously Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation and a health authority Chief Executive. He is a member of the Governing Council of the Open University.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the person for whom the records are held will have the right to be informed that their records have been inspected and copies taken which will be removed from the 'remises under Clause 86(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122960]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) wi11 be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998).

  The CSCI will therefore be required to provide 'fair processing information' to persons whose records are inspected, unless:

  there is disproportionate effort in doing so

  they are satisfied that t le subjects have already been adequately informed, or

  in the case of an investigation, to do so would prejudice the investigation.

  Under the DPA 1998, organisations that will be subject to CSCI or other inspections must also ensure that patients are made aware that their records may be accessed by CSCI and the reasons why this may be necessary.

  Contingency Plans
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the dissemination of lessons learned from major incident exercises by the Health Protection Agency will be made public. [121346]
  115W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The primary purpose of all major incident exercises is to identify lessons that can be used internally as a means of improving plans and training in all participating organisations. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) ensures that rigorous debriefing takes place following such events and that specific lessons are identified and shared with national health service and other participating organisations. An executive summary of the report of exercises—specifically identifying any general lessons learnt—will be placed on the HPA website at www.hpa.org.uk to ensure that the information is more widely disseminated.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letter of 26 June from the honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam regarding Mr. A. Dharsi, a constituent. [124562]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 10 July 2003.

  Eating Disorders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines have been issued by his Department on supporting carers of patients with anorexia. [125095]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health issued guidance in November 2002 called "Developing services for carers and families or people with mental illness", which will be of value to all those carers supporting people with mental health problems, including patients with anorexia.

  The NHS Plan set a target for 2004 that 700 more staff will be recruited to increase the breaks available for carers and to strengthen carer support networks. In pursuance of this target, all regular carers of people with mental health problems will have been identified, received an assessment and have their own care support plans by 2004. By 2004, local support networks for these carers will have been developed. The statutory and voluntary sector currently provides support to carers.

  Erectile Dysfunction
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to evaluate the(a) clinical and (b) cost effectiveness of providing PDE5 inhibitors on the NHS for treatment of erectile dysfunction. [123431]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have no plans to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of providing PDE5 inhibitors on the National Health Service for erectile dysfunction. A review of the current policy was conducted as recently as 2001.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken(a) to detect the increased use of foreign animal hydrolysed proteins in meat consumed in the UK and (b) to ensure traceability and detectability. [119065]
  116W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Further to the discovery of the use of hydrolysed proteins from non-chicken origin in chicken products on sale in the UK in late 2001, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) undertook a co-ordinated enforcement exercise with 20 local authorities. The exercise targeted those companies and products where use of hydrolysed proteins of non-chicken origin had previously been found. The results indicated that of the 25 formal samples taken, 12 tested positive for non-chicken DNA (either pork or in one case pork and beef).

  The FSA is taking action to reduce the use of hydrolysed proteins of non-chicken origin in chicken products. As a result of the enforcement exercise, local authorities are taking follow-up action with the importers and suppliers of mislabelled chicken products, and will be making regular checks. The companies using these hydrolysed proteins can be identified from the licensed health marks used on these products, therefore the FSA is also working closely with the Dutch authorities to increase sampling and inspection of these manufacturers. Formal action has recently been taken against five Dutch processors. Following FSA pressure, the European Commission has agreed to improve rules on labelling of meat products with added water, but the FSA is calling in addition for a limit on added water of 15 per cent. and a ban the use of non-poultry proteins in this type of poultry product.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to make it his policy to consult industry and to produce a list of those nutrients and nutrient sources which are legally available in food supplements but which are not listed as acceptable for such use in the Schedules to the proposed Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003; and if he will publish such a list in the Official Report. [124157]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), which has responsibility for policy on food supplements, has no plans to ask industry to produce such a list.

  Industry has already provided the FSA with information on those nutrients and nutrient sources currently marketed in the United Kingdom but missing from the Schedules to the Food Supplement (England) Regulations 2003. For lists of missing nutrients and nutrient sources, may I refer the hon. Member to the responses I gave the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on Monday 30 June 2003, Official Report, columns 142W and 181W.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dossiers are being prepared by the food supplements industry for submission to the EU Scientific Committee for Food in relation to nutrients and nutrient sources which are legally available in food supplements, but which are not listed as acceptable for such use in the Schedules to the proposed Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. [124158]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Industry representatives have informed the Food Standards Agency that 24 safety dossiers are currently being prepared to support the addition of missing substances to the permitted lists in the Annexes to the Food Supplements Directive.
  117W
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for animal testing of nutrients and nutrient sources of the requirements of the Food Supplements Directive that dossiers must be submitted for consideration by the European Scientific Committee for Food in relation to nutrients and nutrient sources which are legally available in food supplements, but which are not listed as acceptable for such use in the Schedules to the proposed Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. [124159]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The lists of permitted vitamins/minerals and their sources in the Food Supplements Directive may be extended following assessment, by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), of dossiers of information supporting the use of additional vitamins and minerals and their sources.

  It is not possible to predict what implications dossier requirements may have for animal testing. Guidance on dossier content, issued by the former European Union Scientific Committee on Food, does not stipulate that data should be from animal testing and states that the available data should be submitted in the first instance. The need to generate new data will be assessed on a case-by-case basis; it will depend upon the extent and nature of data already available and any safety considerations that need to be addressed. It will be for the petitioner to decide on the most appropriate data package.

  In recognition of the difficulties associated with compilation of dossiers, the Food Standards Agency has been pressing the EFSA for an urgent, substantive discussion involving representatives of relevant interest groups. The European Commission supports this move. The EFSA has responded positively and we expect a meeting to be arranged soon.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date food supplement products will be required to be removed from the market if they contain nutrients and nutrient sources which are not listed as acceptable for such use in the Schedules to the proposed Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. [124160]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 will come into force on 1 August 2005. From that date, the sale of food supplements containing vitamins or minerals not in the Schedules will be prohibited, unless the criteria in regulation 5(3), which permit continued sale until 1 January 2010, are met.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from the National Association of Health Stores in relation to the provisions of the Food Supplements Directive and the Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and what response he has made to those representations. [120435]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Ministers have received a number of recent written representations from, and on behalf of, the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS) expressing NAHS's concerns over the impact of the Food Supplements Directive and the implementing regulations. In particular, NAHS voiced particular concerns over the current composition of the 118W
  lists of permitted substances in the annexes to the Directive and asked that the United Kingdom seek an amendment to the Directive.

  Ministers have responded recognising those concerns and setting out the Government's view that there was no possibility of negotiations on the Directive being reopened. Many Member States wanted a much more restrictive regime.

  No aspect of the Directive needs to be implemented by the industry until 1 August 2005 and the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003 make use of flexibility in the Directive that means marketing of some products may not be affected until 1 January 2010.

  Food supplement; containing vitamins and minerals and their sources missing from the positive lists, that were on the market when the Directive came into force may continue to be marketed beyond 1 August 2005 provided that dossiers to support their addition to the positive lists have been submitted to the European Commission before 12 July 2005 and provided that the European Food Safety Authority has not given a negative opinion on such use.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of providing free prescriptions to all patients in England. [124625]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We estimate that the loss of prescription charge income in England would be around £446 million in 2003–04. Additionally, there could be significant additional costs to the drugs bill if people who currently pay charges sought prescriptions for medicines and other items which they currently purchase.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce free prescriptions for those aged 21 or under who are not in full time employment. [124882]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  People aged 21 or under who are not in full time employment are entitled to free national health service prescriptions if they hold a maternity or medical exemption certificate; receive income support or income based jobseekers' allowance, are named on a Tax Credit NHS exemption certificate; or hold a NHS low income scheme exemption certificate for full help.

  Patients who pay charges and need frequent prescriptions may benefit from purchasing a prescription prepayment certificate.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the accreditation and payment plans of GPs with special interests; [124344]

  (2) whether mental health is included in the new sets of guidelines for GPs with special interests; and if he will make a statement. [124396]

  Mr. Hutton
  Mental health is one of the new guidelines for general practitiorers with a special interest (GPwSI) published by the Department of Health on 24 April. These guidelines we re commissioned from the Royal
  119W
  College of General Practitioners. They link closely with relevant national service frameworks and draw on good practice and experience nationally to offer support to primary care trusts (PCTs) in extending the range of services offered in primary care. Accreditation and remuneration of GPwSIs are both matters for PCTs to determine locally except, in future, where the GPwSI service falls within the scope of a national enhanced service under the new general medical services contract, when national benchmark prices will apply as a minimum price.

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he expects the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection to give notice where it intends to enter and inspect premises under clause 62 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121175]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We expect that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will normally enter and inspect premises by agreement with their owners.

  However it will be for CHAI to decide whether it is appropriate to give notice that it intends to enter premises using the power in Clause 60 (formerly Clause 62) of the Bill.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he has set for the right of entry to be considered necessary or expedient under clause 63 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121176]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Secretary of State has set no criteria for the right of entry to be considered necessary or expedient under clause 65: Right of entry: supplementary (formerly clause 63) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health arid Standards) Bill.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a person working at the premises will have the right to refuse to be interviewed under clause 63(1)(c)(i) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [121179]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Clause 61 (formerly clause 63(1)(c)(i)) gives the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) power to interview in private any person working at premises which CHAI is inspecting. Clause 61(5) provides that it would be an offence to obstruct CHAI in the exercise of its functions, and this provision is intended to make clear (mirroring existing provision in the Care Standards Act) that a manager must not prevent any pet son who consents to being interviewed by CHAI being interviewed. In certain circumstances, which will be set out in detail in regulations to be made under clause 61 of the Bill, CHAI will be able to require prescribed persons to give explanations of prescribed matters to CHAI. Failure without reasonable excuse to do so in these circumstances would be a criminal offence.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will give notice where it requires a person to 120W
  provide it with information, records and other items under Clause 64 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; where a person is required to provide it with information and records, if these will be protected under the Data Protection Act 1998; and if he will put in place safeguards in such cases to ensure (a) that only records relevant to an investigation are requested and (b) that an individual's right to privacy is protected. [121182]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We expect that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) will normally obtain information by agreement. Where it exercises the power in clause 62 (previously 64) to require the provision of information or documents, we expect that it will normally do so in writing. Individuals' rights to privacy will be protected by the offence of disclosure of confidential information in Clause 129 of the Bill and also by the Data Protection Act. Under clause 62(1)(b), CHAI may only request information and documents which it considers necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of Chapter 3.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what, under Clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, will be the specified factors that will determine a fee by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection; [121190]

  (2) who, under Clause 60 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, will appoint the independent person or panel who will be able to review the amount charged by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in respect of fees for its reviewing and investigating functions; and what their terms of reference will be. [121192]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Section 57(7) (formerly section 60(7)) will allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations provision for an independent person or panel to review fees payable in particular classes of cases under section 57(1). These regulations may also include any terms of reference the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

  Under section 57(3) (formerly section 60(3)) the Secretary of State may also specify in regulations the factors that the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection must take into account in determining any fee payable under section 57(1).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection will require a notice period to be given to make available for inspection a report published by it under Clause 61 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [121193]

  (2) whether, under Clause 61 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, there will be a scale of fees for providing (a) a copy of a report published by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and (b) other information relevant to the discharge of the Commission's functions. [121194]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Clause 59 (formerly Clause 6) stipulates that the Commission and Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) must make copies of any report published by it under Chapter 3 of the Health and Social
  121W
  Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill available for inspection at its offices by any person at a reasonable time. It does not provide for CHAI to require that a period of notice be given beforehand.

  It also provides for CHAI to charge a fee for copies of any report published by it under Chapter 3 of the Bill or to supply other information relevant to the discharge of its functions under this chapter.

  It will be for CHAI to determine what constitutes a reasonable fee for any requested report and for any other additional information that an individual may request.

  Health Records
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made in investigating the pulping of the public health files in 1974. [124892]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: An informal review is being undertaken by the Department of Health to clarify the facts surrounding the drive for United Kingdom self sufficiency in blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. The review is based on papers available from the time and is not addressing allegations that files from that period went missing.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to ensure that patients are given access to their medical records relating to plasma; and if he will make a statement. [124894]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: It is the responsibility of individual national health service organisations to ensure that they comply with legal requirements when dealing with requests for access to health records. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides individuals with a right of access to their health records. However there are certain circumstances in which the record holder may withhold information.

  Access may be denied, or limited, where the information might cause serious harm to the physical or mental health or condition of the patient, or any other person, or where giving access would disclose information relating to or provided by a third person who had not consented to the disclosure. The decision over whether to grant or withhold access must be made by individual record holders. However individuals do have recourse to the NHS complaints procedure if they feel that their application for access has not been dealt with appropriately.

  Health Service Contracts
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the new(a) GP and (b) dental contracts will include provision for compulsory clinical negligence indemnity; and if he will make a statement. [124028]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  General medical and dental practitioners working under local contracts are already obliged to carry indemnity cover by their contracts with primary care trusts. Practice providers of primary medical services under a general medical services contract will also be required to ensure indemnity cover for the practice as a result of the new contracts they will 122W
  hold with primary care trusts from April 2004. Similar provision is expected under the new general dental services contracts.

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of foundation hospitals on Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust. [124902]

  Mr. Hutton
  In line with the principle of earned autonomy for the first wave of national health service foundation trusts, only acute and specialist NHS trusts which have attained three stars in the NHS performance ratings were eligible to apply.

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust has two stars, which means that it is not eligible to apply for NHS foundation trust status at present. However, with mechanisms, including the recently announced improvement programme, in place to raise the performance of all NHS trusts, it is expected that all NHS trusts will have the opportunity to apply for NHS foundation trust status within the next five years.

  Male Impotence Drugs
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost has been of male impotence drugs to the national health service in each year since they were added to Schedule 11 of the Selected List Of NHS Drugs. [123430]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of prescription items and Net Ingredient Cost
  (thousands) of products for treatment of impotence prescribed in
  GP practices in England and dispensed in the community, 1999–00
  to 2002–03

  £000

  Number of prescription items (Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost

  1999–2000

  518.1

  17,465.1

  2000–01

  720.8

  23,393.1

  2001–02

  914.2

  29,301.7

  2002–03

  1,097.0

  35,261.9

  Notes:

  1. The therapeutic classifications are based on British National Formulary section 7.4.5 (Drugs for erectile dysfunction).

  2. The data is based on prescriptions prescribed in GP practices in England which are dispensed in the community. Hospital and private prescriptions are not included.

  3. The net ingredient cost (NIC) refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed or where the patient has purchased a pre-payment certificate.

  Source:

  Prescribing Analyses and Cost (PACT) from the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  Independent Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2003, ref 123300, what the terms of reference are of the independent review; and when it will report. [125383]
  123W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The review will cover the process of reviewing eligibility criteria, arrangements to ensure that those criteria are applied consistently, the information provided to patients and the operation of complaints procedures. It is expected to report in March 2004.

  Medical Devices
  Dr. Richard Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce national standards for training in the use of medical devices. [124173]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The training in the use of medical devices is the responsibility of national health service hospital trusts' chief executives, who must follow the guidance of the Controls Assurance Standards to ensure that all staff are adequately trained to use all equipment they need to work with.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to improve the treatment of those suffering from acute personality disorders. [124877]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are committed to improving the care, treatment and management of people with personality disorder. One component of the work is the provision of appropriate assessment and treatment services for the small number of people with severe personality disorder (probably less than 2,500 nationally) who pose a continued risk to others. New facilities, in both prisons and secure psychiatric hospitals, will evaluate what the most effective methods of treatment are and consider how people can be helped back into society. This is known as the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (DSPD) Programme.

  In addition, "Personality disorder: no longer a diagnosis of exclusion"—policy implementation
  guidance for the development of services for people with personality disorder—was published by National Institute for Mental Health in England in January 2003. This guidance builds on standards four and five in the national service framework for mental health and sets out how services for people with personality disorder should be developed. It brings this often neglected and isolated area of mental health into focus for the first time.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is on the separation of mental health patients with differing degrees of mental illness. [125094]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Clinical assessment of need is the key to effective ward organisation. "Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide on Adult Acute Inpatient Care Provision" (2002) and "Safety, Privacy and Dignity in Mental Health Units" (2000) provides the principles of achieving such effective organisation in detail.

  The guides state that the focus should be on admission to the most appropriate setting in line with the patient's needs within a whole system approach. It also reiterates the need to have cleir admission and bed management protocols in place, as well as the necessary clinical governance arrangements to monitor and address concerns in respect of unmet needs.

  MRI Scanners
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the staffing levels for operating the MRI scanners in Shropshire NHS trusts. [125146]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how old the MRI scanner at the Princess Royal Hospital, Telford is. [125148]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: I understand that the magnetic resonance imaging scanner at the Princess Royal Hospital was originally manufactured in 1989. It was installed at the Princess Roy al Hospital in January 1995. In 1998, a major upgrade was carried out, which brought the scanner up to the latest specification.

  National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse has to locate staff within the Government Office of the North West area during 2003; and when this will be. [124384]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Since 7 July 2003, the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse has had one regional manager and two support staff based in the Government office in the North West. Two additional members of staff are expected to take up their posts later this summer.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that patients seeking a new dentist are able to continue receiving NHS treatment. [124626]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  General dental practitioners are independent contractors and, as such, are free to choose the proportions of national health service or private dentistry they wish to provide. Under NHS terms of service, dentists who stop offering NHS treatment are required to complete any outstanding treatment on the NHS or notify the appropriate primary care trust (PCT) if this is not possible.

  Where dentists withdraw from providing NHS dentistry, PCTs can apply to the Secretary of State for agreement to fund salaried dental practitioners under section 56 of the 1977 NHS Act.

  NHS Direct can put patients in touch with sources of NHS dentistry including community dental services, dental access centres and general dental practitioners offering treatment under general dental services.

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to prevent dentists removing from their list patients who receive NHS treatment. [124627]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  General dental practitioners are independent contractors and, as such, are free to choose the amount of national health service or private dentistry they wish to provide.
  125W
  Under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the intention is to move to practice based contracts which will allow alternative ways of rewarding dentists to provide a defined level of service for a given number of people. Dentists will receive a more secure income in return for making a longer term commitment to the NHS.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it cost the(a) Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership, (b) Lancashire Care and (c) South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trusts to place the job advertisement in the Nursing Times on 17 June. [122403]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the targets of(a) 7,500 consultants and 2,000 general practitioners by 2004 and (b) 15,000 consultants and general practitioners by 2008. [120441]

  Mr. Hutton
  Between September 1999 and September 2002, the number of consultants working in the National Health Service increased by 3,749 from 23,321 to 27,070.
  Between September 1999 and September 2002, the number of general practitioners working in the NHS increased by 735 from 28,467 to 29,202.

  Out-patient Appointments
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of(a) new and (b) follow-on out-patient appointments were cancelled at (i) Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust, (ii) Royal Bolton hospitals, (iii) Salford Royal hospitals and (iv) Warrington hospital in each year since 1999. [123660]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The number of cancelled out-patient appointments, either by the hospital or by the patient, is not collected centrally by the Department of Health.

  Information is available for each national health service trust and primary care trust on the number of patients who do not attend their out-patient appointment without giving prior notice. This information is published on the Department's website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/ hospitalactivity.

  Private Healthcare
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what areas of private healthcare are to be transferred to the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Improvement under the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; [123038]

  (2) what areas of private healthcare are regulated by the National Care Standards Commission; [123039]

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure a comprehensive system of regulation for all private healthcare is in place. [123040]
  126W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Under the Care Standards Act 2000 the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) is responsible for the regulation of independent health care and social care. The term 'independent health care' refers to private or voluntary establishments or agencies that provide care by medical practitioners, and such providers are registered as independent hospitals, independent clinics or independent medical agencies. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAD will take over responsibility for the regulation of independent health care from April 2004.

  The NCSC is also responsible for the regulation of care homes in which nursing is provided, and nurses' agencies, but these are classified as social care and responsibility for their regulation will transfer to the Commission for Social Care Inspection from April 2004.

  The Government have already ensured that a comprehensive system of regulation of private health care is in place by introducing the Care Standards Act, which has made unprecedented improvements on previous regulatory schemes. These include increased scope of regulation, a single regulator to promote consistency of application, national minimum standards and powers to inspect clinical performance. This will continue under CHAI.

  Ritalin
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each primary care trust aged up to four have been prescribed Ritalin in each of the last five years. [124236]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 8 July 2003,Official Report, columns 783-84W, on age-related prescribing of methylphenidate hydrochloride (Ritalin) in primary care trusts. Additionally, this controlled drug is licensed for use in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder only in children aged six years and above.

  Sexual Health
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to design NHS sexual health services which are aimed at appealing to young men. [125159]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In implementing the national strategy for sexual health and HIV, the Department of Health has published a sexual health promotion toolkit, which provides practical advice to those working in the field of sexual health promotion with young men, to ensure that they are proactively targeted and that services are open a ad welcoming. Also, the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy recognises that increasing the involvement of boys and young men in decisions about sexual health is crucial and young men are, therefore, included in all aspects of the strategy. The Department is also funding the Men's Health Forum to investigate men's perceptions and attitudes towards chlamydia and to identify the best way to target men, both with information and for screening.
  127W
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a chlamydia screening programme for young women. [125160]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is already rolling out a national chlamydia screening programme for young women. Indeed, screening for chlamydia is now widely available in local national health service sexual health (genitor-urinary medicine) clinics. Following the successful completion of a pilot study, 10 areas, covering 30 primary care trusts and over 400 individual testing sites, are developing an improved screening programme within a standard framework, which we are extending further.

  Smacking
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned on the percentage of parents who smack their children. [122446]

  Margaret Hodge
  In January 2000, the Government consulted on what the legal position should be on the physical punishment of children, in Protecting Children, Supporting Parents. There were over 830 responses to the consultation in England, over 500 of these from individuals. The consultation did not specifically ask about smacking behaviour. However, the results showed that about 70 per cent. of individual respondents were in favour of keeping the status quo with regard to the smacking of children by parents.

  A 1998 Office for National Statistics (ONS) Omnibus Survey of attitudes towards physical punishment found that 88 per cent. of respondents agreed that it is sometimes necessary to smack a naughty child.

  Smoking
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people who(a) took up smoking and (b) permanently stopped smoking in each year since 1997. [122457]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for public health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Paul Flynn) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, columns 454-55W.

  Tranquillisers/Anti-depressants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the net ingredient cost of GP prescribed(a) tranquillisers and (b) anti-depressants was (i) in total cash terms and (ii) per head of population in each primary care trust in England in 2002; and what the (A) total cost and (B) average per head cost was for England in 2002. [125629]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information has been placed in the Library which shows the number of prescription items, the net ingredient cost and the net ingredient cost per 1,000 people, of all hypnotic and anxiolytic drugs, and anti-depressant drugs, prescribed in general practitioner practices in England and dispensed in the 128W
  community in 2002, by primary care trust. Information on total cash and total cost figures are not available and have been substituted with net ingredient costs.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is available to the health service on the treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis; and what monitoring systems are in place to ensure compliance with such guidance. [120080]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Interdepartmental Working Group on Tuberculosis publication entitled "The Prevention and Control of Tuberculosis in the United Kingdom": UK Guidance on the Prevention and Control of Transmission of

  1. HIV-related tuberculosis

  2. drug resistant tuberculosis (1998)

  provides information for the National Health Service on drug resistant and multi-drug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) and process of notification.

  All forms of TB are compulsorily notifiable by the physician making or suspecting the diagnosis under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

  In addition, the Public Health Laboratory Service streamlined and improved its diagnostic services for TB, strengthened surveillance and monitoring of drug resistant TB, and, following the last of a series of five-yearly detailed surveys of notifications in 1998, introduced continuous enhanced surveillance in January 1999. From 2002, this enhanced surveillance has included monitoring of the outcome of treatment.

  Victoria Climbié
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry; how long it lasted; and how many days it sat in public. [124335]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The total expenditure of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry, from its establishment on 20 April 2001 to its report being presented to the Government on 6 January 2003, was £3.8 million.

  Other details relating to the Inquiry can be obtained from the Victoria Climbié Inquiry website, www.victoriaclimbie.org. uk.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the mid-Essex Hospital Trust area are waiting for in-patient treatment. [124998]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: There were 8,710 patients waiting for inpatient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at the end of May 2003.

  Source:

  Department of Health monthly monitoring figures.

TREASURY

  Benefits Uptake
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of eligible individuals who have failed to apply for(a) working tax credit, (b) minimum income guarantee and (c) child tax credit within the Crosby constituency. [122205]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No estimates are available for the Child or Working Tax Credit, or the Minimum Income Guarantee, in each constituency.

  Biodiesel Duty
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the basis for his decision on the rate by which duty on biodiesel is being reduced; what consultations he held with the fuel industry; and what reductions the industry proposed. [124400]

  John Healey
  I did so in my answer to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 882W.

  We held a number of meetings and received a number of representations about the level of duty on biodiesel.

  Census
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to use the one-number census process to determine population in the future. [124747]

  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. Mark Field, dated 14 July 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking if it is policy to use the One Number Census process to determine population in the future. (124747)
  In the UK, the mid-year population estimates are based on an internationally accepted and widely employed demographic method. Using this method, estimates are produced by updating from a census base allowing for births, deaths and net migration. This basic method will continue to be employed in the future. However, we are continuing with research into improving our methods of estimating the components of population change between the censuses. The 2001 census showed we need to be much better at this. In particular the Office for National Statistics published on the 9th July a study looking at the future of population statistics; this is available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_ theme/Dem_Stat_Ser_21ST_Cen. asp
  Further, a National Statistics Quality Review on International Migration Statistics is nearing completion and this will make recommendations on improving the accuracy of these statistics, which are the most difficult component of population change to measure accurately.
  A research programme, the Census Strategic Development Programme, has been established to co-ordinate the future development of the census. This programme will explore the modifications to a traditional census, taking account of the lessons from the 2001 census and harnessing modern technologies. Other potential options are being explored including: a rolling census, covering successive sections of the population; a sample census, only ever covering a percentage of the population; producing
  130W
  statistics from existing person-based data held by government for administrative purposes; or some combination of these. The first phase of this research will result in recommendations in late 2003.
  The One Number Census process added considerably to our knowledge of the quality of the census at a local authority level. However, in the future it will be possible to place even more emphasis on producing measures of quality. This will be a critical shift in determining future actions.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average proportion of income paid out in council tax by a pensioner household in the South West of England is. [124620]

  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. Colin Breed dated 14 July 2003
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the average proportion of income paid out in council tax by a pensioner household in the South-West of England. (124620)
  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 ONS and published on the National Statistics website on April 11 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.
  Pensioner households have been defined as those where the Household Reference Person is retired. The Household Reference Person is defined as retired if aged 65 years or more and male, or 60 years or more and female, and economically inactive. 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

  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.

  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.
  The estimated net council tax paid as a percentage of gross income for pensioner households in the South-West of England is 3.6 per cent. Net council tax is derived from gross council tax less benefits and discounts.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the average proportion of income paid out in council tax by a non-pensioner household in the South West of England was in 2002–03; [124674]

  (2) what the average proportion of income paid out in council tax by a household in the top income decile in the South-West of England was in 2002–03. [124677]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Andrew George, dated 14 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions asking for the average proportion of income paid out in council tax by a household in the top income decile in the

  131W
  South-West of England in 2002–03 and the average proportion of income paid out in council tax by a non-pensioner households in the South-West of England in 2002–03. 24674, 124677).
  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 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 (EFS).
  Sample sizes for all households in tie South-West are only sufficient to allow a breakdown to be given by quintiles of income distribution and not by decile. The latest analysis from which estimates can be provided is for 2001–02 and results for 2002–03 will not be available until 2004.
  Non-pensioner households have been defined as those where the Household Reference Person is not retired. The Household Reference Person is defined as retired if 65 years or more and male, or 60 years of age or more and female, arid economically inactive. The Household Reference Person is identified during the interview and is defined as the member of the household who:

  a. owns household accommodation, or

  b. is legally responsible for the rent of the accommodation, or

  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.

  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.
  The following table shows: the estimated net council tax paid as a percentage of gross income for all households and non-pensioner households in the South-West, and the percentage paid for all households in the top income quintile (where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income).
  The tope income quintile in the South-West includes all households where the equivalised disposable household income is equal to or more than £26,317 per year. Net council tax is derived from gross council tax less benefits and discounts.

  Council tax paid as a percentage of gross income for all household
  and non-pensioner1 households in the South-West, 2001–02
  (South-West—Percentages)

  Households

  Top quintile2

  All households

  Net council tax3

  All1

  1.5

  2.5

  Non-pensioner

  —

  2.2

  1 Household reference person is not retired.

  2 Households with equivalised disposable household income of or above £26.317 per year.

  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 households income. Published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends No 594 May 2203

  Defence Budget
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated total Government expenditure on military activities(a) was in 2002–03 and (b) will be in 2003–04. [125257]

  Mr. Boateng
  Estimated expenditure for military activities for 2002–03 and planned expenditure for 2003–04 can be found the Ministry of Defence's Government Expenditure Plans 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  In particular reference to the cost of conflict prevention in 2002–03 the provisional outturn is as follows.
  132W

  £ million

  Resource DEL

  1,323

  Annually Managed Expenditure

  159

  Capital DEL

  332

  It is not possible to provide an estimated cost of conflict prevention for 2003–04 as these rely on a number of unknown factors such as the length and amount of military activity needed in each theatre of operation.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax revenues in 2003–04 will be directed to the Ministry of Defence budget; and what proportion is allocated to(a) conflict resolution and (b) peace-keeping. [125378]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government do not specifically allocate funds to Departments based on percentage of tax revenues but through the Government Spending Review and the supply estimate process. Budget 2003, table C12, sets out allocations of £30.8 billion resource and £ 6.1 billion capital for the Ministry of Defence budget in 2003–04.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the Department's policies have been screened for their environmental impact since June 2001; how many environmental appraisals have been conducted, and on what policy issues; and what information has been published about these screenings and appraisals. [124709]

  John Healey
  The Government are committed to appraising the environmental impact of Budget measures, and publishes information relating to those impacts annually, in tables 1 and 2 of Chapter 7 of the Budget Red Book.

  Furthermore, for the first time in Spending Review 2002, departments with a Public Service Agreement were asked to produce Sustainable Development Reports, identifying the social, economic and environmental implications of their policy priorities. The Spending Review White Paper: Opportunity and Security for All, was the main output of SR2002.

  European Economic Convergence
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he would take following a decision to implement a discretionary fiscal policy to stabilise the economy as discussed in the Treasury publication Fiscal Stabilisation and EMU, to reconcile conflicting demands of fiscal sustainability and macroeconomic stability, as described in paragraph 4.23 of the document. [121550]

  Mr. Boateng
  Inside or outside EMU, the Government's pre-eminent fiscal objective is to ensure sound public finances over the medium term.

  In the event of EMU entry, the adoption of an explicit fiscal stabilisation objective and rule would add an element of pre-commitment and help ensure that

  133W
  discretionary fiscal policy operated symmetrically over the cycle and hence it would underpin rather than threaten fiscal sustainability.

  European Union
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was paid to the European Union to fund the operation of the(a) European Commission, (b) European Parliament and (c) European Council of Ministers in the last financial year. [124366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole and not to individual Community institutions. In 2002, the UK's gross contribution after abatement, as shown in Supplementary and Amending Budget No 3/2003 was 10.6 billion euro.

  Firearms
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firearms were detected by HM Customs officers in the possession of passengers disembarking from aircraft at Farnborough, Hampshire on 30 November 1999, broken down by(a) type of firearm, (b) the operator of the flight from which the passenger had alighted, (c) the passenger's nationality and (d) the action taken by HM Customs and Excise. [124953]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available; Exemption 14 (Information given in confidence) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies to all such information.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from an increase in income tax on all taxable income below(a) £100,000 and (b) £50,000 of (i) 1p, (ii) 2p, (iii) 3p and (iv) 4p in (A) the current financial year and (B) 2004–05. [125275]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table.

  £ billion

  Increase in all rates of income tax

  Yield from increase in income tax on all taxable income

  (A) 2003–04

  (B) 2004–05

  (a) taxable income below £100,000

  (i) 1p

  4.7

  5.0

  (ii) 2p

  9.4

  10.0

  (iii) 3p

  14.1

  15.0

  (iv) 4p

  18.8

  20.0

  (b) taxable income below £50,000

  (i) 1p

  4.4

  4.7

  (ii) 2p

  8.8

  9.4

  (iii) 3p

  13.2

  14.1

  (iv) 4p

  17.6

  18.8

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the April 2003 Budget.

  All the figures shown are the estimated direct effects of tax changes on tax revenues. In practice, tax changes will themselves effect taxpayer behaviour and economic variables, which in turn will have further effects on tax revenues.
  134W
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from an increase in income tax on all taxable income from earnings only of(a) 1p, (b) 2p, (c) 3p and (d) 4p in (i) the current financial year and (ii) 2004–05. [125276]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table.

  £ billion

  Increase in starting rate, basic rate and higher rate of income tax on earnings

  Yield from increase in income tax on all taxable income from earnings

  (i) 2003–04

  (ii) 2004–05

  (a) 1p

  4.8

  5.1

  (b) 2p

  9.6

  10.2

  (c) 3p

  14.4

  15.3

  (d) 4p

  19.2

  20.4

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the April 2003 Budget.

  All the figures shown are the estimated direct effects of tax changes on tax revenues. In practice, tax changes will themselves effect taxpayer behaviour and economic variables, which in turn will have further effects on tax revenues.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from an increase in income tax on all taxable income from earnings only below(a) £100,000 and (b) £50,000 of (i) 1p, (ii) 2p, (iii) 3p and (iv) 4p in (A) the current financial year and (B) 2004–05. [125277]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the following table.

  Increase in income tax rates on earned income

  Yield from increase in income tax rates on earned income (£ billion)

  (A) 2003–04

  (B) 2004–05

  (a) Total earnings below £100,000

  (i) 1p

  4.4

  4.7

  (ii) 2p

  8.8

  9.4

  (iii) 3p

  13.2

  14.1

  (iv) 4p

  17.6

  18.8

  (b) Total earnings below £50,000

  (i) 1p

  4.1

  4.4

  (ii) 2p

  8.2

  8.8

  (iii) 3p

  12.3

  13.2

  (iv) 4p

  16.4

  17.6

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the April 2003 Budget.

  All the figures shown are the estimated direct effects of tax changes on tax revenues. In practice, tax changes will themselves effect taxpayer behaviour and economic variables, which in turn will have further effects on tax revenues.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the yield from an increase in income tax on all taxable income of(a) 1p, (b) 2p, (c) 3p and (d) 4p in (i) the current financial year and (ii) 2004–05; [125288]
  135W
  (2) if he will estimate the yield from an increase in the base rate of income tax of (a) 1p, (b) 2p, (c) 3p and (d) 4p in (i) the current financial year and (ii) 2004–05. [125289]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to table 1.6 on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue. gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/g_t06_1.htm.

  Iraq
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to set aside further funds to pay for actions involving British troops in Iraq. [125046]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor set aside a £3 billion special reserve in the Budget to cover the cost of military operations in Iraq.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was collected through stamp duty in Northern Ireland in the last financial year. [124365]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Stamp duty receipts processed by the Belfast stamp office, the only stamp office in Northern Ireland, amounted to £55 million in 2002–03. However this does not reflect the total amount of stamp duty (including Stamp Duty Reserve Tax ("SDRT")) paid by residents of Northern Ireland. SDRT on share transactions is collected via the CREST electronic settlement system and information on the geographical location of the underlying share transaction is not maintained.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [124088]

  Mr. Boateng
  In common with all constituencies in the UK, Pendle has benefited from the stability created by this Government's new macroeconomic frameworks and reforms of productivity and labour market opportunities. This has, for example, resulted in a 23 per cent. fall in Pendle's claimant count unemployment, and an 88 per cent. fall in its long-term claimant unemployment, since April 1997.

  As at November 2002, 3,428 families in Pendle were receiving the working families tax credit and 75 disabled people were in receipt of the disabled person's tax credit (now both replaced by the working tax credit and the child tax credit).

  In addition, in 2003–04 Pendle shire district council received a 121, per cent. increase in formula grant from central Government, while the North West Development Agency's indicative allocation increased by 5.4 per cent. between 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Pendle's constituents will also benefit from the Government's public services reforms and the £61 billion increase in spending on public services over the next three years which was announced in Spending Review 2002.

  Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his further plans for tax treatment of pension funds. [125891]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 17 December the Government published a consultation document, "Simplifying the taxation of pensions: increasing choice and flexibility". This proposed that the current eight pension tax regimes would be replaced by a single lifetime allowance on tax relieved pension savings.

  The Government are currently considering the responses to the consultation and a further paper, setting out the detail of the proposed regime, will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensionable age persons live in each constituency in the UK. [124760]

  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. Adrian Sanders, dated 14 July 2003:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many pensionable age persons live in each constituency in the UK (124760)
  The numbers of persons of pensionable age in each parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom is not yet available from the 2001 Census, although the figures are available for every local authority in England and Wales in Table KS02 of the Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales published on 13 February. A copy of this report was placed in the House of Commons Library and is available on the ONS website at http://nswebcopy/StatBase/Product.asp?vink = 10150
  The same table will be available for UK Parliamentary Constituencies. It is planned to release this in August or September and a copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  In addition a printed volume will provide a brief statistical summary of each current UK Parliamentary constituency, including some comparative measures. Electronic supplements will in addition provide Key Statistics and Census Area Statistics, and reference maps for each constituency. It is the intention to issue a further report based on any new constituency boundaries adopted for the next General Election.
  Information from the Censuses in Scotland and Northern Ireland is available from the Registrars General for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was produced from direct taxation on pensions in the past five years. [125141]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates of the amount of income tax paid on private pensions from 1997–98 to 2001–02 are contained in table T7.9 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.Uk/stats/pensions/p_t09_1_.htm.

  Professional Indemnity Insurance
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned on professional indemnity insurance cover; and if he will make a statement. [125713]
  137W
  Mr. Boateng
  The Financial Services Authority has undertaken its own research and is aware of independent research by the Association of Independent Financial Advisers into the market for professional indemnity insurance (PII) for independent financial advisers. That research informs their work to develop policy in this area, including their forthcoming further consultation on PII.

  Suicides
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths in England have been recorded as suicides in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [124875]

  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. Alan Hurst, dated 14 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many deaths in England have been recorded as suicide in each year since 1990. (124875)
  The most recent available suicide data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures for each year from 1990 to 2001 are given in the table below.

  Number of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether
  accidentally or purposely1, inflicted, England2, 1990 to 20013

  Number of deaths

  1990

  5,209

  1991

  5,128

  1992

  5,115

  1993

  4,929

  1994

  4,780

  1995

  4,816

  1996

  4,572

  1997

  4,662

  1998

  4,815

  1999

  4,828

  2000

  4,598

  2001

  4,388

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8for the years 1990 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (1CD-10) codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  2 Figures are for residents of England.

  3 Figures are for deaths registered in 1990 to 1992 and for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1993 to 2001.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new child tax credit claims have been(a) refused and (b) investigated as potentially fraudulent. [121217]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of inquiries into tax credit awards under Section 19 of the Tax Credits Act 2002, of penalties imposed and of prosecutions and convictions for offences connected with tax credits will be published in the annual report required under Section 40 of the Act.
  138W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of tax credit fraud have been detected in each of the last six years; and how many resulted in successful prosecution. [124506]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue tackle fraud, error and avoidance using civil investigation and settlement, and applying financial penalties where appropriate. Cases of suspected serious fraud are referred to the Revenue's Special Compliance Office, for civil investigation or prosecution as appropriate. The numbers of civil investigations of serious fraud completed by the SCO are:

  Serious fraud cases settled

  2001–02

  308

  2000–01

  310

  1999–2000

  361

  1998–99

  315

  1997–98

  375

  1996–97

  394

  Details of prosecutions by the Revenue are published in their Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the House Library.

  Customs' policy in tackling VAT fraud is to use cost effective civil Procedures wherever possible. Investigation with a view to criminal prosecution is reserved for only th2, more serious or aggravated cases. The number of VAT fraud cases finalised by the imposition of a civil evasion penalty are:

  Number of civil evasion penalties imposed

  1996–97

  849

  1997–98

  898

  1998–99

  902

  1999–2000

  860

  2000–01

  729

  2001–02

  346

  Figures for 2002–03 will be published in Customs' Annual Report. The number of VAT fraud prosecutions is:

  Completed prosecutions

  Successful prosecutions

  1996–97

  99

  90

  1997–98

  70

  65

  1998–99

  69

  61

  1999–2000

  94

  73

  2000–01

  37

  25

  2001–02—89 cases reported for prosecution.

  Figures for the cases reported for prosecution in 2002–03 will be published in Customs' Annual Report.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who are eligible for each of the available tax credits have yet to apply; and how many(a) applications have been received from and (b) eligible applicants there are in (i) the Teesside region and (ii) the Middlesbrough, South and East, Cleveland constituency. [122225]
  139W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Six million families are expected to benefit from the Child Tax Credit (CTC) or Working Tax Credit (WTC). I told the House on 7 July that claims had already been received from over 4.5 million families, that 4.25 million families were already in award and that 1.3 million were receiving equivalent support for their children through Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. Since then, tax credit claims have continued to arrive.

  No estimates are available of the number of individuals eligible for the Child or Working Tax Credit in each constituency. Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published from August.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit have (i) been received (ii) are in payment and (iii) are waiting to be processed. [122697]

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of outstanding claims for(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit for (i) Wales and (ii) the UK; and how many of these were submitted before 4 April. [123847]

  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit (i) have been received, (ii) are in payment and (iii) are waiting to be processed, broken down by region. [124529]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]: I refer the hon. Members to my statement to the House on 7 July 2003, Official Report, column 859.

  Claims for Child and Working Tax Credits are made and processed together. No breakdown of the figures in my statement is available below the United Kingdom level. Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published from August.
  140W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints his Department has received relating to(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit. [122698]

  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints his Department has received relating to(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit, broken down by region. [124530]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who were receiving working families tax credit in March 2003(a) received payments of child tax credit by the end of April and (b) had not received their child tax credit by the end of April, broken down by region. [125431]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 859.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many former recipients of the working families tax credit have been transferred to the(a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit; how many new applications for (i) child tax credit and (ii) working tax credit (A) have been received and (B) are in payment. [125631]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 859, and to my answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 3 June 2003, Official Report, columns 379-80W. Claims for child and working tax credits are made and processed together. Statistics on awards of these tax credits will be published from August.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124816]

  John Healey
  None have been received by the Treasury, Inland Revenue or HM Customs and Excise.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  In my written statement of 4 June I said that I intended to transfer London Underground to Transport for London on or about 15 July, subject to the passage of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill which was then before Parliament. The Railways and Transport Safety Bill received Royal Assent on 10 July.

  I have accordingly approved, with amendments, the transfer scheme for the transfer of London Underground Limited from London Regional Transport to Transport for London that London Regional Transport sealed and submitted to me on 4 June. The London Underground will transfer to Transport for London on 15 July 2003.

  This transfer will give effect to the wish of Parliament originally set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It will transfer all of London Regional Transport's remaining property, rights and liabilities to Transport for London. I intend to wind up London Regional Transport shortly afterwards.

  Crossrail
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  I have now received from Cross London Rail Links (CLRL) their business case proposals for the East-West London Crossrail project. The House will find it helpful to have an indication of what these proposals involve and how the Government plan to take them forward.

  The purpose of Crossrail is to provide a significant increase in the capacity of the present rail networks into and across London so as to relieve congestion and overcrowding, to cater for the expected substantial growth in demand for travel into and across the capital over the coming decades, and to improve accessibility.

  I am grateful for all the work which has been done by CLRL and their shareholders, the SRA and TfL, in developing the latest proposals for Crossrail, and in refining the analysis in the interim business case which they submitted to me in February.

  Following analysis of a range of route options, CLRL have now proposed the adoption of what they have termed the benchmark scheme, involving a central East-West tunnel across London, with services extending to two branches to the East and two to the West.

  In more detail, CLRL's proposed route option would involve a central tunnel following closely the currently protected alignment across London, from west of Paddington to east of Liverpool Street. From Liverpool Street, the line would be extended through Whitechapel,
  2WS
  beyond which it would divide into two branches both serving the Thames Gateway—one going to Stratford and joining the existing Great Eastern lines to Shenfield; the other going down through the Isle of Dogs and the Royal Docks, crossing the Thames to join the North Kent lines at Abbey Wood, with some services continuing to Ebbsfleet.

  To the west of Paddington, the line would join the Great Western main line before dividing into two further branches. One would join up with the North London Line providing services to Richmond and Kingston. The other would be via Ealing and Hayes to Heathrow along the existing branch served by Heathrow Express. This would be subject to the Crossrail promoters securing a satisfactory agreement with BAA, which owns the Heathrow access rights to this branch.

  CLRL have advised that they believe implementation of the benchmark scheme would cost some £10 billion in 2002 prices, including an allowance for contingencies, although the actual cost will depend on final decisions on the route and construction phasing, following appraisal and public consultation. Their analysis indicates that the project should produce benefits significantly greater than this, taking account of the anticipated levels of growth in employment and population in London in the Mayor's draft London plan. CLRL's transport and economic case for the project rests on this positive assessment of likely benefits over costs. There are also potentially significant regeneration benefits, particularly to the east of London, and to the longer term development of the Thames Gateway.

  The Government continue to support the principle of building a new East-West Crossrail link. We see merit in the arguments for such an increase in capacity to support London's continued growth and success.

  CLRL itself suggests that an all public sector funded option is unlikely to be affordable. We agree that the very high cost of the Crossrail project has major resource implications at a time when there are many other pressures on the transport budget, and on the public purse in general.

  So if the project were to go ahead there would need to be a very substantial contribution to its costs from those who would benefit most from it. First, we envisage that there would need to be a very substantial contribution from London's business community—indeed I welcome the indications already made by London First and others of their willingness to contribute. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are examining options here and we intend to consult the various London interests in the autumn.

  Secondly, we shall be looking to ensure that where there are specific development opportunities arising from the project, we take full advantage of these and secure an appropriate contribution to the cost of the project from the developers concerned and thirdly, there is an issue over the appropriate level of fares, given the benefits which will accrue not only to users of Crossrail itself, but also from the reduced congestion elsewhere on London's transport networks.
  3WS
  Given the importance and high cost of the project, the Government now need to evaluate the CLRL proposals for value and affordability. We need to be sure that we have a robust plan for delivering and funding the project, with effective mechanisms to ensure those who benefit from it contribute as fully as possible to meeting the costs and bearing the risks.

  In order to give the project the best chance of success, I am assembling an expert team to assess the proposals so that I can be assured that they offer good value for London, and are deliverable to budget, to time and to scope. This assessment will be carried out as quickly as possible consistent with the scale and complexity of the proposals and the extent to which key components of them are still under development.

  I have also been considering proposals for an alternative scheme for Crossrail put to me by the London Regional Metro (LRM) consortium. While their proposals have some attractions, it would not be appropriate to proceed with LRM without an open competition. So we will seek to ensure that if and when Crossrail proceeds, the terms of any competition for its development would allow scope for LRM and other interested parties to bring forward their innovative ideas.

  I have also concluded that the most appropriate way to seek powers for the project would be by way of a Hybrid Bill which the Government would be willing in principle to promote at an appropriate point once the evaluation is completed and a comprehensive funding package agreed. I am asking CLRL to continue work on development of their detailed project proposals so that they would be ready to support a hybrid Bill.

  I am also inviting CLRL to advise me on updating the safeguarding for the route, and to undertake a public consultation exercise in the autumn to explain in more detail their proposed scheme, and to canvass views on their route proposals.

  I welcome the proposals for the East-West London Crossrail and want to move forward. When the Department has carried out a thorough review of the project, and we have the results of the consultation exercise by CLRL, as well as the outcome of the consultation with business on funding options, we will be in a position to take firm and soundly-based decisions on the way forward for the project.

HEALTH

  Meat Hygiene Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The 2002–03 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not occur for another six to eight weeks, pending preparation of a version in Welsh as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Riot (Damages) Act 1886
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  We have today published a consultation paper that looks at the origin and past operation of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (RDA) and seeks the views of stakeholders on the future of the RDA.

  The RDA is more than 100 years old. Both society and the nature of policing have changed dramatically in that time. In particular, in the light of the Government's radical police reform programme, we need to look at whether the Act is still appropriate in the 21st century.

  Currently the RDA makes a police authority in England and Wales liable to pay for damages to buildings and their contents when a riot has taken place. Police authorities, the police service and others have argued for some time that the principle underpinning the RDA—that a riot presents a culpable failure to provide adequate policing—is no longer appropriate to modern conditions. There is also concern that police authorities are subject to unlimited liability for riot damage under the RDA.

  It is also argued that the RDA provides a safety net for businesses and households—particularly in inner
  city areas, which have traditionally been more at risk of civil disturbances—and where property owners may
  have difficulties obtaining insurance, at least at affordable rates. Without the protection provided by the RDA, vulnerable communities could be at risk of further economic decline.

  At a time when the police service is engaged in a programme of major reform it seems appropriate to consider whether the RDA remains appropriate to 21st century needs. We are therefore inviting views on the future of the RDA and, specifically, whether the RDA should be

  Retained as it stands;

  Repealed entirely; or

  Reformed to limit liability for claims

  Comments and suggestions are requested on these specific issues but any alternative approaches or views to those outlined would be welcome.

  The Government haVE an open mind on the options and look forward to hearing the views of interested parties.

  We hope that the consultation will improve the evidence base to help develop a more detailed impact assessment.

  Options 2 and 3 would require primary legislation.

  Responses to the consultation paper are requested by 9 October 2003.

  A copy of the document has been placed in the Library and is available at http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index html.

  Shipman Inquiry
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  This morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I are publishing and laying before Parliament the Shipman Inquiry's Second and Third Reports: "The Police Investigation of March 1998", and "Death Certification and the Investigation of Deaths by Coroners". These follow the publication, last year, of the First Report, "Death Disguised", which established the extent of Harold Shipman's activities. The Inquiry's final reports on controlled drugs and disciplinary systems and complaints are expected next year.

  My right hon. Friend and I would like to thank Dame Janet Smith for the considerable work, care and attention that have obviously gone into the preparation of these reports. We also wish to reiterate our sympathy to the relatives and friends of Shipman's victims. For their sake and in the wider interest of the community, it is essential that lessons are learned from these dreadful events.

  The Second Report covers the investigation conducted by the Greater Manchester Police in March and April 1998, five months before Harold Shipman was arrested. It makes it clear that, whilst the Inquiry does not blame police management systems, the conduct of those officers involved in this specific investigation fell below the standard which the community is entitled to expect of public servants in their position. There was a subsequent internal inquiry by Greater Manchester Police into the failure of the March 1998 investigation. In the words of Dame Janet this inquiry was "quite inadequate".

  I take the judgment of the Shipman Inquiry on the Greater Manchester Police extremely seriously. For the initial investigation to have failed is severe enough but for the subsequent investigation into their handling to have been so flawed requires the most urgent and strenuous efforts to ensure that such an event could never recur. It is for Greater Manchester Police to investigate but I await their report, and will expect rapid and effective action as well as lessons to be learnt by other forces in response.

  I have asked my officials to work closely with the Greater Manchester Police to establish what can usefully be drawn from the report and to offer appropriate support and advice. We will help Greater Manchester Police to move forward. Through the Home Office Police Standards Unit and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary we are already working with the force to deliver performance improvements for the benefits of those living and working in the Force area.

  It will also be for Greater Manchester Police to decide what action may be appropriate in relation to any individual police officer. I have written to the Chief Constable to ask to be kept informed of how the criticism against individuals in the Force is being addressed.

  The report recommends that guidance should be issued to those detective officers who have to undertake investigations into allegations of wrongdoing by health professionals. Work on this is already underway. The
  6WS
  Association of Chief Police Officers and the Department of Health, with the advice of the Health and Safety Executive, are jointly developing a memorandum of understanding. This sets out the roles and responsibilities of both organisations when a serious incident takes place or is suspected of occurring, and principles for effective liaison when criminal investigations may be needed into such incidents involving NHS patients. The memorandum will also refer to other guidance on incidents of this type; for example, guidance to police Senior Investigating Officers, which the report identified as being developed.

  The Third Report found systemic shortcomings within the cremation arrangements and coroner system. The report of the Fundamental Review of Coroner Services and Death Certification, published on 4 June, identified similar inadequacies, although the solutions proposed are slightly different.

  As I announced when the earlier report was published, in order lo assist the Government to develop a coherent long-term strategy for the future of our death investigation processes, I have asked the Chair of the Fundamental Review, Mr Tom Luce, to conduct some further work to link the review's recommendations to the findings of the Shipman Inquiry. This will enable us to formulate a comprehensive programme of reform later this year, taking into account both sets of observations and recommendations.

  Dame Janet makes two recommendations for short-term improvement: that cremation certification procedures should be strengthened and that practices in coroners' offices should be improved. As a matter of urgency, my officials are discussing these proposals with the relevant agencies as part of our existing programme to take forward interim measures to improve these services. We shall ensure that guidance to deliver more robust procedures and practices is issued as soon as possible.

  My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last week published a consultation document on modernisation of the civil registration service, including death certification. Like the Fundamental Review of Coroner Services and Death Certification, this also presents an opportunity for comprehensive reform, this time specifically of the registration service and its interaction with related services.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pension Credit
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  The Government are well advanced in their preparations for the delivery of Pension Credit from October 2003.

  We have recruited extra staff and invested in new infrastructure to meet the additional demands of the new entitlement and we are making best use of the phased take-on during the advanced applications stage

  7WS
  in the lead up to October. Not only will this prove our systems, but it will also ensure that we learn from experience before the main take-on begins.

  An existing, tried and tested computer system will be used to process applications and to make payments from October. We are writing to pensioner households giving them information about Pension Credit and inviting them to apply for it. A freephone telephone application line is fully operational and is taking applications now.

  We are also working with partner organisations, such as Help The Aged, Age Concern and Citizens Advice, amongst others, both at a national and local level, to encourage eligible people to take up their entitlement. I can now report the following progress on applications for Pension Credit. There are over 1.1 million pensioner households already on our systems, ready to be paid Pension Credit from October.

  We are making good progress in transferring those receiving Minimum Income Guarantee automatically onto Pension Credit and will have transferred all these cases by October.

  There is plenty of time for pensioners to apply for Pension Credit. To ensure pensioners do not lose out, there will be a twelve month backdating provision until October 2004. This will allow applications to be backdated to October 2003 where entitlement exists or to the date entitlement begins, if this is later.

  In September we will be launching a major advertising campaign on TV and in the press ready for the main launch in October.

  I am placing a chart showing progress so far in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Horticulture Research International
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  Following the statement made on 20 January 2003, I wish to report further developments in respect of the restructuring of Horticulture Research International (HRI).

  I am pleased to report that DEFRA has reached agreement with the University of Warwick about the future of HRI Wellesbourne and Kirton. We believe that the agreement will provide a stable and sustainable future for HRI and meet the core recommendations of the independent Quinquennial Review team.

  Subject to finalising the details of the agreement and confirmation of the conclusion of a DEFRA business case that it represents best value, we expect the settlement with the University to contain the following key elements:

  (a) HRI will continue to serve the horticulture industry as part of the University;

  (b) DEFRA will grant the University a guaranteed research contract for an agreed programme of work. The contract will be for eight years at a total annual value of £5 million in years I to 6, £3.5 million in year 7 and £2 million in year 8;

  8WS

  (c) DEFRA will transfer HRIfs sites at Wellesbourne, Warwickshire and Kirton, Lincolnshire to the University with effect from 1 April 2004, subject to "clawback" arrangements to protect the public purse;

  (d) The University will make a financial contribution equivalent to the value of the dwellings and agricultural land at Wellesbourne as assessed by the Valuation Office Agency;

  (e) Following a programme of redundancies, the remaining HRI staff at Wellesbourne and Kirton will transfer to the employment of the University on TUPE terms with effect from 1 April 2004;

  (f) The University will inherit ongoing redundancy and pension liabilities of transferring staff; and

  (g) DEFRA will make a financial contribution to outstanding works required in respect of the Wellesbourne and Kirton estates.

  We plan to exchange letters of intent with the University as soon as practicable followed by a business transfer agreement in the autumn, subject to negotiations and the DEFRA business case.

  The independent Quinquennial Review team recommended that HRI Efford should close. The University of Warwick has indicated that it does not wish to acquire the site. DEFRA and HRI have carefully considered the Review team's recommendation alongside other options and, regrettably, concluded that Efford should close in October. Staff at Efford will have access to the same support services as those similarly affected at other HRI sites and will receive redundancy compensation in line with agreed terms and procedures. The land and buildings at Efford are a valuable public asset which will be sold on the open market and the receipts invested in the wider restructuring of HRI. HRI will ensure that existing contracts at Efford are honoured. DEFRA will facilitate discussions with the horticulture industry and the research community about the need, if any, to make specific alternative provision for the research capability presently offered by Efford.

  Negotiations are continuing between DEFRA and the East Mailing Trust for Horticultural Research about the establishment of East Mailing and Wye as an independent research station. The East Mailing Trust has made proposals which we plan to discuss with it later in July. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that the new research station would be financially viable on the basis of a mixed portfolio of funding as recommended by the Quinquennial Review team. We aim to decide the future of East Mailing and Wye by the end of September at the latest.

TREASURY

  Double Taxation Convention (Chile)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  A comprehensive Double Taxation Convention with Chile was signed on 12 July 2003. After signature both texts were deposited in the Library of the House and made available on the Inland Revenue's website. The text of the Convention will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid for consideration by the House at the earliest convenient opportunity.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Nationals Detained Overseas
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  As part of a wider review of how we make the most effective use of our Consular resources to help British nationals in distress overseas, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has considered the issue of visiting British nationals in prison overseas.

  The welfare of British nationals in foreign prisons is one of the key concerns of consular staff. Our staff seek to ensure that prisoners' rights are respected in accordance with international standards. This includes ensuring that they have access to legal representation and that their welfare needs are met during their detention.

  Once a British national has been given a custodial sentence, our aim has been to visit them once a year, or more frequently if possible.
  10WS
  This approach does not however take account of the wide variation in prison conditions and practices between different countries. In European Union countries, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, North America and Australasia, we are satisfied that, in general, prison conditions meet international standards and are comparable to those in the UK. From 1 September this year, our aim will therefore be to visit prisoners in these countries once after sentencing, and thereafter, only if the real need arises. In addition, consular staff can maintain contact with prisoners by telephone and fax and encourage local prison volunteer groups to visit them.

  In all other countries, where prison conditions give us more cause for concern, the aim of consular staff will be to continue to visit prisoners on a regular basis. This is likely to be at least once a year, and as often as once a month where circumstances warrant it. The new policy will allow us to provide our consular services on the basis of greatest need and to concentrate on countries where our consular assistance can be most beneficial.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Clerk of the Parliaments
The House having been informed on 21st May that Her Majesty had been pleased to appoint Mr Paul David Grenville Hayter, LVO, to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments, vacant by the retirement of Sir John Michael Davies, KCB, the letters of appointment dated 14th July 2003 were read; then the said Paul David Grenville Hayter made the prescribed declaration (which declaration is set down in the Roll among the oaths of the great officers) in terms as follows:
"I, Paul David Grenville Hayter, do declare that I will be true and faithful and troth I will bear to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen and to Her Heirs and Successors. I will nothing know that shall be prejudicial to Her Highness Her Crown Estate and Dignity Royal, but that I will resist it to my power and with all speed I will advertise Her Grace thereof, or at the least some of Her Counsel in such wise as the same may come to Her knowledge. I will also well and truly serve Her Highness in the Office of Clerk of Her Parliaments making true Entries and Records of the things done and passed in the same. I will keep secret all such matters as shall be treated in Her said Parliaments and not disclose the same before they shall be published, but to such as it ought to be disclosed unto, and generally I will well and truly do and execute all things belonging to me to be done appertaining to the Office of Clerk of the Parliaments".
After which he took his seat at the Table.

Clerk Assistant of the Parliaments
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
As my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House informed the House on 21st May last, I have appointed Mr Michael Graham Pownall to be Clerk Assistant in place of Mr Paul David Grenville Hayter, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Mr Michael Graham Pownall to be Clerk Assistant of the House in place of Mr Paul David Grenville Hayter LVO, appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
620
As my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House informed the House on 21st May last, I have appointed Mr David Richard Beamish to be Reading Clerk in place of Mr Michael Graham Pownall, appointed Clerk Assistant. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Chancellor, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Mr David Richard Beamish as Reading Clerk and Clerk of Outdoor Committees of the House in place of Mr Michael Graham Pownall, appointed Clerk Assistant.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente.

Post Office Card Accounts
2.41 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many benefit recipients have opted for Post Office card accounts since the introduction of the direct payment programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as of 23rd June 2003, 430,000 customers have opted for a Post Office card account.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. When the Government decided to change the system of payments for benefits, they said that those who wished to receive cash payments across Post Office counters could continue to do so. Is the Minister aware that many such customers are finding the system of opting for cash accounts to be extremely difficult, very bureaucratic and time consuming? Will the Minister examine ways of achieving a level playing Field, so that those who wish to have cash across the counter can do so?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the introduction of the Post Office card account has been extremely successful. Everybody who has one can get cash over the counter. I have also looked into the question of the forms that have to be filled in, and the form for the cash account is, for once, admirably clear and simple. I cannot see that it would prove difficult except in the very small minority of cases of people who have difficulty in using a PIN machine. We will take account of those people with a rule of exception later on.
Earl Russell: My Lords, did not the Minister gave an excellent impersonation of Dr Pangloss? I also draw his attention to a further declivity in the playing field, which is the growing programme of closure of urban post offices—most recently, that of Gladstone Park in

621
Brent, in my constituency. As mobility is not the most conspicuous characteristic of the old, does he agree that that is further tilting the playing field against the use of post offices? Does the whole story cast any light on the question whether the commercial freedom of the Post Office is in fact compatible with its universal service obligation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was not trying to imitate Lord Pangloss. It is dangerous ever to assume that a computer system will not break down very shortly, but in this case, due to sensible procedures on the part of the Post Office of introducing the system carefully and slowly, it is working. What the Government always said, which is that people would be able to get cash over the counter, is exactly what they are able to do.
Urban post offices are a different issue, but even with the closure programme, the distance that people will have to travel is still in most cases perfectly reasonable.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not the case that 45 per cent of pensioners are yet to respond to the Government's invitation? Is it not very important that benefit recipients—especially pensioners—should be fully aware of the Post Office option, because of the way in which credit rating agencies make it extremely difficult for anyone it has not had a bank account and has never borrowed to open a bank account?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in fact, 57,000 people have already opened Post Office card accounts, which is running ahead of the operational figure projected by the Post Office. It was thought that about 3 million people would eventually use Post Office card accounts; it looks as if that figure will be considerably higher. That shows that there is no bias in the system, as Postwatch found when it analysed the system.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I agree that we must move forward into the 21st century and believe that the majority of older people can, or can learn to, cope with IT and PINs, but I have some concerns. Precisely how will the new system cope with housebound older and disabled people, but who may have different people every week—casual appointees from their family, volunteers or care agency temporary staff—collecting their money? How quickly will the department be able to deal with forgotten PINs and lost payment cards?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is already a problem for people who are housebound—that of the appointment of agents, which is similar in both the current and new situations. That is a difficult problem, but one capable of solution.

Energy
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment they have made of the recent report by the Institution of Civil Engineers regarding a future shortfall of energy in the United Kingdom.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies is one of the four key goals set out in the energy White Paper that we published in February. The Institution of Civil Engineers' report does not raise any issues that were not addressed in the energy White Paper or that are not being addressed in the follow-up to it, or through the work of the DTI/Ofgem Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while welcoming today's announcement, to which my noble friend did not refer, of plans to increase investment in offshore wind sources, does he agree that that must be set against the closure of the Magnox nuclear stations; the decline in the use of coal; the fact that North Sea sources of energy will also be declining; and that, before too long, we shall be heavily dependent on imports of natural gas from distant and potentially unstable parts of the world? What assurance is there that there will not be a day when the lights in this country go out?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, all those facts and projections were set out in the energy White Paper, where there was a proper debate about the uncertainties and vulnerabilities.
The Institution of Civil Engineers clearly asserted that there was no way that we could reach the renewables target—that was one of its two chief concerns. It is worth pointing out that the announcement that the Secretary of State made today, if it is fully implemented and picked up by companies, would lead to renewable wind power equivalent to 5 per cent of our total energy requirements. If we add that to the 1.25 per cent from an earlier round and the current amount, it is not difficult to see that we could well meet what is a very challenging target of obtaining 10 per cent of our energy from renewables by 2010. So the assumption made by the Institution of Civil Engineers was not correct.
As for the vulnerabilities that arise from the increase in our imports of gas, we have covered those. A great deal of action is already being taken to ensure that we have what is the key to reliability, which is diversity of supplier, route and type.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in order to deal with a possible energy shortfall, should not the Government be taking a wider range of measures beyond the support presently being given to wind power? For example, France, Germany and Italy store gas at an equivalent of up to 20 per cent of annual consumption.

623
Have we plans to do the same when our North Sea resources fail? Are the Government going to introduce major plants to develop clean coal technology with carbon extraction so that coal can once again play its part in balancing future energy supplies?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is correct to say that we have considerably less in the way of storage facilities for gas than is the case either in France or Germany, and of course that is due to the fact that we have had the flexibility of our own supply and therefore have not needed to store it. As we move into the new situation of importing more gas, obviously we shall need greater storage facilities. It is important to point out that activities are already being undertaken in the marketplace which will increase significantly the amount of gas storage capacity in this country. However, such storage will be required only when we do not have the flexibility of our own gas supplies.
As for the question raised on the use of coal for the generation of electricity, it is really for the supply industry to pick up on those technologies if coal is to continue to play a part in our energy generation.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I suggest that the Minister is mixing two issues here. His noble friend asked him a question about energy shortages, but the Minister replied by saying that we are well on our way to meeting our Kyoto target of supplying 10 per cent of our energy needs from renewable sources. However, the reality is that the offshore wind farms announced earlier today will be accompanied by the closure of five nuclear power plants, which means that there will be no increase in our energy supplies. However, does he not agree that if we had the courage to go nuclear, we would be able to achieve both targets; that is, we would more than meet the Kyoto renewables target and secure our future energy needs?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I did not quote the Kyoto target, rather this Government's aim to provide 10 per cent of our energy supplies from renewables by 2010 and subsequently 20 per cent by 2020.I wish to make that point clear.
Noble Lords will see that the White Paper sets out exactly the courses of action we are taking. The main vulnerability seen was that we would not reach the renewables target, but it looks much more likely that we will meet it. However, if the target is not reached, then the further question is left open; that is, we shall return to considering nuclear power. But that is not for consideration at this point; it is for later on.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that this report highlights and reinforces the useful role which can be played by British agriculture in the production of bio-diesel and bio-ethanol to help to meet our energy requirements? It would also solve so many problems virtually overnight. As usual, I must declare an interest as the unpaid president of the British Association of Biofuels.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is clear that biofuels have a part to play in our energy provision,
624
but the time-frame of the 2010 target will be met largely through wind turbines. If we miss the target, it will be because we have not built sufficient turbines.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, natural gas is an extremely convenient domestic fuel and valuable industrial raw material. Although when burned it produces only around half the carbon dioxide of coal and therefore assists our immediate desire to meet the Kyoto target, is not the widespread use of gas for the generation of electricity rather unfortunate both in terms of security of supply—referred to in this report—and for wider environmental reasons? Is this not in fact a rather short-term policy when in reality we should be looking at energy provision for the coming 50 to 100 years?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, three factors must be balanced here: security of supply, the environment and cost. We shall not be able to rely on gas as a part of our very long-term strategy, which is why it is so important that in the short term we put a great deal of effort into building up our renewable supplies. However, I do not think anyone is suggesting that we can move faster on the renewables front than we have planned; indeed, most people consider the target to be very challenging.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, after the excellent questions put by the Minister's noble friend during which he mentioned deficiencies, along with the other excellent contributions from around the House, can the Minister say, first, why he is not actually answering the questions being put to him about those long-term deficiencies? It is not very good simply to say in passing that we shall return to the question of nuclear supply. If we are going to deal with nuclear power, then it has to be dealt with now. That is a matter for the Government.
Secondly, is it not true to say that the tests put in place by the Government as regards the reliability of long-term energy supplies depend on their total commitment to those aims? They have appointed a new Minister for energy, but it is only a part-time position. The Minister also has to deal with the Post Office and e-commerce. It is extraordinary that such an important responsibility is so dealt with. Indeed, all that the noble Lord has given the House today is information about the proposed wind farms. In fact, the wind farms are full of holes. I wish to make the point that the Minister announced the plans on the BBC, but did not make a Statement in the House of Commons, which could have been repeated in this House, thus giving noble Lords the opportunity to ask the Government what they really mean by this action and holding them to account.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, an announcement has been made simply on another round of tendering for licences on these particular sites. There is nothing complicated about that and no matter of principle has been raised. One round of tendering has already been completed and this is the

625
second round. I cannot see that any objections will be raised to the tendering of a second round of licences for offshore wind power provision. I do not think that this should be seen as a peripheral issue. The fact is that wind turbine power can provide a very substantial amount of energy. This is an example of it doing so.
Turning to the question of the long-term situation, let me make the position clear. If the renewables figure comes through, that will enable us to achieve very effectively our desired targets. However, if we do not achieve our targets on renewables, there will be a considerable problem. If that situation were to arise, we have made it clear that we would look again at nuclear provision.

Normandy Landings: Commemoration
2.57 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they are having with the governments of France, Canada and the United States on arrangements for the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the landings by allied forces in Normandy in June 1944.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government, the United States and the Canadian Governments are represented on France's Normandie Memoire 60éme Anniversaire Comité which is developing a full programme of commemorative events in France from 4th June 2004 onwards. The British Military Attaché in Paris represents the United Kingdom. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans will today write to all Members of this House with more details of the consultations, and a copy of that letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that on the 50th anniversary, nine years ago, several heads of state attended ceremonies on the Normandy beaches? While the number of surviving veterans continues to decline from natural causes, the French, Canadians and Americans are likely to make special arrangements for this 60th anniversary.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware that the 50th anniversary was particularly significant and that a very large anniversary commemoration of D-Day was held. A 50th anniversary is particularly significant and those commemorations staged of the 50th anniversaries of events during the Second World War were mounted on a special scale. They should not be considered as setting a precedent for any future event in deciding the extent to which other anniversaries should be commemorated. If at all, priority must be given to primary defence tasks.
626
I have to say that we understand that the Canadians are planning to send over one band and a guard of honour, and that we are not yet aware of what the Americans might be doing. No doubt in due course we shall know. However, events that are already in train include the provision of two military bands, representation at both ministerial and senior Armed Force level at all events, a free one-year passport for those veterans wishing to travel who do not currently hold a passport, and assisting with a service of remembrance and thanksgiving at St Paul's Cathedral in October 2004. Continuing discussions are also being held with ferry operators to try to secure travel concessions for organised groups of veterans. It is hoped that an announcement can be made about that very soon.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the widows of men who fell on Normandy beaches would also wish to be included in any commemoration?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who takes a particular interest and has expertise in these matters. I shall pass back her comments.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, even though I have listened carefully to what the Minister said, is he aware that there is serious concern that the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the successful landings at Normandy is not receiving the appropriate attention and high precedence that it rightly demands? For instance, can the Minister explain what liaison has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government in relation to organising the proposed service of commemoration in the Bayeaux war cemetery and the parade that is due to take place at Arromanches on 6th June?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I accept that there is some concern, but it is misplaced. This will be an important weekend of commemoration. It is worth remembering that the Normandy landings received large-scale commemorations on both their 40th and 50th anniversaries. A number of significant Second World War anniversaries will fall in the years up to 2005 and it will not be possible financially to mark them all on a large scale. Funding for 60th anniversaries has been focused equally between the significant World War II battles of each of the three services. The battles they have chosen are the Battle of the Atlantic for the Navy, the Battle of El Alamein for the Army and the Battle of Britain for the Royal Air Force. The Ministry of Defence will also be organising a commemoration of the anniversary of the end of the war in 2005. This will provide an opportunity to pay tribute not only to the Normandy veterans but also to those of other campaigns—for example, those who fought so bravely

627
in the Far East, those who fought so bravely in the campaign through Italy and those whose service was at home.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is it just a question of cost in regard to the 60th anniversary? Is there a concern about costs?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, it is a concern not only about costs but also about finding a due sense of proportion in order to cover these very important anniversaries. The Normandy Veterans Association need have no concerns: the 60th anniversary of D-Day, which is a significant event in itself, will be properly commemorated.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords—
Lord Grocott: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister is not giving full credence to the need for a significant 60th anniversary of D-Day. It was the most incredible operation of the war. It could have wavered on a knife-edge, but it was brought off and was a significant factor in ending the war. Unless we have these commemorations we will be in a situation similar to one the other day where a small child said to his parents when they were talking about this, "Oh, yes, we read something about that in history". It is history. Does the Minister agree that a proper commemoration would help to underline its importance to the young?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. It was one of the critical battles of the Second World War. My generation learnt about it sometime after. I very much hope that the present generation of children is also learning about it. Of course it would be scandalous not to mark such an anniversary. I am trying to put over the fact that we must have a sense of proportion about these matters and not leave out other anniversaries of great significance.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, as I am a patron of the Normandy Veterans Association—and as we will all be dead after the next such anniversary probably—I should inform the Minister that the Normandy veterans are very confused indeed about what we are going to do next year. A fortnight ago I spent a weekend with all the Scottish members in Dingwall and there was another gathering the fortnight before. Is the Minister aware that we are all very much in a muddle as to what is happening? The more guidance he can give us, the better.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have tried to be as clear as I possibly can be. I have asked that the letter that has
628
gone to another place should come to every Member of the House. I hope that once that letter has been read the situation will be clearer.

Ministers' Interests: Disclosure
3.5 p.m.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they believe that the disclosure of information relating to occasions on which Ministers have reported to their private secretaries potential conflicts of interest under the Ministerial Code of Conduct would be contrary to the public interest.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, under the terms of the ministerial code, Ministers are required, on appointment to each new office, to provide their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The Government believe that personal information provided by Ministers to their Permanent Secretaries which should not otherwise be made public—for example, in the register of Members' interests—should be treated in confidence. However, the full detail of what has been disclosed and how it has been dealt with must be disclosed on request to the ombudsman. The notice issued prevents her making it public but she is able to express publicly any concerns that she has about what has been done. The decision to issue a notice in this case was taken on the grounds that the release of such personal, private information to the public would not be in the public interest.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Wicks committee which recently proposed that there should be a register of ministerial interests open to the public. Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House have to make disclosure of any interests which might be regarded as conflicting with their parliamentary duties and have to declare further interests during the course of debates, and those declarations are duly recorded in Hansard. What is the public interest in concealing from the public the occasions when Ministers have recorded in writing to their Permanent Secretaries possible conflicts of interest and the action taken by them as a result? Is it not doubly important that Ministers who, unlike ordinary Members of either House, have genuine decision-taking powers should be required to disclose conflicts of interest that might affect their duties as Ministers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, paragraph 115 of the ministerial code requires Ministers, on appointment to each new office, to provide their Permanent Secretaries with a full list in writing of their private interests. This is a new requirement, introduced for the first time in July 2001. These declarations can be of an extremely personal nature—for example, providing details of an individual's mortgage arrangements, bank account details and so

629
on. If there is no conflict, why should that confidential matter be disclosed in relation to the Minister? The ombudsman is able to look at the relationship between the Permanent Secretary and the Minister in that regard, so he or she can check that there has been fair play. All that has happened is that a notice has been served on the ombudsman making it impossible for her to make public what is disclosed to her. That seems to be the appropriate way of ensuring proper disclosure and proper protection for the Minister.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Parliamentary Ombudsman, in her own words, had no choice but to discontinue her investigations into this matter and others because of a lack of co-operation? Where is the Government's much vaunted transparency and accountability given this shoddy state of affairs?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can confirm that that is what she said. The effect of the certificates issued was simply to keep confidential private information about Ministers that was not required to be published in any other context—for example, in the register of Members' interests. That material was disclosed to the ombudsman and she was able to make such comment as she thought fit without disclosing the contents of that information.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, can the Minister tell us when the Government intend to revise the ministerial code, especially in the wake of informed criticisms from distinguished, recent, past Ministers from his own Benches in another place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I refer to the amendments introduced immediately after the last election in 2001. They refer to a heavy requirement on Ministers to provide their Permanent Secretaries with a full list in writing of their private interests. I do not believe that any amendment is required to that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it an accurate summary of the Minister's first Answer referring to the ombudsman that it has been disclosed; that it has been disclosed and that it has been disclosed? Is that not the sort of procedure that whets the appetite of any professional journalist?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it would not be an accurate account of my first Answer. The right balance to strike is proper confidentiality, but making sure that there is proper monitoring of the processes. That is what the arrangements allow for.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, not having any prospect myself of ever becoming a Minister again, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord if he would not deplore the tendency to sew suspicion and
630
to make it obvious that Ministers are mistrusted? One of the problems in our country is that we have destroyed, or are on the way to destroying, trust.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I join with the House in expressing our deep great regret that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will never be a Minister again, which is a great loss to the nation. As far as the second matter is concerned, the greater the trust in Ministers and other politicians the better for the nation.

Female Genital Mutilation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Household Waste Recycling Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Ragwort Control Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Constitutional Reform
3.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on constitutional reform. We all recognise the importance of our judiciary and our legal system to the security and confidence of our communities. They deal with crime, anti-social behaviour, family and civil disputes and through the tribunal system a whole range of subjects that affect daily lives.
We currently have judges of complete independence, probity, and very high ability. They are admired the world over. We need to build on that to ensure that our judges and our legal system are able to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
They must continue to be independent—of the executive, and the legislature. They must be able to connect with, and reflect our society, and they must be of the highest quality. We must recognise that improvements should occur when confidence is high.
Currently we have a system where all the judiciary—and I include in that magistrates, and tribunal members—are appointed mainly by, or on the recommendation of, one Cabinet Minister, where until the 12th June that Cabinet Minister also sat as a judge in the highest court in the land, and where before someone becomes a judge in our highest court of appeal, he is first made a member of the legislature; namely, this House. The efforts of my predecessors, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg, have ensured that quality and probity have been maintained. But now we need arrangements which embed existing independence in a way which

631
does not depend on one Minister, and which ensures that we have not just a quality judiciary, not just an independent judiciary, but also a diverse one that reflects our community. There has never been a woman appointed to sit in our final court of appeal; there has never been a black or minority ethnic judge appointed to the High Court in England and Wales.
We must implement change in a way that carries the confidence of the community, including the legal and judicial community. That means we must consult widely and fully before deciding the detail of our changes.
Today, I am publishing three consultation papers, the first on a supreme court for the United Kingdom, the second on an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales, and the third on the future of QCs.
I will deal first with the proposals on a new supreme court. We propose that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords will cease to exist as the United Kingdom's highest court of appeal, and that the present Lords of Appeal in Ordinary instead form a new separate supreme court. While they are members of that court, they will not sit and vote in the House. The Government propose to transfer the whole of the present jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee to the new supreme court.
The time has come to take the final court of appeal out of the legislature.
The Government also propose, subject to consultation, to transfer from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the new court their present jurisdiction over devolution issues. This will enable us to restore a single apex to the United Kingdom's judicial systems. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will, however, remain in being to continue its work as the final court of appeal for a number of Commonwealth and Crown Dependency jurisdictions.
This will be a new United Kingdom court. It will stand in exactly the same relationship to the courts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales as the Appellate Committee of this House does now. The independence of the three judicial jurisdictions will be totally respected. Arrangements will be made, as now, to secure appropriate representation for Scottish and Northern Irish judges.
The Government also propose to establish an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales to recommend candidates for appointment as judges. At present, judges are effectively selected by the Lord Chancellor. It is unsustainable for a Minister to continue to select judges in this way. The process of selection of judges for appointment in England and Wales must be demonstrably impartial and independent, as it now is in Scotland and will be in Northern Ireland.
Appointments will continue to be made solely on merit. But in addition, a judicial appointments commission will insulate more the appointment of judges from politicians and will assist in opening up appointments to some of the groups of lawyers which
632
are under-represented in the judiciary at the moment, including women, ethnic minorities and, at the higher levels, non-barristers.
The Government propose, subject to consultation, that the new independent judicial appointments commission would make recommendations to the Secretary of State. This model would significantly curtail ministerial involvement by placing the process of selecting candidates in the hands of the commission. However, the Secretary of State would still remain ultimately accountable to Parliament for the actual appointment. This model would therefore preserve the constitutional convention that Her Majesty the Queen acts on the advice of her Ministers.
The Government propose that the commission has a balance of judicial representatives, legally qualified members and lay members. We will seek views on who should chair the commission.
It is proposed that these members are appointed by a separate appointing body. That body would not include Ministers, but would be chaired by a senior civil servant, supported by a senior judge and a senior public figure entirely independent of the judiciary or the executive. Appointments to the commission would be made under "Nolan" principles, further ensuring the commission's independence from Ministers.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will remain, after abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor, responsible for ensuring the independence of the judiciary in England and Wales within Cabinet, and consideration should be given to whether that responsibility should be embedded in legislation.
The third of the papers published today is the Government's consultation on the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel, which designates members of the Bar and a small number of solicitors as "senior advocates". The critical issue on QCs is whether the public is best served by the continuation of that rank. If it is, then how should the system be changed?
Last year the Government's wider consultation about the market for legal services aimed to find out how Silk was actually used, and whether users were concerned about market distortions. The results, published in May, show that there is indeed some general support for Silk, but many concerns about how effective a guide it is to quality in advocacy. That is why the Government are now publishing a wide-ranging paper that canvasses all the options from improving the current Silk system to abolishing it completely and leaving it to the legal profession how customers are best informed about the quality of services.
Judicial appointments in England and Wales; a Supreme Court; and the future of QCs are three vital issues which require detailed consideration and consultation. In reaching our conclusions we are determined to ensure that we enhance the transparency of our legal system, increase public confidence and bolster the independence of the judiciary from both the executive and the legislature. In this way we create a modern legal system which

633
builds on its current independence and quality, ensuring a better justice system serving the public. I commend the papers to the House.
3.19 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say how grateful we are to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making this Statement this afternoon. The fact that it comes more than a month after the Prime Minister announced the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor and that it is being made by the noble and learned Lord as Lord Chancellor tells us all we need to know about how carefully it was all thought through.
In replying to the Liaison Committee in another place, the Prime Minister was unable to point to any consultation at all with Cabinet colleagues, the senior judiciary or the legal profession. It is not a pretty way to do government, and now we are faced with the prospect of trying to put the pieces back together again. These consultation papers will no doubt help, but does the noble and learned Lord see that they should have preceded, not run after, announcements of policy? The noble and learned Lord has suggested in his many press interviews today that there may be urgent legislation. Can he now say how he will advance to that point, for these papers are riddled with unanswered questions? I counted 72 in all. The consultation only closes in November. Will there then be a White Paper, bringing together the separate strands? Can there really be properly thought-out legislation in time for the next Session?
The Government like to say that current arrangements are outdated. I am frankly more interested in whether they work, and whether what we put in their place will be better. Modernisation has become a great mantra for this Government, but I wonder whether it is enough any more to say that something is old to prove the case that it is bad. Our constitution is not bad because it is old; it has become old because it is good and has stood the test of time.
We on this side of the House do not oppose thought of reform. But the onus is on the noble and learned Lord to say why present arrangements must so urgently be changed. Can he tell us the problem that he is trying to solve? If it is a question of the independence of the present Law Lords, can he say in what respects they are not now independent? Is there some instance of political interference or connivance with the Lords of Appeal that he knows about and the rest of us do not? If so, he has a duty to lay that evidence before Parliament. If the issue is the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is entitled to sit as Lord of Appeal, could not that be dealt with, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said on 18th June, by saying that in future he should not sit? Would that not enable things to continue without the immense upheaval now proposed by the Government?
Today there are two key constitutional issues: first, the establishment of a supreme court outside Parliament and, secondly, the creation of a new
634
appointments commission to appoint judges. On a supreme court, what is the rationale for stopping the Privy Council arbitrating on disputes on the devolution settlement when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, in any case, to continue? Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that if the change were not made, the role of the new court would be exactly the same as that of the present one?
Will the noble and learned Lord also clarify the position on the place of Law Lords in this House? This House, I believe, much values the presence of noble and learned Lords. If Lords of Appeal are removed, will they still come here on retirement? Does he have a view on that and, if they do not come here then, as of right, who will determine who has merited a peerage in the conduct of their judicial office? Will that be under the authority of the Prime Minister and, if so, what would that do for judicial independence? If there is no Lord Chancellor, can the noble and learned Lord say who will speak with authority in defence of the judiciary and protect its impartiality in this place and in the Cabinet?
The noble and learned Lord says that one reason for change is that he wants to have a more campaigning role on legal issues than the Lord Chancellor can. How does that square with policing the frontiers between politics and judicial impartiality?
One argument for change in the paper is that the Law Lords need new offices. They could be better housed, but that is not a conclusive argument for constitutional change. After all, who will supervise the building or adapting of new premises? Would it be the noble and learned Lord himself? One would not want another Holyrood—or even another Millennium Dome.
On a judicial appointments commission, will the noble and learned Lord say where the present system has so critically failed as to justify change? Has there been a serious problem with the appointments made under the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg? For the record, we see none. Could not any problems over the present system have been addressed with a little more openness?
The Statement and the consultation paper return time and again to the theme of diversity. It is a well trodden and worthy path, but there is no substitute for merit in appointment. The noble and learned Lord cannot pin his standard to that mast and then argue for alternatives to it. It is not a circle you can square. Surely no one would want to replace the phantom of political interference with preferment by political correctness. Will a lay chairman of a judicial appointments commission increase or reduce fears of appointment on grounds other than merit? And who will write the criteria for appointment?
The noble and learned Lord says the commission will have its independence assured by being appointed by a senior civil servant—in whose department, we do not know—a senior judge—not even a High Court judge—and a senior public figure, whatever that means. What have the senior Law Lords, the Lord

635
Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Family Division done so wrong that they must be replaced by these people? If the case for change is to take things away from the Lord Chancellor to stop political interference, what is the case for putting the process under the veto power of a far more political Minister than a Lord Chancellor could ever be? It looks a little illogical—indeed, a little odd—and very much made up on the hoof.
The noble and learned Lord has announced a huge package of change, rushed out in a hurry and still only half thought through. It still raises far more questions than it answers. What we have now works well—nothing in these papers suggests it does not. We have a judiciary of high reputation that bears no taint of political interference. Debate on change may be necessary, but this is not exactly an issue where the public have risen up in anger, as they have about tuition fees, foundation hospitals or rising crime. Having started so badly, we should surely take what time is needed to get the answers right.
If the result of the most botched reshuffle in living memory were to be botched and hasty legal reform, we shall all regret it for very many years indeed.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome these reforms in principle. That is hardly surprising, since they are reforms that we have advocated for many years. However clumsy and cackhanded the method by which they were introduced a few weeks ago, we must take the view that we support them.
We therefore welcome the proposal that a separate supreme court should be set up. It is a well known saying that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It seems equally true that Law Lords should not just be distinct in practice from the legislature but should be seen to be distinct. No other country in the world has this quite extraordinary historic muddle of a House of the legislature also nominally sitting as the supreme court of the land.
We welcome the proposal that the supreme court should have jurisdiction to decide devolution issues. That means that there will be a logical solution in which there will be a single court with final jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and a separate court—the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—with jurisdiction on matters from some of the Commonwealth countries and the Crown dependencies.
We therefore agree that the members of the supreme court should not be active Members of your Lordships' House at the same time. So long as the present system of appointment of Members of your Lordships' House continues, we take the view that retired Justices of the Supreme Court should be eligible for, though not necessarily entitled to, appointment to your Lordships' House.
So far as the appointment of Members of the supreme court is concerned, we believe that the existence of a commission is essential. It will of course
636
have to be separate from that which was responsible for judicial appointments to the courts of England and Wales.
It is absurd to have a judicial appointments commission responsible for the appointment of judges to the lower courts, but not for appointments to the highest court of all, where crucial—and the most politically sensitive—decisions are taken. If Ministers are involved, it is impossible to exclude politicisation. It is widely believed that the government of Prime Minister Harold Wilson refused to recommend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, for appointment to the Court of Appeal because of trade union pressure as a result of his role in the national industrial relations court. That kind of problem could happen again.
The setting up of a separate supreme court will involve costs. There will be future running costs, which, if the judges of that court are given the facilities that they lack in your Lordships' House, may be high. Will the Government undertake to fund the transitional costs and the additional running costs, and not take them out of what is already a grossly over-stretched budget for the Court Service? Will the Government agree that, as a United Kingdom court, the supreme court should have a budget entirely separate from that of the lower courts in England and Wales?
We welcome the judicial appointments commission. We believe unquestionably that appointment on merit must remain paramount and that the present method of selection does not necessarily achieve that. It brings judges of high intelligence and integrity, but it is skewed towards successful advocates. The qualities of a good advocate are not necessarily the same as the qualities of a good judge. Therefore, the system is biased against solicitors, academic lawyers and women, because of the effect on women of their career breaks. We believe that the role of Ministers in appointments should be minimised, and that some of the Government's intended alternative proposals give Ministers too much discretion.
For example, a system by which the JAC, gave a Minister a list of candidates regarded as acceptable, and let the Minister choose any name from that list, would be wholly unacceptable, because there could be so many names to consider. A more limited version would be to give Ministers two or three names to choose from, as now happens with bishops. But even that is dubious. How can a Minister be in a position to second guess the JAC? If a Minister is to play any real role, it should be on the basis that they are given only one name to appoint or refuse.
We welcome the proposal that appointments to tribunals should be unified and brought under the JAC. We look forward with interest to the proposals for an alternative career path for some members of the judiciary to enable them to start taking limited—junior—appointments at a relatively young age, and proceed from that up the judicial ladder. We are not committed to that, but it is worth considering.

637
Regarding the factors which deter people from applying for or accepting appointments, we should also consider the abolition of the circuit system for High Court judges. That requires all High Court Judges to be based in London, but spend several months on circuit—that is very "family unfriendly". In my view that should be replaced by permanent branches of the High Court in major cities.
The balance of five judges, five lawyers and five lay members for the JAC is acceptable. I do not think that a lay majority is desirable, but there should be a larger lay involvement, or even equal numbers, as with the Scottish commission, provided that we have a judicial chairman. We welcome the proposal for the appointment of members of the JAC by an independent nominating body, and the use of Nolan principles for those appointments.
The last of the three papers concerns the future of Queen's Counsel. That is of the least constitutional importance, but it is clear that a government department should have no role in conferring that rank on members of an independent profession. We look forward to taking part in debates on the statutes that will give effect to these proposals. We should end up with a judiciary and a court system that are even better than those which we already have.
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support for these papers. I take it from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, although he was not clear whether he opposed the proposals—because he only talked about process—that he probably opposed them. I agree with him, first, about the quality of the current judiciary—there is no attack on that whatever—and, secondly, on the quality of appointments made by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine and his immediate predecessors.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked why we have done this. First, in relation to the supreme court, it is because judges who are appointed to the final court of appeal should be judges, not legislators. They are people who decide what the law is, not who participate in the making of the law. If we are serious about the separation of powers, then we should have a system that reflects that. I am glad that I am in the company of my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham, who strongly supports such a view. I shall wait for the comments of noble Lords opposite regarding the detail of that proposal. I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is against that.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord is making a clever legal point, but I said—and I have checked the record—that we do not oppose the thought of reform, but is up to him to say why the present arrangements should be so utterly changed. Could he explain that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful; I had not realised that the noble Lord might support the
638
proposals for a supreme court. I apologise. Regarding the independent appointments commission, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made various points about the independence from politicians of the appointment of judges. The current system is that a Cabinet Minister makes the relevant recommendation in relation to all of those appointments. If the noble Lord is serious about removing politics from the appointment of judges, I would have thought that he would have backed the widely supported view that there should be an independent appointments commission—just as in Scotland, and just as has been introduced by legislation for Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, asked why we were transferring devolution matters from the Privy Council to the Appellate Committee. He will recall that the reason that the matter went to the judicial committee of the Privy Council was that it was thought that it was wrong, when the issue was between the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, that the UK Parliament should be sitting in decision on such issues. If one creates a supreme court separate from Parliament, that issue goes.
The noble Lord's next question was about the place of the Law Lords. It is essential, if one has a supreme court, that the Law Lords, who are currently the highest court of appeal in this country, should not sit in this place so that one properly reflects the separation of powers. That is at the heart of the proposal for a supreme court. Will they come into this place as legislators afterwards? It is hard to imagine a more distinguished group who would not deserve to come in afterwards.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked who would defend the judges. That will be done by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Regarding their independence, we specifically raised the question in the consultation paper whether or not that obligation to defend the independence of the judiciary should be reflected in statute. The noble Lord said that political correctness should not determine who becomes a judge. Correct. It should be quality and I see no distinction between, on the one hand, quality, and on the other a diverse Bench.
The noble Lord then asked what criteria were to be set for the appointment of judges. The basic criteria should be set by the Minister—that is made clear in the paper. The selection of individuals is a matter for the independent appointments commission.
The noble Lord's next question was about the body that will appoint the members of the appointments commission. They shall consist of a senior judge—a High Court judge or above—a senior civil servant in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, an independent person entirely separate from the executive and the judiciary, and an independent assessor to see that the system works.
We aim to get an independent system. I understood—again, I may have misunderstood it—that the noble Lord would require a Cabinet Minister

639
to continue to appoint the judges, rather than a system where a group of the sort that I have described appoints the appointing commission. The proposals that we make are for a much more transparent and independent process. I believe that we are doing the right things to build on the strength of our judiciary and legal system.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that our judicial system has for generations been admired throughout the Commonwealth and indeed most of the world, will the Government in making the changes remember that, where change is not necessary, it is necessary not to change? In particular, will they bear in mind that having experienced judges—the Law Lords—able to contribute to the quality of our legislation is very important? If we lose the benefit of their advice on legislation, it may deteriorate.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I again make it clear that we all hold the judges in the highest possible regard. I also believe that the time to make such change is when the system is strong and not under pressure from outside. It is because our judicial system is held in such high repute that we can now make changes from a position of strength, rather than, as has happened in other countries, being forced into change at the wrong time. I believe that a supreme court and an independent appointments commission for England and Wales is the right way forward.
So far as the second point is concerned, the House is filled with distinguished lawyers and distinguished retired judges. They can provide the contribution that this House needs, while keeping those who constitute the final court of appeal separate from the making of law, rather than their deciding what the law means.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I have two short questions for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, both on the new supreme court. I do not intend to address the other issues raised this afternoon.
The first question is simply this: did the Government consult the Law Lords, formally or even informally, before announcing on 12th June that they would cease to be an appellate committee of this House and become instead a new supreme court in some other building? If not, why were they not consulted? Who said, as has been said this afternoon, that they need new offices? Who said that they need new facilities? We have, however, always been well aware that there are those in this House who cast envious eyes on the offices—they are not very large—that we occupy.
Who said that we need a new supreme court, no longer called the Law Lords, in order that we can hold up our heads among other supreme courts throughout the world? The noble and learned Lord referred to the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. Those views were expressed in the course of an academic lecture. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remind us whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, purported to express the views of the other Law Lords. I suspect that
640
if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor inquires he will find that the answer, with one possible exception, is no.
That is my first question.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, my second question is even longer. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that the royal commission that sat under the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and reported in January 2000 received what it described as an "impressive range of evidence", including the evidence of my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn and my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls? Is he aware that the royal commission concluded that the Law Lords should continue in their present role as full Members of this House, despite the theoretical objections based on the separation of powers that he has now advanced? What has happened since 2000 to suggest that the royal commission was in any way in error? If nothing, is there any point in having royal commissions making specific recommendations, as it did, which are simply given the go-by?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I shall deal first with the first question. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear to the Liaison Committee, there was no consultation immediately before the announcement or in the build-up to the announcement on 12th June.
The noble and learned Lord answered the second part of his first question. Who says that there should be a supreme court and different premises? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, for one, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, for another. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is absolutely right: they do not speak—nor could they purport to speak—on behalf of all the Law Lords in relation to that, and I do not know the views of all the Law Lords.
As the noble and learned Lord will know, however, there is very strong support, including among the senior judiciary—I name the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, who has made it clear publicly—that there should be a supreme court. Why? In my view, there should be one because it is clear that having the final court of appeal in the second Chamber of Parliament does not give effect clearly to the separation of powers. We are talking about a court deciding on the law, not making the law. If we talk the language of separation of powers, we should separate the powers. A member of the Commonwealth Secretariat said that we should be careful not to insist that developing countries adopt our system, because it does not adequately reflect the separation of powers.
I am aware of what the royal commission said. We have to make a judgment about the right way forward, but we believe that it is to give clear effect to the separation of powers in that respect.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, there is an almost universal apprehension that this momentous

641
constitutional matter has been mishandled. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House very properly apologised for it—but an apology is virtually worthless unless it implies an undertaking to do better in future. Rather than pushing on heedlessly, is it too late to appoint a royal commission to consider this matter carefully and fully?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the announcement on 12th June in substance said that we wished to move to a supreme court and have an independent appointments commission for the appointment of judges in England and Wales. That remains our policy. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, a detailed series of consultation papers deals with that. We want to hear people's views on the 72 questions that he very conscientiously counted in the consultation papers. The right course is for us to set clearly the policy outcomes to which we aspire, and then have full consultation on the detail of how we do it. That is the way in which we are proceeding.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do any of the proposed reforms described by my noble and learned friend in his Statement have any link to or effect on his role as Speaker of the House of Lords?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, none of them has any impact on that at all. It is a matter for this House to determine how the Lord Chancellor discharges that particular function.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it the case that the removal of the Lords of Appeal from the House of Lords cannot be achieved without amendment to the Act of Union of England and Scotland?
The Lord Chancellor: No, my Lords, it can be done without amendment to the Act of Union. The critical point in relation to the Act of Union is that no appeal from Scotland should go to an English court. Therefore, we make it clear in the consultation papers that the supreme court must be a United Kingdom court, not an English court.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the placing of the supreme court in Parliament better fits the circumstances of 1295 than of 1995, and that a good deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then? Perhaps I may join in the general welcome that has been extended from these Benches, in particular to what he has said about diversity. Does he agree that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in setting diversity and merit in opposition, is offending against the law of averages? Perhaps I may ask him in that context whether he will study the report from the Young Solicitors Group, which was mentioned briefly in The Times last Monday. It drew attention to the difficulties faced by married women returning to the profession because of
642
family-unfriendly employment practices. Putting that right is a necessary part of sustaining the pool of future qualified judges.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his support. I always agree with his historical analyses, because he is much cleverer than me. I do not know which laws the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was offending in his remarks, because it was difficult to determine what he was opposing and what he was not. I did not take him to be opposing greater diversity so long as merit was also the touchstone of appointment. I see that he is nodding at that. It might have been that the noble Earl was being unfair to noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
In conclusion, I was aware of the newspaper report about young solicitors and what happens during the course of their careers. A critical point that has often been made is that people entering the profession have become much more diverse as time has gone on. It is frequently asked why one does not merely allow that to filter through to the time when appointments are made. If one looks at what happens to someone during their professional life, the attrition rate for women, for example, is much higher than it is for men. If one were to approach it just on that basis, one would not see that diversity. We should also remember that appointments need at all times to be made on merit, as perhaps we would all desire.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has implied just now, as he has done on previous occasions, that as individuals set out on their professional life in their 20s, there is a good proportion of women and ethnic minorities, but that they do not survive the 20 or 30 years necessary to get the experience that is traditionally thought to be desirable for appointment as a judge. I understand that certain solutions are suggested in the paper that my noble and learned friend has produced today, including the alternative career path. Perhaps I may ask him whether it is not possible for my noble and learned friend himself to persuade the professional bodies to ensure that solicitors' practices and chambers at the Bar adopt the kind of approach that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has described—namely, more family-friendly policies—so that throughout the normal professional experience of solicitors and barristers, women and ethnic minorities do not fall by the wayside, as has been happening only too frequently.
In so far as a new career path is introduced, and people are appointed as judges at a relatively young age on a part-time or temporary basis, would the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ensure that the professions get rid of whatever rules and conventions now exist that say that once one becomes a judge, one may not return to private practice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that whatever the level of diversity at the entry point into the profession, it decreases as one goes on. It is important that one tries to remedy that as much as possible in the appointment of judges. I agree

643
with my noble friend that it would he helpful if professional organisations were to promote greater diversity within the profession, but that is matter for the individual professions rather than for the Government. We set out the legal framework. How the professions then organise themselves is primarily a matter for them.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I return to the question of judicial independence. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has rightly stressed, the crucial, ultimate step will be the appointment of the judges. That will be made by the Minister. That Minister is currently the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. That Minister therefore has a recognised legal qualification that makes him competent to take those decisions. Will it be a requirement that the appointing Minister will be similarly legally qualified?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, That is not stated in the consultation papers one way or the other. The proposal that, subject to consultation, is most backed in the consultation paper about the independent appointments commission is that it should put one name to the Minister to select or reject. On the question of whether the Minister needs to be a lawyer or not in defending judicial independence, when that is his role, Ministers make a whole range of appointments. not just in the legal field, but in other fields as well. They do not normally need to have the qualification relevant to that particular appointment, but I believe that they do need to have enough stature to deal with the matter and a proper understanding of the constitutional position. That is why the paper is right to say that that should be enshrined in statute. It does not follow that the holder of the role of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs needs to be a lawyer.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, perhaps I may risk a remark from these Benches. I am conscious of a remark by St Paul, who began one of his passages with, "I speak as a fool". One wishes to support the general principles which underlie the proposals. There is also a nagging sense, not only on the Conservative Benches, that things may be lost without us quite realising it. It may well be that the fact that the present arrangements have existed for so long has contributed to the particular quality of our democracy and the character of Parliament. Parliament has been enhanced precisely by the presence of a high judiciary.
I wonder whether politics will enter that process whether we like it or not. One has seen it in America in appointments to the Supreme Court. One is anxious that the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs might end up a more political figure than the Lord Chancellor has been. The Lord Chancellor has been protected from that precisely because of his primarily judicial role and by the fact that he has been able to insist on sitting as a judge. How can we ensure that the long arm of politics will not find its way into that process and influence appointments of those who
644
perhaps end up appointing those who appoint the judges? What guarantees are there? That is the concern that was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we should be sure that we do not lose the good bits of the current system. One of the good bits is the fact that judicial independence has been assured. That has in part been because of the role of the Lord Chancellor in defending judicial independence. That is why we have proposed specifically that the responsibility for ensuring judicial independence should be reflected in statute. That way, what must be defended and who it is defended by are clear. Having said that, the position is strengthened. The role of the independent judiciary, which has behaved with complete independence in the past, is assured by a system that insulates them from politicians in a more effective way than is the position at the moment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, while I welcome many of the changes, however rushed or otherwise the appointments made in the reshuffle may have been, there is no doubt whatsoever that there have been plenty of reports and plenty of ideas circulating for very many years. Not least, two committees of Justice, over a period of 10 years, have recommended just that sort of approach. I am sure that many of us welcome the proposals for diversity, in particular, and the flexibility of some of the arrangements that are suggested for the appointments commission in choosing new judges. One particular issue worries me. I share the concerns expressed about the fact that the Law Lords will not sit in this House. I do not think that I heard an answer to a question that was asked. If they must be outside when the supreme court is sitting, how are they going to get back in, because we would need them all? Is it to be via the House of Lords Appointments Commission. in the same way as most other Members of the House of Lords will be proposed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She was involved with the Stevens commission, which dealt with this very issue. It recommended that there should be a form of appointments commission.
As regards Law Lords sitting in this House, the position will be different for those who are currently Law Lords and who will form the initial members of the supreme court. They will not be able to sit and vote here while they are members of the supreme court. Once they cease to be members of the supreme court, they can come back. In relation to the subsequent appointments, members of the supreme court will not be appointed to the House of Lords but, as I made clear, it is hard to imagine a group which would be more suited to coming into the House.
I should at the outset have disclosed a possible interest. I was a Queen's Counsel and my wife is a Queen's Counsel. I apologise for not making that clear at the outset.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.1 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Carter) in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: We had considerable discussion on this matter during the second day of Committee. I shall not detain the House much longer. Clause 18 amends Section 1 of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, so that the prosecution's right of appeal to the Crown Court against a decision by magistrates is extended to cover all imprisonable offences. This is about bail provision and not about sentencing.
Clause 18 would extend to all imprisonable offences the prosecution's right of appeal to the Crown Court against a magistrate's decision to grant bail. We were impressed by the representation made to us by the London Criminal Court Solicitors' Association, as mentioned during discussion on this clause during the second day of the debate.
In any application for bail, the prosecution puts forward objections to bail and the reasons for those objections before the defence makes its application. The prosecution already has rights of appeal against bail granted in the more serious cases. If the Government want to restrict bail further, they should produce evidence that the public is put at avoidable risk by the operation of the law as it now stands. We are aware of no such evidence produced by the Government.
This clause is likely to clog our courts even further. More importantly, it is also likely to clog our prisons with people who could usefully spend time on bail rather than on remand in custody. Evidence on the Continent suggests that wherever you make sparing use of remand provision, it helps in terms of the prison population. Taking almost every imprisonable offence and giving the right to the Crown prosecutor for refusal of bail by the Crown Court will only add to the problem of our prison population.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for raising those points. We discussed the matter in large measure on the previous day in Committee when an amendment was put. I would therefore prefer the Committee to read what I said on that occasion at cols. 120 to 121 of the Official Report for 7th July and I shall simply summarise the position. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked what is the evidence that it is necessary to make a change. The statistics demonstrate that as many as one in four
646
defendants granted bail go on to commit an offence of which they are convicted during the period of bail. Secondly, as many as one in eight of those granted bail fail to attend for the trial, which causes great inconvenience to witnesses and victims who have turned up, as well as cost and delay in the courts. In the Government's view, the evidence exists that it is necessary to look carefully at bail and when it is granted in order to protect the public.
However, as I said, while the intention of the clause is that there should be a right of appeal, it will be exercised sparingly. Again, I refer to what I said on the previous occasion, drawing attention to the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service, for which I have ministerial responsibility, recognises that the right to take a case to appeal should be used judiciously and responsibly. That is set out in the internal guidance, which looks principally to see whether the public need protecting from the defendant in deciding whether or not to make an appeal against bail. It is not for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether bail should or should not be granted. That will be for the court to decide. That is the purpose of the appeal. I hope therefore that that is of some reassurance to the noble Lord.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. We decided to object to the Question that the clause shall stand part simply because on the previous day in Committee we supported an amendment relating to serious cases attracting two years' or more imprisonment. Here we have a blanket authority for Crown prosecutors. However, in the light of what the Minister said, I withdraw my objection.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Drug users: restriction on bail]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 17, leave out "not" and insert "only"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No 71, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 72. The two amendments relate to Clause 19, which concerns the restrictions on bail for drug users. Specifically, subsection (4) deals with supplementary provisions about bail and makes special exceptions applicable to drug users. This amendment ties in with our Amendment No. 70A to Clause 18, which we discussed at our previous meeting in Committee. It sought to question the Government's proposal to reverse the presumption to bail except for serious crimes. Amendment No. 71 again highlights the change of emphasis underlying this Bill with a shift towards presuming against bail.
In our view, the emphasis of subsection (4), new Section 6A, is entirely negative—half empty as opposed to half full. This is the wrong approach and may well have human rights implications. The onus should not be on the defendant to satisfy the court that he has a right to bail. It is rather for the prosecution to

647
make out a case for refusing bail. The amendment proposed is to replace "not" with "only" and "unless" with "if" in the sentence,
"a defendant who falls within paragraph 6B below may not be granted bail unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk of his committing an offence while on bail".
Amended, the sentence would read,
"a defendant who falls within paragraph 6B below may only be granted bail if the court is satisfied"
and so forth. While the amendment is not designed to, nor will it, bring about any fundamental change to the judicial system of our country, this alteration, perhaps seemingly technical, will help to ensure that the justice system remains balanced and fair. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: At the end of discussion on these amendments in another place, the conclusion of the parliamentary draftsman was that they made no difference to the meaning of the provision in the Bill. We will therefore not be supporting them.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, makes my point for me. It is the view of parliamentary counsel that there is no difference between saying that a defendant may not be granted "unless" and saying a defendant may only be granted "if". As it does not seem to us that this makes any difference, I, too, resist this amendment I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The world of parliamentary draftsmanship is always a strange one. To replace "not" by "only" and "unless" by "if' seems to me to make quite a difference in the way the clause will be interpreted. As the noble Baroness says, this has been raised once before. As it is now on the record again, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Walmsley: I oppose Clause 19, which is designed to provide a presumption against bail for alleged offenders shown to be drug abusers. This provision does not appear to follow from either the Law Commission report or the Auld report. The courts already have a great deal of discretion as regards bail. This clause goes against the spirit of the Bail Act, is unnecessary and may well be overturned by the courts. Also, during its discussion in another place, the drafting of the clause attracted considerable criticism. I shall explain why I believe it should not stand part of the Bill.
I accept that, as quoted in the Government's paper, Criminal Justice. The Way Ahead,
"drug-addicted defendants can be extremely prolific in their offending. Offenders using heroin or crack cocaine are estimated to commit property offences at twice the rate of offenders who do not use drugs".
648
I also accept the evidence of the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who quoted figures that suggest that there is currently a very low level of voluntary uptake for treatment. He said:
"In the Hackney pilot of compulsory drug testing for everybody brought into the police station and charged, it is 62 per cent testing positive for opiates. Yet only seven per cent of those people agreed voluntarily to any form of drugs referral scheme after arrest".
The policy is supposed to he encouraging hard drug users to undergo treatment, not forcing them to do so. To use compulsion in the current climate of provision is both impractical and unfair as well as breaching the human rights of the defendant.
Let me deal with the practicalities. The Home Affairs Select Committee in another place said that whether Clause 19 will work in practice is dependent on two things: first, the ability to enforce the bail condition; and secondly the availability of treatment to which the bail condition relates. On the first point, the Association of Police Authorities has highlighted some potential problems. In some pilot areas, a "large percentage" of those who test positive for class A drugs do not comply with drug treatment orders,
"thus ending back in court for re-sentencing".
There must therefore be considerable doubt about the practicality of enforcing such conditions against drug users who consent to the bail condition but then fail to comply with the treatment.
On the second point, the committee was pleased to note that the provisions under Clause 19 will apply only in areas within which treatment is available. Therefore a person,
"could not be refused bail simply on the basis that he had refused treatment where there was not treatment available".
As the Minister conceded in evidence to the committee, there is not enough treatment available at the moment. The committee was informed that in one police area, there is an eight-month waiting list for detainees willing to submit to treatment. I wonder if the noble and learned Lord can tell me whether that situation has improved in the few weeks that have passed since that was said.
In the end, while the committee supported the proposal to impose a treatment condition on the hail of drug users, it said it is essential that sufficient resources are made available for the provision of treatment. To decide whether this clause is justified we need to look at how effective current treatment programmes are in reducing drug misuse and related criminal activity. We need to look also at the quality and availability of these programmes. Here I must declare an interest as a trustee of Adapt, a drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation charity.
A few weeks ago we had an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House about drug treatment services. During that debate many noble Lords drew attention to the fact that there has been little or no increase in the number of drug rehabilitation and treatment beds in the past 10 years. This is despite the fact that all the research shows that residential drug treatment is the most effective kind. This takes the user away from the pushers on his own street corner and gives him a

649
chance to detox properly and to come to terms with the issues in his own life which led him into drug abuse in the first place. I say he, although I really mean he or she. Many drug addicts are women and there is a real issue about the lack of availability of good quality treatment services for women with dependent children.
Sadly, although the Government have increased the money available for drug treatment, there are two major problems. The first is that the money is going into administrative posts and bureaucracy in the drug action teams instead of into treatment services. The second is that the Government are playing the numbers game and setting targets for the number of people in treatment instead of the number of addicts that come off drugs and stay off drugs. In these circumstances, agencies will choose the cheaper community option so that they can spread the money further and hit the targets for the number of people receiving some sort of treatment. If they had a target for the number of people who actually got off drugs, the picture of how they spend the money would be very different. In this situation, it is unjust and unworkable to make it a condition of bail that a defendant accepts an assessment and treatment. He or she may have tried one of these ineffective programmes before and failed and be justifiably afraid of failing again. As was said about this issue in another place, drug treatment is a bit like dieting. One has to be ready to do it before starting out and one size does not fit all. Going through detox, treatment and rehab is a very difficult process and all drug users know it. All fear failure and failure can be painful and damaging. No wonder drugs experts fear that the imposition of such a condition of bail will be a negative rather than a positive move.
My second concern is to do with human rights. Liberty has been in touch with a number of your Lordships about this clause, telling us that it raises issues under Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998, on the right to liberty and security of person. It does not fit into one of the permitted exemptions under Article 5(c). Although detention of drug addicts is permitted under Article 5(e), Liberty disputes that this justification applies to a person detained pending trial. The presumption by the Government seems to be that drug users commit offences, therefore anyone who refuses treatment will be likely to commit offences while on bail and should therefore be refused bail. It is a principle of justice that every bail application should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The introduction of a presumption against bail in Clause 19 places the burden of establishing an entitlement to bail on the detained person rather than the state—guilty until proved innocent rather than the other way round.
The Law Commission considered this in its publication Bail And The Human Rights Act, which concluded that such a reverse burden could breach Article 5(3). Liberty also argues that Clause 19 may raise issues under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, on the right to respect for privacy and family life. This clause places an obligation on a person who has not
650
been convicted of any offence to undertake drug treatment to avoid being remanded in custody. Liberty appreciates that the Government are concerned that there is a link between crime and drug use and that they are promoting drug rehabilitation. However, Liberty does not accept that applying a sanction that will involve the loss of freedom is an acceptable way of promoting such a policy. I agree.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has made out a very strong case. I trust that the Government will not just brush it aside. It is a pretty lamentable state of affairs when those who want to come off drugs may have to wait for up to eight months before they can obtain treatment. We all know that treatments for whatever kind of addiction—drugs or some other type—are unlikely to be successful in the long run unless the person being treated undergoes it voluntarily and has, or acquires, an intention to stick with the treatment and put it into practice after it has finished. The noble Baroness said that bail should be treated on a case-by-case basis. I entirely agree, and I hope that that point of view will secure a little more support from your Lordships.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I had not intended to speak on this issue until I heard the previous two contributions. While I have tremendous sympathy for the objectives of the noble Baroness in seeking treatment facilities for drug offenders, I remind the Committee that drug users are among those with the highest rate of offending against elderly people. In my own constituency, two elderly people—one, an 87 year-old widow—were recently attacked physically by drug users in pursuit of money to finance their habit.
However lacking we are in treatment facilities, I believe it is wrong to use the human rights argument solely to defend the person who has infringed the law. We forget about the multitude of elderly and vulnerable people who are victims of drug users. They also have human rights, and those rights should be taken into consideration.
The question as to what makes a person a drug user concerns a different issue and one that can be addressed at a different time. But it is wrong to try to ensure that the provision relating to drug users who offend is such that they are not removed from society when it is apparent that they are a danger to society. Therefore, I support this part of the Bill and, if the Committee divides, I shall support the Government on this issue.
Lord Hylton: My noble friend may have probability on his side in relation to attacks by drug users on elderly people. However, I am surprised that he does not want to see bail decided on a case-by-case basis rather than being pre-empted by government legislation.
Lord Goldsmith: I believe that it is right to start by reminding the Committee that this clause amends the Bail Act 1976 to create not an irrebuttable requirement

651
but a presumption against court bail for an adult who is charged with an imprisonable offence, who has tested positive for a specified class A drug and who refuses to be assessed as to dependency upon or propensity to misuse such drugs or who, having under undergone such an assessment, refuses to undergo relevant follow-up action.
I say that that is a presumption because the clause is quite clear, whether in the formulation in which it stands or in the formulation in which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, would have it. It is for the court to be concerned with the case on a case-by-case basis but, in the context of this type of defendant, it must decide whether there is a significant risk of his committing an offence while on bail. If there no such significant risk, then the provisions will not apply. As I had cause to note on the previous day in Committee, it is entirely accepted within the human rights legislation that one good ground for refusing bail will be that there is a risk of re-offending while on bail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly said—I am grateful to her for this—that there is a demonstrated connection between drug abuse and offending. She cited one statistic; I shall cite another, from Home Office findings 148, which links the use of heroin and crack/cocaine with acquisitive crime. The use of heroin or crack/cocaine is associated with levels of offending which are nearly 10 times higher than those of non-drug-users. The reason is not hard to find: in many cases, it is acquisitive crime which funds the offenders' habit. While at liberty, in need of their drugs, such people will commit crime time and again in order to obtain those drugs. As the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, said, the victims of those crimes may well include the vulnerable, the poor and, in particular, the elderly in our society, who may be most susceptible to attacks.
Notwithstanding that statistical strong link, if, in the case of a particular individual, there is no significant risk that he will re-offend, then the provisions do not apply. Otherwise, in the Government's view, it is legitimate to say that there should be a presumption against court bail for such a person.
In the Government's view, the provision has the additional benefit of helping to divert drug-misusing defendants into assessment and into whatever follow-up assistance or treatment is appropriate to help them to deal with their habit. I do not dissent from the view expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that dealing with addiction is a difficult task. But, as I am sure they both agree, it is a very important task.
The Government are doing what they can to improve the availability of treatment. Perhaps I may identify what I am told were the average times reported in DAT treatment plans as of April 2003. They ranged, for example, from five weeks for in-patient detoxification to 4.1 weeks for residential rehabilitation. I can provide more details of that. I am afraid that I cannot answer specifically the question asked by the noble Baroness concerning whether the
652
figures have improved since my noble and learned friend gave evidence to the Select Committee. However, I shall write to her with such information as I can.
But, of course, the provision in the clause recognises that it would not be right to impose obligations relating to assessment and treatment in places where assessment and treatment are not available. That is made clear in subsection (6C), which provides for the new provisions to be introduced on a pilot basis by providing for the presumption against bail to apply in areas where the court has been notified that arrangements for conducting assessments and for providing suitable follow-up, which may include medical intervention, have been made, and have not been withdrawn, in the area in which the person would reside if granted bail. Therefore, there are pilot opportunities for these new provisions to be operated.
I should add a word about new subsection (6D). It imposes an obligation on the court to attach a condition of bail, if granted, to the bail of a person who is aged 18 or over, who has tested positive for a specified class A drug and who is charged with either possession or possession with intent to supply in relation to a specified class A drug, or where the court is satisfied that use of a class A drug caused or contributed to the offence or that the offence was motivated by the intended use of such a drug. The condition to be attached to bail in these circumstances is that the person must undergo an assessment of his or her dependency on, or propensity to misuse, any specified class A drug, and must participate in any relevant follow-up proposed to him or her, consequent on that assessment.
Having regard to what the noble Baroness said about different forms of treatment, treatment will be assessed by those who understand the nature of the particular condition and what is appropriate for the particular offender. That is what is intended by the clause.
The need to balance the protection of society against the risk of re-offending with appropriate incentives for treatment for those who can benefit from it justifies the provisions in Clause 19.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his support, and I am very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, about the fact that everybody's human rights have to be respected. It is because of concern for the old person who may be mugged for her purse that I want drug treatment to be effective.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, an habitual shoplifter is also liable to commit an offence while on bail. There is no presumption in that case. Two wrongs do not make a right. Infringing the human rights of a defendant to try to put something right is not the solution. I do not think that I have had full answers to my questions on the Human Rights Act. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to write to me.

653
The clause is not the solution to the problem, which is to provide good quality treatment, and to leave the decisions on bail to the court. The Minister said that professional assessors will make an assessment and recommend the treatment to be given. But, in the current situation, if professional assessors are to say what sort of treatment is to be given, the clause will not be implemented almost anywhere in the country, as the services are simply not there.
If the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord is to be believed, perhaps I am wasting my time in suggesting that the clause should not stand part, as it cannot operate based on that assurance.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Supplementary amendments to the Bail Act 1976]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 15, line 39, at beginning insert "Schedule or paragraph 6A does not apply by virtue of paragraph 6C of this Part of this"
The noble and learned Lord said: This is simply a technical amendment to Clause 20. I beg to move.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: In considering Amendment No. 73, the word "simply" is not the word that most immediately comes to mind. Perhaps in a triumph of hope over expectation, I touchingly hold on to the belief that one day Home Office legislation may clearly reveal what it means and what it seeks to achieve.
Legislation ought not to set exercises that would be appropriate for an examination for senior wranglers. It should provide a clear guide for what the public will experience and for those who advise them—never more so than when the liberty of the citizen is at stake.
In respect of Amendment No. 73, amending Clause 20(1), I am not so much disappointed as dismayed. It is worth reading the clause with the amendment inserted. Line 24 on page 15 states:
"In Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act … the existing text of paragraph 2 is to be sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph, and after that sub-paragraph (as so re-numbered) there is inserted—
'(2) Where the defendant falls within one or more of paragraphs 2A, 6 and 6B of this Part of this Schedule, this paragraph shall not apply unless"—
I move to paragraph (c)—
"where the defendant falls within paragraph 6B, the court is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 6A of this Part of this Schedule or paragraph 6A does not apply by virtue of paragraph 6C of this Part of this'".
That seems to represent legislation by reference to earlier statutes at its most obnoxious. It is small wonder that the Explanatory Notes offer no guide. The author has obviously been defeated and preferred to ignore this clause, even before amendment was sought.
I mention this with a topical allusion. Probably, quite prominent among people who will be affected by legislation for which such amendment is sought will be those who are alleged to have fallen foul of one or more aspects of immigration law. It is at this stage that we note that the 30 year-old grant to the Immigration
654
Advisory Service is being removed, so that it will no longer be able to provide thus funded legal advice and assistance on this sort of matter.
I urge the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who was not responsible for this amendment, to take it away and look at it again before Report to see whether we cannot have recourse to something called the English language in seeking to put forward to the public, and those who advise them, what the legislation actually means and what it is meant to do.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Much of what I would have said has been more ably said by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I am not a lawyer, but the real issue is that even if one were to get out the books to try to put it together, the clause would remain unintelligible. It is incredibly difficult to put it together. That is not a party political point, but a practical point on the nature of our law, as my noble friend said. When talking of technical, simple amendments, we must find a way of not cluttering it up with previous legislation that makes it unintelligible to those with reasonable intelligence who take the time and trouble to try to understand it.
I accept what the noble and learned Lord said about the technicality of the amendment, but I hope that he will follow my noble and learned friend's advice.
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the combined advice of my noble and noble and learned friends is strong enough. If the noble and learned Lord merely takes the amendment away, he will only take away the small piece of confusion that is added to the already considerable piece of confusion that represents the clause.
Unless we are given an undertaking that the noble and learned Lord will address his mind to simplifying the whole clause, it is a matter that we could decide on the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We could then be certain that the clause would be properly drafted. That would be a practical means of stating the law as it is to be understood.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: The theory behind the clause is that there is a punitive or rehabilitative aspect to it. Hence, there will be fewer prosecutions as more offences will be deemed suitable for caution.
However, I do not believe that it will work. I have no legal expertise, but common sense suggests that it cannot possibly work. There are two weaknesses. The First is that it will encourage people to admit to offences to get quick disposal. Secondly, it will result in more cases. There must be a mechanism for determining when there is a breach of conditions, especially if the matter is contested. Therefore, I believe that more unnecessary work will be imposed on the courts if the clause is accepted. For that reason, I support what previous contributors to the debate have said.
Lord Renton: Like my noble friends, I was a bit puzzled by the clause and the amendment. In the hope

655
of finding some help in understanding the matter, I turned to the Explanatory Notes. Extraordinarily, although there are notes on Clause 19, Clauses 20 and 21 are left out. I do not know why. It is very unhelpful.
Lord Goldsmith: I obviously take very much to heart the observations that have been made, starting with those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. The clause amends the Bail Act 1976. Whenever legislation amends previous legislation, one starts with the difficulty of having to have that other legislation in mind when looking at the amendment. What is more, an amendment that adds a different slant, exception or qualification to previous legislation necessarily has to do it in a way that was not in the mind of the draftsperson of the original Act. That is an added complication.
I shall spend a moment explaining what the clause does and what the amendment, which I foolishly described as simple, is intended to achieve. Three special provisions are introduced by earlier clauses of the Bill. Clause 14 provides a new special presumption in the case of people who commit offences on bail. I parenthetically draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to that in the light of her observations on Clause 19 about us not dealing with habitual offenders. That is to be paragraph 2A of Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976. The second special provision is in Clause 15, which introduces a new paragraph 6 to part 1 of Schedule 1 to the 1976 Act, which is a special presumption in relation to those who abscond while on hail. The third special provision is in Clause 19, which adds paragraphs 6A, 6B and 6C to the same part of the same schedule in relation to drug users. The general provisions in part 1 of Schedule I to the 1976 Act are therefore subject to the three special regimes—that in paragraph 2A for those who commit offences on bail; that in paragraph 6 for those who abscond on bail; and that in paragraph 6B for offenders with a particular connection with a drug offence and who have been offered assessment or treatment and declined it.
Thus far, viewed in the context of the whole, that is not a difficult provision. I detect that it may be useful to provide a version of the relevant part of the schedule as it would appear after the amendments so that the Committee can see how it all fits together. I am happy to undertake to do so. That information is sometimes inserted as a schedule to the Act—a so-called Keeling schedule—but I reserve judgment on whether that is necessary in this case. Doing that every time there is an amendment to a previous Act adds to the volume of legislation. I am certainly prepared to ask that that should be considered and I shall undertake to provide the draft.
The clause makes a special case—in sub-paragraph (2)(c) to be inserted into the schedule—in relation to people who fall within paragraph 6B, but fails to take account, without the simple amendment that I have moved, of the fact that people may not fall within paragraph 6B because, according to paragraph 6C,
656
inserted by Clause 19, there is not a relevant scheme within their area, so they should not be subjected to that scheme.
Noble Lords may say that it has taken me a very long time to explain that—assuming I have explained it accurately—and that that is a defect in the drafting. However, the clause is supplementary to the substantive clauses that have gone before. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the fact that it is supplementary to—perhaps almost consequential on—the changes made by the preceding clauses results in there being no separate explanatory note for it. I hope that what I have said may serve as some sort of supplemental explanatory note for those provisions.
If any of that is wrong, I undertake to write to noble Lords to say so. I shall take away the question of producing a schedule and see how noble Lords feel about it at that stage, but for the moment 1 hope that I may be able to press my amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord's penultimate sentence gave the game away. Saying, "If anything I have said is wrong," followed by a long pause to look round the Chamber, to the far corner and round noble Lords' faces, suggests that there is a mote of doubt in his mind about whether he has got it right even with the brief in his hand.
Lord Goldsmith: I am a very modest man. I simply developed my response without assistance from the Box. There is therefore always a chance that I am wrong.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Conditional cautions]:
Lord Dholakiamoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 16, line 7, after "caution" insert "in respect of an offence and in lieu of charging"
The noble Lord said: We now come to Part 3, about conditional cautions. The Bill allows for a caution with specific conditions attached to be given when there is sufficient evidence to charge a suspect with an offence that he or she admits and the suspect agrees to the caution. It will be for the CPS to decide whether a conditional caution is appropriate and in most cases it will be for the police to administer it. If the suspect failed to comply with the condition, he or she would be liable to be prosecuted for the offence. The Bill provides for the publication of a code of practice for conditional cautions.
No one underestimates the value of cautions. There are many examples of people being diverted away from further offences. The Auld review gives a specific figure of 266,000 cautions issued in 1999.
Clause 22 defines the conditional caution and provides that it may be given to an adult offender if the requirements in Clause 23 are met. The conditions that may be imposed are restricted to those aimed at

657
reparation for the offence or the rehabilitation of the offender. A conditional caution may be given by an authorised person, as defined in subsection (4).
We share the concern that was expressed by Justice and the Law Society that imposing conditions as part of the cautioning process may involve complex methods of rehabilitation and reparation and may potentially require the involvement of the victim of the offence. Making appropriate decisions on this issue—in effect, sentencing—requires adequate training. Only persons authorised by the DPP who have received such training should impose such cautions. We therefore agree that constables and investigating officers should be deleted from the definition in Clause 22(4).
The amendment is designed because of the dangers that could occur if proper training has not been granted. A caution is a way of taking no further action while allowing the police to record that the crime has been cleared up. Cautions are increasingly under-used and need to be rehabilitated, but if conditions are attached, will arrestees be less likely to accept a caution and will the police be less likely to offer one? The amendment would clarify that conditional cautions are in respect of an offence but in place of the person being charged with a criminal offence.
We raise this issue because some years ago I examined the evidence that was produced by the Commission for Racial Equality in relation to juvenile cautioning. It was pretty clear that policy varied from police area to police area throughout the country. In many cases, it was evident that black youngsters were less likely to receive cautions and more likely to end up in the courts the next day. We need a code of practice that clearly specifies the level at which such decisions should be taken and that those who take them should be properly trained to deal with such matters. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: In responding to the amendment, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 95, which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred more generally to the purpose behind this part of the Act and I am happy that he has done so. The clause creates a statutory conditional caution for adult offenders aged 18 and over who are willing to admit their guilt. As the noble Lord said, there is already a statutory scheme under Sections 65 and 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for giving young offenders a final warning accompanied by intervention to reduce the likelihood of re-offending.
The new scheme would allow adults to receive a formal caution but with specific conditions attached. It is intended to be used in cases when more than a simple non-statutory caution is justified but when the circumstances are not such that the public interest necessarily requires a prosecution, or requires one if the offender is willing to undertake some other action—either of a reparative nature or something that may help to rehabilitate. I hope that the
658
Committee will endorse the principle behind the new scheme as a way of finding appropriate disposal for offenders without clogging up the prisons unnecessarily, as one or two noble Lords have said in the course of the Committee.
The noble Lord wanted to be satisfied about how the scheme will work in practice—that it would not operate in a discriminatory way against particular members or groups of the community. I hope that he will not be surprised to hear me say that I wholly endorse that wish. He may be aware that the Crown Prosecution Service has been doing a great deal of work to ensure that it operates its functions in a way that is non-discriminatory and that it understands the different attitudes and cultural traditions of different members of the community. This morning I attended a conference at which the CPS launched a new policy in relation to racially or religiously aggravated crime, which was well attended by members of the community. I will come back in writing to the noble Lord on how the scheme will work.
Amendment No. 74 would insert,
"in respect of an offence and in lieu of charging".
We believe the amendment to be unnecessary. It could also be misleading. That cautioning should be in lieu of criminal proceedings rather misses the point. If the conditions, once accepted, are not met, proceedings may still need to take place. We hope that the clause as drafted is sufficiently clear, and I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
The government amendments make conditional cautions available to "official" prosecutors in addition to the CPS. The change was prompted by the view expressed by the Whitehall Prosecutors Group. A range of prosecuting authorities is represented in the group, which prosecutes on behalf of the public but not as the CPS. It believes that there may be cases in which this form of disposal would be suitable. The Government want to increase the availability of this important and useful power. At the moment, some of the prosecutors use simple cautions and the amendments would enable them to accompany the caution with a condition—that reparation should be made, for example.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I welcome the new clause and the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General about the principle. As I understand it, the amendment is an attempt to widen the power to caution to cover those who might otherwise be tried and might end with other forms of penalty. The conditions are very similar to the present power of the police to caution a defendant. However, with this welcome new power we are nevertheless imposing conditions that will presumably have to be supervised by someone. What effect will the new power have on the workload of the Probation Service? Have the Government involved the Probation Service in discussions on the proposal? The duty of,
"ensuring or facilitating the rehabilitation of the offender"
will inevitably, at the end of the day, rest on the Probation Service, which is already very heavily pressed.

659
Are we possibly in danger, yet again, of unintentionally increasing the prison population? I welcome the principle that, when it is suitable, people should be dealt with not by the courts, but by a conditional caution. However, if there is a breach of that caution, the offender goes back before the court. The court may impose any power on the breach that could have been imposed in the first place. There may be a temptation to impose a short period of imprisonment. I hope that, in practice, the effect will not be the reverse of what the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General wishes to be the purpose of the clause, which is one that I welcome.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is a helpful probing one and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his explanation. We accept the importance and value of the conditional caution proposal.
I have one small question about Amendment No. 95, which relates to the definition of the relevant prosecutor. The amendment refers to, "a Secretary of State", which is an issue that we will raise later in respect of the codes of practice for conditional cautions. Why does it refer to "a Secretary of State", using an indefinite article? Surely it should be "the Secretary of State", since it refers to only one? No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will tell me that, in the world of the parliamentary draftsman, just as "unless" equals "if' and "not" equals "only", "a" equals "the". The clause would look better if "the" was used, because we are talking about a specific rather than any Secretary of State.
Lord Elton: I rise to support my noble friend Lord Carlisle and to take what he said a fraction further. He said that there would be more people in prison as a result of breach and linked that to his anxiety about an already overloaded probation service. My anxiety is that the probation service will not be able to supervise as it should and that there will therefore be a continual undercurrent of undetected breaches that will bring the system into disrepute, making people no longer afraid of the conditional caution, thus offending more enthusiastically and frequently and adding to the flow of people into crime.
We experienced a little of that with the introduction of the community sentence, when intermediate treatment, as it was first called, was a rigorous, well-supported and well-financed treatment—largely, I may say, by voluntary organisations. When that was broadened into the community sentence, a diminution of the respect with which it was held and its effectiveness began. I am anxious that if we have an underfunded or overloaded probation service, the same problem may repeat itself.
5 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I am happy to respond to the questions that have been raised. To deal first with the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Hodgson, this is
660
not a case in which parliamentary counsel thinks that the indefinite and definite articles are interchangeable. The provision does not refer to a single Secretary of State, as the noble Lord's question presupposed, because more than one Secretary of State has a prosecuting function. For example, prosecutions issue from the department of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so it is appropriate that the provision should refer to "a" rather than "the" Secretary of State.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for giving way, but surely the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not issue conditional cautions.
Lord Goldsmith: Well, she might, because DTI prosecutions are conducted by one of the prosecuting agencies to which I referred earlier, which are represented on the Whitehall Prosecutors Group. In relation to certain offences with which the DTI deals, it may be thought appropriate to issue a conditional caution, so the Secretary of State for that department should deal with it. I give that by way of example; other departments with a responsible Secretary of State prosecute on health and safety, environmental and, I think, transport matters—although I may be wrong about the latter.
I was also asked a question by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I recognise from his background and experience in diverting young offenders the sincerity and importance of that question. It will not in fact be the probation service that will be responsible for supervising conditional cautions. It has no locus before someone is convicted. The arrangements for supervision must therefore take account of other agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service. That is being worked on at the moment; if the Committee will permit, I shall take the opportunity to give more information about the consideration taking place, not now from the Dispatch Box but hereafter, in a letter.
Thirdly, the wish was expressed that the making of conditional cautions should not have the counter-productive effect of leading more people into prison. Again, I appreciate the consideration that gave rise to that question. That is obviously not what we want. It is right to say that if a court comes to sentence, it does not have to sentence by way of imprisonment. It is not sentencing for the failure; it is sentencing for the original offence. A fine or community service order may well be the appropriate response.
I agree with those Members of the Committee who said that the power must he exercised in a way that will achieve its objectives and am grateful for all those who expressed their support for the principle behind the provision.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response. Juvenile cautioning and cautioning in general are a success and an essential part of the

661
criminal justice system. I look forward to his written response on the matter that I raised, but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 16, line 13, leave out "either or"
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79.
Amendment No. 75 concerns the specific aims of the conditions that are attached to the conditional caution in Clause 22(3)(a) and (b). We feel that the conditional caution—which, as I said in debate on the previous amendment, is a welcome proposal—will operate to full effect only if it assists the rehabilitation of the offender and ensures that he or she makes reparation. It would be inappropriate to allow a caution if it would achieve only one of those two objectives. The offender making reparation and restoring his good repute by rehabilitation should go hand in hand. If the Government have felt it necessary to include both those purposes, it seems odd for it not to be necessary for the offender to fulfil both conditions.
In our discussion on bail, we heard much from the Government about the position of victims—indeed, according to the Government, much of the Bill is concerned with the victim. Reparation is essential if victims are to feel that justice has been done. Indeed, it is hard to see how full rehabilitation can be achieved without it. So we want to excise, "either or", and leave both rehabilitation and reparation as objectives.
Amendment No. 77 also relates to Clause 22(3)(a). Its purpose is to make the language in the Bill more achievable and realistic. We note that the Government have tabled an amendment and we are happy to retain the word "facilitating" alone, and to leave our word, "assisting", by the by. Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 focus on the qualifications of those authorised persons who are permitted to give conditional cautions. Clause 22(4) lists those who are authorised as:

"(a) a constable

"(b) an investigating officer, or

"(c) a person authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions",

although the Government propose to change the latter to "a relevant prosecutor".
Amendment No. 78 restricts that authority to that under paragraph (c), "a relevant prosecutor". That amendment was tabled at the suggestion of the Law Society, which explained that the conditions attached to a conditional caution would be complex and that the appropriateness of a constable or investigating officer, who may have little or no direct training in assessing such conditions, granting a conditional caution, is clearly arguable. Amendment No. 79 is slightly less restrictive and would allow only an officer of the rank of chief inspector or above, other than the public prosecutor, to issue such conditional cautions.
662
In another place, Ms Harriet Harman alleviated our concern to some extent by explaining in Committee that the decision about whether there will be a conditional caution is not that of the police, but of the Crown Prosecution Service. However, it has been pointed out that that is not made clear anywhere in the Bill. As I said, Clause 22(4) lists who might be the "authorised person". Subsection (1) explains clearly that any authorised person may give a conditional caution. However, apparently, that will not be true, according to what Ms Harman said in the other place. If she is correct, the relevant prosecutor is the only person under subsection (4) who can actually "green-light" a conditional caution. From the Bill's current wording, it appears that a constable or investigating officer will also have that power but, according to Ms Harman, they can only follow instructions given to them.
The Minister in the other place explained that such problems of wording can be amended when the code of practice is drawn up. Our amendment would make those changes now. We consider that primary legislation should be correctly worded. To complete a Bill knowing that its wording is inadequate is surely perverse. The use of codes of practice as a fallback for correcting such important issues is sloppy. Where possible, details should be made clear in primary legislation. Details such as these are very important or we risk leaving the clause open to misinterpretation. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 75, 77, 78 and 79, and to Amendment No. 76 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal. Amendment No. 75 would have the effect of insisting that a conditional caution could be made only where the condition would have two effects: it would facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender and do something in relation to reparation for the offence. While in many cases that may well be highly desirable, the condition need not necessarily do so for it to be valuable. For example, it is easy to envisage a condition that is clearly rehabilitative but is not concerned with reparation, such as taking lessons in how to drive better. That might be an appropriate condition to impose, but it may do nothing, save in the most general sense, towards reparation for a victim. We stand by the clause as drafted because it is appropriate that either condition should be sufficient to warrant such an order being made.
I turn now to Amendment No. 77. I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. Amendment No. 76, which I shall move in due course, will remove the word "ensure" because that is going too far. I am glad that the noble Lord has indicated that he is content with that adjustment to the clause and as a result will not press his own amendment.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 seek to limit the category of police employee authorised to administer conditional cautions to officers of the rank of chief inspector or above. Two different persons are referred to in these provisions and we need to distinguish between them. It is easier to start by considering the

663
provisions of Clause 23 and looking at what are the requirements for the issue of a conditional caution. The second requirement is that the Director of Public Prosecutions must decide,

"(a) that there is sufficient evidence to charge the offender with the offence, and

(b) that a conditional caution should be given to the offender in respect of the offence",

It is therefore for the Director of Public Prosecutions, which by reason of provisions set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 means any crown prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether a conditional caution should be given. By accepting the previous amendments, the Committee has just extended that by inserting instead the words "relevant prosecutor", but that still means the prosecution authority such as a Secretary of State or another relevant prosecutor.
So it is for the prosecutor to decide whether a conditional caution should be granted, but it is then for someone else to administer it, who will be the "authorised person" referred to in Clause 22(4). That person must have the evidence that the offence has been committed, as set out in the first requirement in Clause 23(1); must be the person to whom the offender has admitted the offence; and must be able to give explanations. However, it is not for the police officer to decide that there should be a conditional caution; that is a decision for the prosecutor.
No doubt the police officer may well propose appropriate conditions, which would be right given that he will know the circumstances of the offence and something about the offender. But it will be for the prosecutor, in general for the Crown Prosecution Service, to confirm those conditions and determine that a conditional caution is appropriate. The administering of the caution is then a duty for the officer and, viewed in that light—which expands on what was said by my right honourable friend the Solicitor General, Harriet Harman, in another place—I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be inappropriate to require officers of the rank to which he referred to spend their time administering cautions when the decision has already been taken by the prosecutor. It would be entirely appropriate for the administration of that decision to be undertaken by the officers identified in the clause as it stands.
I hope that my explanation—that the decision will be made by the Crown Prosecution Service or another prosecutor rather than the police, and that the caution will be administered by the police officer—will assist the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: In my view that was an extremely helpful explanation. However, is the noble and learned Lord able to tell us something of the length of time that all this is going to take? Presumably there has to be an arrest, followed by a referral to the prosecutor, whoever that may be. That person then has to be apprised of the details of the crime and come to a view on them. Will that be done with or without an interview with the young person in question—I assume that the person will be young? Surely it would be very
664
difficult to make a judgment on whether the person is likely to respond to this treatment without an interview.
I am finding it difficult to express this concern, but essentially the slower the administration of justice, the less effective it is, in particular when dealing with young people whose perception of the flow of time is quite different from our own. This process needs to move relatively quickly or cause and consequence will be completely separated in the mind of the offender.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: These provisions apply to adults, that is, persons aged 18 years or over. Youth offenders are dealt with under an existing set of provisions.
So far as timing is concerned, this will fit in with other changes being made in the Bill, including in particular the closer involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service with the police. In due course we shall come to the charging provisions set out in the Bill under which, save in routine and minor cases or where a holding charge is needed, it will be necessary for the police to bring the evidence to the prosecutor for him to decide whether a charge should be brought and, if so, what it will be. Moreover, in many cases there will be a prosecutor at the police station, ready to receive the police officers and to make the decision. So, in some cases, it will add nothing to the time for the police officer and the prosecutor to consider whether, having regard to the circumstances, the case might be appropriate for the administration of a conditional caution.
I agree with the noble Lord that we do not want to slow justice down, but I believe that the arrangements here ought not to have that effect and certainly ought not to do so to the extent that they would outweigh the advantages of this new way of disposal.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord's further response is very helpful. I wish only to say that my recollection of the Prison Service when I was the Minister responsible for it was that the age of criminal burnout was somewhere between the ages of 28 and 32 years. In my view, anyone under those ages is still young.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thought I heard the noble and learned Lord say that it would be a waste of time for an officer of the rank of chief inspector or above to go about administering conditional cautions. Is he sure that having a constable doing so will clearly indicate the gravity of the situation? There is a risk that a conditional caution may give the impression of being an easy way out. However, if the conditions are not fulfilled, the result could be much more serious. Thus it is important that the person being cautioned takes the matter seriously. Is the noble and learned Lord convinced that a constable will be the right person to do this?
Lord Goldsmith: It is right that the person who accepts a conditional caution understands the

665
seriousness of the matter. That will be made clear on the form which the offender will have to sign. It will state the purpose and effect of the caution.
I am perfectly confident that police officers of the rank of constable will be able to bring home to offenders the importance of what they are agreeing to. As I have said, while the constable will not make the decision that a certain case is appropriate for a conditional caution—that will be made by others—I suggest that the officer will be well able to drive home the importance of it.
Lord Elton: Could the noble and learned Lord go a little further into the detail of the way this is to be administered? He said that a prosecutor might be in the police station at the time. Is there to be a duty prosecutor in every police station? If not, how is that to be achieved?
Lord Goldsmith: This touches on later provisions in the Bill, an important one of which gives the prosecutor the responsibility for determining whether to charge an offender and with what to charge him. Obviously this will follow close consultation with the police who have gathered the evidence.
In a number of cases in the pilots that we have carried out in relation to this, lawyers have been present at police stations in order that police officers can come to them and say, "This is the evidence. Is it enough?". I have been and seen it for myself. I suspect that we will discuss this issue further in relation to a later part of the Bill. It will not happen necessarily in every police station because there are many across the country and there may not be enough prosecutors to cover them all. But alternative arrangements will be in place to ensure that excessive delay is not added to the process.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. Returning briefly to Amendment No. 75, he said that it was not practical because the conditions could not necessarily fulfil the requirements of both rehabilitation and reparation. We never felt that that was the case. The subsection refers to "the conditions which may be attached", but not every condition has a joint and several responsibility to facilitate rehabilitation or make reparation.
We are concerned that if you leave out "either/or" you could have a whole series of conditions concerned with only one of the two objectives in subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b), on rehabilitation and reparation. We feel that some conditions must hit either subsection (3)(a), on rehabilitation, or subsection (3)(b), on reparation. As I read the Bill, it is possible for only one of those objectives to be met. If we were to try it the other way and state that "each condition must meet the two objectives" I would understand the point made by the noble and learned Lord. However, the Bill refers to "the conditions" and we want to make sure that some of the conditions of the conditional caution hit those two targets.
666
As to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that "give" has a narrow and technical meaning, whereas, to an outsider, "give a conditional caution" does not at first sight appear like that. Will the Government consider redrafting the clause to replace the word "give" with the word "administer", which is the word used by the noble and learned Lord when explaining the way in which Clause 22(1) will operate? To the world outside, "give" is a far-ranging and wide-reaching word; "administer" has a more practical and technical sense.
Lord Goldsmith: With respect, I am not sure that I quite follow the noble Lord. My point is this: it is appropriate to have a power to grant a conditional caution even though the condition or conditions proposed effect only one of the objectives. There may be a condition simply to make reparation or there may be three conditions, to pay compensation to Mrs A, Mrs B and Mrs C, without any rehabilitation being involved. It is appropriate to do that. Equally, there may be some conditions that relate to reparation only—for example, take a driving test, have an eye test and so on.
As to whether the clause is clear enough, at the moment—I am sure it is my fault—cannot see the word "give".
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Clause 22, line six. The line below the clause heading.
Lord Goldsmith: Thank you very much. I should have read the first line. I shall certainly take the issue away to see whether it is clear enough. However, I believe that it is and I hope that the explanations I have given will help to clarify it further.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I shall consider further what he said about the twin conditions of cautions. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 16, line 14, leave out "ensuring or"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 16, line 19, leave out "Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "a relevant prosecutor"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [The five requirements]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 16, line 24, leave out "the Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "a relevant prosecutor"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 16, line 29, after "offender" insert ", having taken or refused to take legal advice,"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 82, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 and 86. The amendments concern conditional cautions. Clause 23 lists the five requirements necessary if a conditional caution is to be issued. The third requirement, in Clause 23(3), requires the offender to admit that he has committed the offence. If the offender does so he might bring certain consequences upon himself that, if he were not a lawyer, he would not anticipate.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 84, therefore, would act as a failsafe to protect the rights of an offender. They make it a requirement for him to have accepted or, having been offered, to have refused to accept legal advice. We have a concern that a person might be tempted to accept a conditional caution without realising that it might he in his interests to first take legal advice. One can envisage a situation where a defendant wishes to finish off the matter quickly or is encouraged to do so by the police on the grounds that it would get it out of the way quite quickly.
If legal advice is offered the suspect will have an opportunity—which, of course, he may decline—to understand the legal consequences of a conditional caution, including, in particular, the consequences of an admission. It would also provide a safeguard against false or misled admissions being made.
Both the Law Society and the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association agree on this point. The latter has distributed a helpful briefing which states that,
"an admission of guilt must be genuine, not just a solution to escape a charge or 'get it over and done with"—
Given the risk of prosecution if the conditions are breached, potentially lengthy complications that might arise at prosecution could be avoided if legal advice had been offered. We see no sensible reason why this proposal should not be incorporated into the clause.
Amendment No. 86 relates to Clause 24 and the failure to comply with conditions. It is closely linked with Amendments Nos. 82 and 84. It would leave out Clause 22(2) and enable the document detailing the offence and the ancillary provisions laid out in Clause 23(5), which have been signed by the offender, to be admissible in criminal proceedings.
If an offender is not to be offered the opportunity of legal advice when signing the document admitting his guilt, is it right that the document should then be used as evidence? As has been mentioned, a person could be pressured into signing such a document unaware of the consequences. If, however, the offender were given the opportunity of legal advice, this would not be a concern. The amendment therefore is clearly tied in with the previous amendments concerning the offering
668
of legal advice. If the Government accepted them, Amendment No. 86 probably would be superfluous. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, Amendments Nos. 82 and 84 are concerned with whether a suspect should be offered legal advice before admitting to the commission of an offence. A suspect will have been offered legal advice. He will have been informed, I should say more strictly, of his or her right to independent legal advice in compliance with the provisions of PACE before reaching that stage. The suspect will have been accused of an offence and therefore the provisions in the code which require that person to be informed of his or her right to independent legal advice will apply. In those circumstances it seems unnecessary to add an additional requirement to the provisions. I do not disagree with the underlying point that the noble Lord makes; namely, it is important that before somebody admits an offence he should have had the opportunity of seeking legal advice and be reminded of that opportunity. The provisions of PACE should be adequate to deal with the situation.
In referring to Amendment No. 86, the noble Lord said that if the Government accepted the previous amendments the need for it would disappear because legal advice would have been provided. If the noble Lord is satisfied by what I have said about the effect of PACE, he may well want to consider it further before expressing any view about it, which I would entirely understand. He may not wish to move that amendment either.
It seems to us that there are certainly circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the form, which would have been signed in accordance with the requirements of Clause 23(5), to be admissible in evidence, if only for the purpose of proving that the suspect did in fact agree to the conditions. Then the question can be determined as to whether or not he has failed to comply with them. We press to retain that provision.
In Committee in another place the honourable Lady Hermon suggested that the pro forma signed by the offender should state clearly that it might be used in evidence against him if criminal proceedings were to follow. That is a useful suggestion, which is being considered.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: Can the Minister say whether the legal advice is available before the caution is administered, or while the caution is being given? There are some serious repercussions in failing to comply hearing in mind that consent is required and the condition attached to that consent. That has some bearing on another amendment, which I wish to move at a later time.
Lord Goldsmith: I believe that the answer is that the suspect will have been reminded earlier of his right to independent legal advice. If the suspect has followed

669
that up and has received it, the solicitor will be available to give the offender advice at all moments from the time he or she is instructed to assist. I anticipate that that would include advising on whether or not it is right to admit the offence and appropriate to accept the condition; and, indeed, explaining what the consequences would be if the condition were broken.
If the offender declines to take legal advice, which is his or her right, that legal advice will not be available at the time when the caution is administered. That simply follows from the choice which has been made. I believe that that is how it would work.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I do not find that answer entirely satisfactory. I understand what the noble and learned Lord said about the PACE conditions, which is a very fair point. But they are away from the Bill that we are discussing. We have here five requirements for conditional cautions. If the Government are confident that the PACE conditions cover the point, I do not see why they cannot accept that. The third requirement is that, having taken or refused to take legal advice,
"the offender admits to the authorised person that he committed the offence".
It is clear beyond peradventure that it is one of the requirements for which he should have legal advice before admission. The fifth requirement is the signing of the document. After being offered the opportunity to receive legal advice,
"the offender signs a document which contains—",
details of the offence, and so on.
All we are trying to make clear on the face of the Bill is that on these two important points—the admission and the document to be signed, which contains all the details of the offence and his consent to being given a conditional caution—there should be a clear requirement to having been offered, and either taken or refused, legal advice. The PACE conditions are all very well, but they are some way away; they are capable of being changed without this Act being altered—
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord will recall that the Act itself deals with PACE and its codes of practice. I do not know why he says that the PACE codes are away from this Act. They are referred to specifically in Part I of the Act. I also remind the noble Lord that there are many conditions in PACE to which it would be appropriate to have regard when considering whether or not the suspect has been dealt with properly before reaching the caution conditions as regards interviews, and so forth.
I assume that the noble Lord is not saying that we should incorporate all of those conditions into the clause. If that were the case, it would be a very long clause indeed. Surely it is better to rely on the general provisions that Parliament has thought appropriate under the PACE codes and allow them to be of general
670
application, rather than making specific provision for each and every one of them each time there is a disposal provision.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I still have not understood. Can the noble and learned Lord explain at what point the suspect will be told that he could have legal advice? Will he know what he is getting it for?
Lord Goldsmith: Under PACE, and depending on the circumstances, where a person is arrested for an offence and brought into a police station, it is a requirement that the right to independent legal advice is notified to the person involved. It is within our common experience that it is at just such a stage that a solicitor will attend the police station to advise on the process that is to take place, and/or participate in the interview. It is at an early stage of the process that the suspect is reminded of the right to legal advice and can take up that offer.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful for that further explanation. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the noble and learned Lord has said. I believe that the express right to legal advice before people admit crime that will result in a conditional caution being issued is important. I shall reserve the right to return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 16, line 33, leave out "may" and insert "will"
The noble Lord said: This is a brief but important amendment that relates to the wording of Clause 23(4). It refers to the fourth of the five requirements that need to be satisfied in order for a conditional caution to be given. This clause has been carefully drafted. Its intentions are clearly well-founded. It requires that an authorised person explains to the defendant about the conditional caution and warns about the consequences of failure to comply.
However, the clause then throws away all this good work by saying that if any of the conditions are breached prosecution "may" follow. Today we have been discussing the finer details of these conditional cautions ensuring that they are meticulously worded, fully comprehensible and as fair as possible. Why, therefore, is it not a certainty that the offender is to be prosecuted if he fails to comply? What will be the impact of the removal of the certainty of unpleasant consequences in cases of breach upon the value and efficacy of the whole concept of conditional cautions? Our amendment seeks to replace "may" with "will"; in other words, to make a prosecution certain. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I suggest that it would not be credible to say that every breach of a conditional caution would automatically result in a prosecution.

671
That would be the effect at least of what would be stated to the offender, but not the fact in practice. If it were the policy that every breach, however trivial, automatically resulted in prosecution" it would be unduly restrictive. It would be impossible to take genuine reasons for non-compliance into consideration. It would be a much more onerous provision than we have in mind.
It is important that the offender should understand that the conditions are serious. If he does not comply with them, he should be warned that there could well be consequences. That is well enough said by warning him that the caution may result in his being prosecuted rather than in asserting—dare I say it, untruthfully?—that it will, notwithstanding what the circumstances may be. I invite the noble Lord not to pursue the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We are anxious that if the conditional caution is to have some teeth, it should be proceeded with where conditions are broken. We understand that pressing for it to be done on all occasions is probably not a practical proposition. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved]
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Failure to comply with conditions]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 17, line 4, at end insert "but not more than three months after the commission of the offence"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 85 is a simple amendment to be inserted at the end of subsection (1) of Clause 24. That subsection explains that the consequences of failing to comply with the provisions of the conditional caution may, as we have just been discussing, result in prosecution. With the Bill as presently drafted there is no time limit within which such a prosecution must be proceeded with after a breach of the conditions of the caution has occurred. It seems only fair that a recipient should know how long criminal proceedings could be left hanging over him. This amendment sets the limit at three months. It is a probing amendment and it would be helpful to hear the Government's thinking behind the proposal for what appears to be an everlasting sword of Damocles.
The Liberal Democrat Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia, seem to take us back to the issue of admissibility in evidence of the signed admission in Clause 23(5) which we were discussing in the last group of amendments. As such, if there is no requirement for a person to receive legal advice in advance of any signature, we would support them. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. Clause 24 provides that, if the offender fails, without reasonable excuse, to
672
satisfy the conditions attached to the conditional caution, he or she may be prosecuted for the offence—not for the breach of the offence, but for the offence itself. If proceedings are commenced the document referred to in Clause 23 is admissible in evidence. I remind the Committee of the requirements of Clause 23, which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of .Astley Abbotts, mentioned earlier on. They are that there is evidence against the offender; that the Crown Prosecution Service considers the evidence to be sufficient to charge him or her and that a conditional caution should be given; that the offender admits the offence; that the offender has been made aware of the caution and what failure to comply with it would mean; and that he or she signs a document containing details of the offence, the admission, the offender's consent to the caution and the conditions imposed.
We have a very serious problem with that. The problem is simply that all this evidence is being produced as part of the prosecution case against the individual. If the person appears in court for trial he cannot plead not guilty. In other words, the trial is simply a sentencing exercise, rather than giving him the opportunity to deny something that he has already admitted under caution. We are suggesting that for a fair trail—for a fair system of dealing with such individuals—it would be proper to ensure that two provisions are included in the Bill: first, that the conditional caution should cease to have effect and, secondly, that the admission contained in the document referred to in Clause 23(5) shall be inadmissible in evidence. That is the basis of holding a fair trial, rather than simply sentencing an offender and calling it a prosecution.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I will take those two sets of amendments separately. Amendment No. 85, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, would insert a time limit of three months after the commission of the offence into Clause 24. The effect would be that where an offender failed to comply with the conditions attached to a caution, a prosecution against him or her would have to be commenced within three months of the date of the offence.
In the Government's view that time limit would be unduly restrictive. There are two reasons for that. First, the date on which the caution is administered could itself be some significant time after the offence. The reason for that may simply be that it took that time to find the offender. Secondly, even if the offender had been caught the very day of the offence and a conditional caution had been imposed within a short time thereafter, there will be some conditions which will take some time to organise and may take some time for the offender to complete. The previous discussion on an earlier clause in relation to the time to organise and then to complete some kind of drugs rehabilitation course would be one example. To say that one must prosecute within three months or else the condition falls by the wayside because there is no way of enforcing it would be unduly restrictive.

673
There is a long-stop already in relation to offences that are summary-only offences because, as the noble Lord will recall, those offences cannot be prosecuted more than six months after the commission of the offence. That is already something of an issue in relation to conditional cautions because it may be that that in itself imposes an unduly restrictive period. However, that is the law and we are not suggesting changing it. We agree that it would not be right to impose conditions for an unreasonable time—a Damoclean time or otherwise—and that is why the time for which a condition may have effect is one of the points that will be addressed in the code of practice, as Clause 25(2)(c) indicates. As for the three-month period, we could not accept that. However, the noble Lord said that his was a probing amendment in any event.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, spoke. I have largely answered this already, but I think it is right to draw attention to the requirements in Clause 23. The Committee will note that among the requirements is not only that there is evidence that the offender has committed the offence, but also that the offender admits that he committed the offence. That is before one gets to the conditional caution being signed. So it is a condition that in an interview, itself under caution, the offender will no doubt have admitted the offence. That will be entirely admissible, as it would be even if the result of the interview had been the police officer saying, "You will now be taken to court," rather than, "We will now consider a conditional caution". That would be part of the evidence on which the offence would then be prosecuted. The signature on the document does not add an enormous amount to that because the admission will already have been made but—and this is more important and is the answer I gave before—it will be necessary to demonstrate, because of the conditions of Clause 24(1), that there were conditions attached to the conditional caution and the document signed by the offender, accepting those conditions, will be an important part of that.
In the Government's view it is appropriate to keep the provision that the document shall be admissible in evidence; otherwise, one would have the ridiculous situation of, for example, an officer saying, "What were the conditions? Let me read from my notebook. Did he accept them? Yes, he did," and the person saying, "No, I didn't", when there is a document available which proves it.
I hope that the fact that the caution will not have been authorised or administered unless the offender had admitted he had previously committed the offence will go a long way to satisfying the noble Lord. Of course there must be a fair trial where someone has, under caution, admitted the offence. There may be circumstances in which they can thereafter say, "I didn't really mean it" or "I didn't know what I was saying". They will no doubt be able to run that
674
argument, but, generally speaking, the fact that it has been said under caution will obviously be powerful evidence against them, and rightly so.
Lord Elton: What the noble and learned Lord says underlines the importance of this document in the trial of the individual concerned and brings us back to my noble friend's question about the availability of legal advice. Knowing what the conditions are in a police cell and the state of the people who are kept in them makes me anxious about merely having had advice, which is the argument my noble friend advanced in debates on previous amendments. I hope that we may have an opportunity on Report to consider whether such a document should be signed in the absence of a legal adviser. Merely having had advice, perhaps a fortnight earlier, and being confused as to what the document is may not be sufficient protection.
Lord Goldsmith: Clause 25, to which we will come shortly, provides for the preparation of a code of practice which will deal with a number of matters, including, as paragraph (a) states,
"the circumstances in which conditional cautions may be given".
That has to be prepared in draft by the Secretary of State. It has to have my consent; it then has to be laid before each House of Parliament and an order has to be made. My recollection is that this is by affirmative resolution as well, so a number of the points to which the noble Lord refers will no doubt be touched on in the code of practice, which will come back before the House.
Lord Elton: I am grateful for that; my noble friend assures me that the noble and learned Lord is right about the affirmative procedure, which is not clear in the clause. If that is the case. my anxiety is removed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As I said, this was a probing amendment, and we are grateful for his assurance that conditions on cautions cannot be left hanging for ever, but that there is a provision for their being ended.
We are a little concerned about the way in which the noble and learned Lord's responses indicate the time that may elapse in these matters. Conditional cautions need to be moved through reasonably rapidly if they are to have a good deterrent effect. Speed seems quite important and if conditional caution proceedings are to be as prolonged as custodial proceedings, that will undermine some of their value. However, this was a probing amendment—we were not stuck on the three-month idea, and I understand the Attorney-General's argument against it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Code of practice]:
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 17, line 12, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 89, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 90, 92, 93 and 94, which are all about the code of practice. They concentrate on this already much debated issue but this time in relation to conditional cautions.
Clause 25(1) requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice for conditional cautions. Subsection (2) details the provisions which are to be included; these are laid out in paragraphs (a) to (h). Having thus gone to some trouble to make clear the contents of the codes, it is perhaps surprising that the preamble includes not a prescriptive verb but a conditional one. In other words, subsection (2) provides:
"The code may, in particular, include provision as to—"
followed by paragraphs (a) to (h). Amendment No. 89 seeks to remove this uncertainty about the contents of the code by replacing "may" with "shall". What is the purpose of all this elaborate drafting if the Secretary of State can then ignore it all? Once again, it raises concerns about what may or may not happen at some unknown date in the future.
Amendment No. 90 concerns the specific provisions of Clause 25(2)(d); it follows the discussions we had on Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 as to the suitability of a constable or investigating officer issuing conditional cautions. As we said then, we agree with the Law Society's view that police representatives of lower ranks are not trained or qualified to make judgments. But if, as the noble and learned Lord said, this is primarily about operating procedures and administration, that too is odd, because it seems in that case to duplicate to a large extent paragraph (0, which deals with,
"the form which such cautions are to take and the manner in which they are to be given and recorded".
In the light of the noble and learned Lord's response to our earlier amendment, I am not quite clear about the difference between paragraphs (d) and (f).
The particular focus of Clause 25(2)(d) seems even more illogical when we consider Amendment No. 92. This requires the code—and here we return to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Elton—to include the role of the probation service in bodies which need to be involved in the code of practice. The probation service has hitherto been ignored, except in my noble friend's comments, yet it will bear the brunt of the work of enforcing the conditions attached to these cautions. Indeed, while we welcome the concept of conditional cautions, we are concerned whether the Government have fully thought through the funding implications. Nothing will undermine a good idea faster than a failure to administer it properly.
Our concern in Amendment No. 92 is more of a practical and administrative one. We are concerned about the weight that will fall on the shoulders of the probation service when it comes to monitoring the compliance of the conditions attached to the cautions.
676
So it is surely imperative that the probation service has a chance to express its views about the practicalities of the various conditions regarding what is practicable, what is not, what would work and what would not and, for future planning, what has worked and what has not. This amendment aims to probe the Government as to why, since the probation service is to play such an integral part in this area, it is not even mentioned in the extensive list given in Clause 25(2).
Amendment No. 93 draws attention to the importance of proportionality in imposing conditions on cautions by adding an additional provision, paragraph (i), to the matters about which the code of practice must make provision—for example, returning to an earlier debate, in connection with cautions issued to those with mental problems. Ministers in the other place have stressed the importance of having flexibility when it comes to the letter of the law. Given rapidly changing social attitudes and conditions, we accept that this is a valid consideration, but there needs to be some limitation. This amendment is aimed at avoiding the possibility of the use of unfair or unreasonable conditions being enforced upon someone who does not realise that they might well be unable to meet them.
Amendment No. 94 would require the affirmative resolution procedure to be used for all revisions to the codes of practice that govern conditional cautions. This repeats the discussion we had over Amendments No. 38 and 39, which were tabled to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny took place when the Secretary of State chose to revise the PACE codes. However, while by Amendment No. 37 the Government accepted a measure of parliamentary scrutiny over the PACE codes, the codes of practice that will govern conditional cautions have not been given the same attention. We think this is wrong. Conditional cautions are an important development in the Government's criminal justice policy. If the concept works well, it could play an important role in keeping down the prison population, but the way in which it operates should be given proper parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: We must be precise. We must not leave too much to the discretion of the officer who issues the caution. It is right, therefore, that the codes of practice should be clear in ensuring that the cautions are precisely worded. Therefore, I support the various amendments moved by my noble friend.
There is one amendment which I am glad he moved. Clause 25(2)(d) refers to,
"the category of constable or investigating officer by whom such cautions may be given".
It may be that owing to the passage of time my knowledge of types of constable has become somewhat uncertain. I thought that there were only constables and constables and not various categories of constable. We need an explanation as to what the,
"category of constable or investigating officer"
will be. In any event, I should have thought that any constable should have power to issue a conditional caution. Perhaps paragraph (d) should be left out.

677
Amendment No. 94 is important. We are breaking new ground here. It is only right that a draft should be laid before each House of Parliament for approval. Therefore, Amendment No. 94 is of value.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In a debate on a previous clause, I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that the probation service was not to have anything to do with the conditions as regards these cautions. If so, who is? I do not understand who will monitor and control the conditions relating to facilitating the rehabilitation of the offender if it does not in some way come under the aegis of the probation service. I shall be grateful to hear the government's proposals on who will do so. I understood him to say that it would not be the probation service.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 92, 93 and 94. Amendment No. 89 would insert "shall" for "may" thereby insisting that the code must cover all of the matters dealt with. Imposing that requirement by primary legislation seems to us to be unnecessary. The code will have to be laid before Parliament—I shall come back to that—and has to be published in draft. The Secretary of State has to consider representations about it. He has to obtain the consent of the Attorney-General and then lay it before each House of Parliament. It may be that at some stage—plainly it is not our view at present—it may appear unnecessary for the code to contain one of the provisions, for whatever reason that may be. If Parliament is not happy that that matter is not dealt with, it will be able to make that plain when the code is brought before it. It seems unduly restrictive to insist that each of these matters is dealt with in the code—even though they would not be included as items which the Secretary of State can include in the code—if it did not seem at present that a code should cover those issues.
If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, were right, Clause 25(2)(d), for example, would not be necessary because there would be no constable other than a single rank of constable. I am told that the word "constable" is used in the widest form and even a chief constable could be a constable. But, of course, there would be other investigating officers. By way of example, if the noble Lord had pressed successfully the amendment to a previous clause to delete the reference to "constable", this provision would disappear.
That is why I resist making it a requirement that each and every single one of these matters should be listed in the clause. Parliament will see the code when it comes forward and will be required to express its approval.
678
Amendment No. 90 seeks to remove paragraph (d) on the basis that it would have been consequential on Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 which have not been pressed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: It also duplicates what is in paragraph (f).
Lord Goldsmith: I beg to differ. Paragraph (d) deals with the identity of the person who may give the caution. Paragraph (f) deals with the form that such cautions are to take and the manner in which they are to be given and recorded. The manner in which they are given and recorded is not the same as the person who may give them. Both provisions are necessary and desirable.
Amendment No. 92 would add a reference to the probation service. In answer to points raised on an earlier clause, I indicated that I wanted to give further information about the way in which the Government see the conditional cautions being supervised and monitored. I indicated then that part of the responsibility would be that of the prosecution service because that is the one imposing the conditions.
I accept that it is an important question. Therefore, if noble Lords will allow it, I shall return to that issue. For the time being, I resist the insertion of a reference to the probation service. On the face of it, the service deals with medium and high-risk offenders. I am advised that a legislative change would be necessary, as I indicated previously, if its statutory duties were to be extended to offenders who were to be cautioned as opposed to offenders who have been convicted.
There is no need for the clause to specify as an issue to be covered the involvement of the probation service.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may—
Lord Goldsmith: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had wished to intervene.
Lord Elton: I was sure my noble friend would get there first. I am grateful, therefore, to be given the handicap of starting.
When the noble and learned Lord writes about the involvement of an agency other than the probation service—if that is how he will proceed—I hope that he will go beyond the question of the statutory trigger which has not been used when a caution is substituted for a prosecution. I understand that under present legislation the probation service would not be involved because it requires a prosecution to trigger the involvement of the probation service. If that is not the case, a fortiori I ask him to address the question as to why the probation service is not being included in this work which is so germane to its training and experience. When he referred to the prosecution service a moment ago, he introduced a new word. He said that it will be partly responsible, as opposed to responsible, for the supervision of the conditions.

679
It is a highly technical matter. I hope that there has been consultation with the probation service and others concerned, or that there will be before a decision is made. I find myself in some anxiety about handing this function to something so different from the probation service as a prosecution service.
Lord Goldsmith: I agree, that it is not only a technical matter, it is also important. That is why I wanted to be able to give noble Lords a full and considered answer rather than simply indicating where we are at the moment. I have already used the phrase "partly responsible", which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has, with eagle eyes, picked up on. I hope that noble Lords will accept that I do not wish to say any more until I am able to give a more detailed and considered answer.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Is the Minister sure that he was right when he used the word "convicted"? He said that the probation service had dealings only with people who had been convicted. Does it not also have powers over people who have been bailed and are in bail hostels?
Lord Goldsmith: That is another reason why I should give a full answer after today's Committee stage. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for that comment. I shall certainly look into the matter.
Lord Renton: I did not hear the Minister deal with Amendment No. 94, requiring a draft to be laid before Parliament.
Lord Goldsmith: I apologise for failing to deal with that. In fact I failed to deal with both Amendments Nos. 93 and 94. An intervention was made and I had forgotten that I had not completed my speech.
Amendment No. 93 would add to the list a new item:
"deciding, having regard to the character and background of the person to be cautioned, the appropriateness of conditions which may be attached".
That appears to add little to the existing subparagraphs relating to the circumstances in which conditional cautions might be given and the conditions which might be imposed.
Regarding Amendment No. 94, the provisions of the Bill as it stands require the code to be laid before each House. By virtue of Clause 299, the statutory instrument containing the order must be laid in draft beforehand and approved by a resolution of each House. It is not apparent to me what is missing from those provisions. In other words, the code has to be produced in the form of a draft order, which must be laid before both Houses, and approved by affirmative resolution. Why is it necessary to add anything further? Surely the effect is that for which the noble Lord contends. I hope that I have now dealt with all of the amendments.
Lord Hodgson: Clearly, I had not read Clause 299 carefully enough. Regarding Amendment No. 89, I appreciate the points that the Minister has made. As ever, he is persuasive in the way that he argues his case. However, the reality is that the Government have chosen to draft the Bill with eight conditions which they think are important as part of the code of practice. Having gone to that considerable trouble, they then put "may" rather than "shall". He said that this imposed a requirement—you bet it does. He said that it was unduly restrictive—it may not be "unduly" restrictive, but it is restrictive and is meant to be restrictive. The operation of conditional cautions and this code of practice are important. To have a code which might vary completely from subsections (2)(a) to 2(h) is a mistake. There should be a restriction on the Secretary of State to produce codes which deal with paragraphs (a) to (h)—the heart of the whole question of conditional cautions. Without the issues covered by paragraphs (a) to (h) one wonders how on earth there can be a proper code. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 89) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Ampthill, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Laird, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lane of Horsell,L.

Biffen, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Bowness, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Burnham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Naseby, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Noakes,B.[Teller]

Coe,L.

Northbrook, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton of Louth.L.

Craigavon, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Crathorne, L.

Onslow, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Palmer, L.

Denham,L.

Parkinson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Plumb, L.

Fookes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Fowler, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Freeman, L.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rogan, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Glentoran, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Goschen, V.

Seccombe, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Selsdon, L.

Hanham, B.

Sharples, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Higgins, L.

Strathclyde, L.

681

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Wilcox,B.[Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ahmed, L.

Jordan, L.

Alli,L.

Judd, L.

Andrews, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Bach, L.

Layard, L.

Barnett, L.

Lea of Crondall,L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lipsey, L.

Berkeley, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Billingham, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bradshaw, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Brett, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Brookman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Carter, L.

McNally, L.

Christopher, L.

Maddock, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Colville of Culross,V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Craig of Radley.L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Parekh,L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Pendry, L.

Desai, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Pitkeathley,B.

Dixon, L.

Prashar, B.

Donoughue, L.

Radice, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Redesdale, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield.L.

Rooker, L.

Gale,B.

Roper. L.

Gilbert, L.

Russell, E.

Golding, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Sawyer, L.

Goodhart, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sharp of Guildford.B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Greengross, B.

Simon, V.

Grenfell.L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee. B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hardy of Wath.L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Haskel, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walmsley, B.

Howe of Idlicote,B.

Walpole, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Hoyle, L.

Weatherill,L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitty, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Irvine of Lairg,L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

682

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Williamson of Horton, L

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.25 p.m.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17,1ine 20, leave out "the Director of Public Prosecutions" and insert "a relevant prosecutor"
The noble and learned Lord said: I move the amendment formally, as I have already spoken to it.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Goldsmith: I apologise. I thought that I had spoken to the amendment under a previous group. The effect of the amendment is to make conditional cautions available to official prosecutors in addition to the CPS. The change was prompted by the view expressed by the Whitehall Prosecutors Group—I am sure that I have said this before—on which a range of prosecuting authorities are represented. There might be cases of theirs in which the form of disposal would be suitable. Some of them use simple cautions at present, and the amendment will enable them to accompany a caution with a condition that reparation should be made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 92 to 94 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 18, line 4, at end insert—
""relevant prosecutor" means—

(a) the Director of the Serious Fraud Office,

(b) the Director of Public Prosecutions,

(c) a Secretary of State,

(d) the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,

(e) the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, or

(f) a person who is specified in an order made by the Secretary of State as being a relevant prosecutor for the purposes of this Part."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Charging or release of persons in police detention]:
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 179, line 23, after "bail" insert "for a period of not longer than 28 days"
The noble Lord said: The purpose of our amendment is to look at the PACE Act 1984 on matters of charging or release of persons in police detention. We would be happy to see a time limit included in the primary legislation. The amendment

683
would limit the pre-charge period from dragging on unnecessarily and thereby occasioning an appeal to the court, and ensure a right of appeal well established and recognised.
The CPS will of course progress the case as fast as possible. However, we have concerns about the unlimited bail periods. Set deadlines go some way to ensure that matters are reviewed and less likely to drag on unnecessarily. The alternative may be a high number of appeals against pre-charge bail with attendant cost implications. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I shall speak to two amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. They also concern adjustments in the Bill made to Section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
The amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, concern the duties of custody officers before charge. Our amendment is concerned with Section 47 of PACE—Bail After Arrest. Amendment No. 99 would ensure that if a custody officer imposes bail conditions on a person, the person must be charged before 30 days have passed or the bail conditions lapse. If the person is charged, the case will be passed to the court, which could impose fresh terms. The amendment would limit the power that a custody officer may have over people's freedom. It is undesirable for a person or a body other than a court to be able curtail a person's freedom over a lengthy period of time.
The other amendment in this group, Amendment No. 100, seeks the addition of a constable to the list of persons who are granted the right to apply to a magistrates' court to vary the conditions of bail. It is a straightforward amendment. Just as the terms of bail may seem unfair or impracticable to a defendant or suspect, they might prove unsatisfactory also from the point of view of the police. The right to apply for the conditions of bail to be varied is a necessity for the defendant, because a change in circumstances could make the conditions unfair or inapplicable. We seek to probe the Government as to why the police should not have those same rights.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: Amendment No. 96, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is important, because it seems to be designed to prevent a person falling into a kind of limbo state, where they are not charged, but they are also on bail. I do not know whether 28 days is the right number, but the principle is important.
Lord Goldsmith: Two of the amendments are mine and I should identify them. They are Amendments Nos. 97 and 98. In moving them, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 96, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, which stand in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 99 would place a limit on the duration of any conditions on bail and the time for which a suspect could be bailed. The Home Affairs
684
Select Committee recommended that there should be a limit on the duration of pre-charge police bail in cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on whether to charge. In their response, the Government undertook to consider the Select Committee's recommendation, indicating that at that stage the charging pilots. which were looking at that new form of co-operation between the police and the CPS, were suggesting that in most cases a five-week period should be sufficient to enable charges to be brought.
However, we have now been able to take account of the final evaluation report, which was an independent report, of the charging pilots. That recommended that no statutory limit should be applied. The Government have considered that carefully and have concluded that it would not be appropriate to place a statutory restriction on the duration of police bail, or on conditions attached to it. No such condition is attached to police bail in statute at present. I am not persuaded that there are compelling reasons to include one in the Bill.
That does not mean that the period for which suspects would be bailed, whether on conditions or not, should be unreasonably long, but the appropriate place to make that clear is in the guidance and instructions which will be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and by ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, rather than in the Bill.
I emphasise that it would be open to a suspect to apply to a magistrates' court for conditional bail to be varied or to be discharged. Legal aid will be made available for that purpose. If, at any stage, it appears that the length of time is becoming excessive, it is open to a person to go a magistrates' court and ask either for the conditions to be varied or to be discharged. During that period, the person will be on bail rather than in custody.
Amendment No. 100 would enable a constable, as well as the suspect, to apply to magistrates' courts to have pre-charge bail conditions varied. That seems to be superfluous as the custody officer may vary the conditions himself.
I hesitate to say that government Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 are merely drafting amendments. On this occasion, I hope that I will not be contradicted, but I wait to see.
Lord Elton: In my experience, it is always safest to say that something is technical or complicated late at night. The noble and learned Lord might like to remember that.
The amendment of my noble friend, Amendment No. 100, and the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, raise a question that I have had at the back of my mind for some time. If the conditions are in place for a long time, their variation can be an important part of the management and possible rehabilitation—if that is the right word—of the admitted offender.
I understand from what the Minister said that the custody officer will be able to apply for a variation, as will the person subject to the order, but surely the

685
person best placed to judge how a variation could improve the prospects of non-reoffending would be the person in charge of monitoring—to use the term in the Bill—the operation of the conditions. Is it intended to use the variation of conditions in that way? If so, would it not be best to give a power to go to the court to the person carrying out the monitoring?
Lord Goldsmith: It may be my fault for not having made it clearer that we have moved on from conditional cautioning to a different set of provisions in the Bill, which address charging in instances where the prosecution will make the decision to charge. This amendment is concerned with the question of bail and conditions for bail for potential offenders or suspects while the decision whether to charge is being made.
Lord Elton: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord and to the Committee. I was out of the Chamber for a couple of minutes for a telephone call that lasted longer than I expected. I had not noticed the change.
Lord Dholakia: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 182, line 16, leave out "37D(6) above" and insert "37D(5)"
Page 182, line 30, after "37(7)(a)" insert "above"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 2, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Would it be possible, if not today then a little later, to take account of the point raised by the General Council of the Bar in relation to Schedule 2 and to this particular provision which gives to the police a new power to attach bail conditions before charge? The council's point was that the mere fact that a suspect has been brought to the police station does not mean that he or she has committed any offence. The council then points out that the custody officer is required to determine whether he has before him sufficient evidence to charge that person. Routinely, so it is said, the suspect is charged where there is a minimum of evidence. It is thereafter pointed out that where the custody officer takes the view that there is not enough evidence to justify a charge, it can generally be inferred that there is at the time little or no substance in police suspicions.
The police have adequate power to release a suspect on bail to return to the police station on a specified date. Accordingly, it seems to me, although I have not reached a conclusion about it, that it would be an unfair extension of police power to be able to impose a condition on bail in those extreme circumstances. I am afraid that I have not put down an amendment to
686
enable the matter to be debated, but the Minister may be able to say something about it now or, alternatively, later.
Lord Goldsmith: I can certainly say this and I hope that it will help. The provisions in Schedule 2 deal in part with the new procedure under which the police will not charge an offender, even though they may believe that there is sufficient evidence to do so, but may instead release that person without charge on bail for the purpose of enabling the Director of Public Prosecutions to make a decision. One sees that on page 179, Schedule 2, paragraph 2, amending Section 37 of PACE. It is fundamental to the change, which has not attracted much by way of amendments because it has been supported by all political parties and the police and professional bodies too. In many cases—I will not go into which cases—it also gives the prosecution the new responsibilities for determining whether a charge should be brought.
In those circumstances, instead of the custody officer then and there saying, "You're charged with this offence", he will say, "There appears to me to be evidence, but in accordance with the new provision it ought now to go to the Crown Prosecution Service". What should happen during that period? The person should be on bail rather than in custody—he would have to be charged to be in custody—but it is appropriate for conditions to be imposed. It is necessary to make the new provision for having pre-charged bail in order to be able to cater for that example.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [New method of instituting proceedings]:
[Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Initial duty of disclosure by prosecutor]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 105:
Page 20, line 17, at end insert—
"(c) at the end there is inserted "where a prosecutor is not sure if an item falls within the regime of documents to be disclosed, they should be disclosed"."
The noble Baroness said: We now begin our debates on the important issue of disclosure. As we have made clear already, there is much that we can support in Part 5, but there is also much that we need to probe and clarify. We will oppose some issues, such as the proposal for the defence to disclose the details of experts whom they have consulted but do not intend to call as witnesses.
Clause 31 is just about the only non-controversial part of Part 5. It amends Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and introduces a single objective test for the disclosure of unused prosecution material to the defence. We welcome this reduction of the existing two-stage process of prosecution disclosure to just one stage and we

687
welcome the change of the test from subjective to objective. It means that the test of, as currently worded,
"in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine".
becomes,
"might reasonably be considered capable of undermining".
We have tabled this probing amendment in response to a briefing from the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association. It simply asks the Government to put on the record that it is only in clear-cut cases that information should not be disclosed by the prosecution. Failure by the prosecution in the past to disclose information has sometimes been a major factor in overturning convictions—and, as Auld points out in his report, this is often after the person has spent many years in prison.
It is therefore essential that the right decision is made by the prosecution and if there is any doubt the prosecution should disclose. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I understand the motivation behind the amendment. It is designed to ensure that the legislation is weighted in favour of prosecution disclosure rather than non-disclosure. I agree that it should be, but the amendment is not necessary for three reasons. First, the wording of the Bill already achieves this effect, although it is implicit in the legislation rather than explicit. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, as amended by this Bill, requires material to be disclosed if it might—I underline the word "might"—reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the defence case.
We see those words in Clause 31, paragraph (a). The word "might" in this context already tips the balance in favour of disclosure where there is any doubt in a particular instance.
The second reason is that there is an explicit steer on the subject in detailed guidance that is issued to prosecutors. The present guidance is in the Attorney-General's guidelines of November 2000, which cover this point explicitly. Paragraph 20 provides:
"In deciding what material should be disclosed at any stage of the proceedings, prosecutors should resolve any doubt they may have in favour of disclosure unless the material is on the sensitive schedule and will be placed before the court for the issue of disclosure to be determined".
I need not now deal with the issue of sensitive material, which obviously falls into a different category.
Thirdly, one of the changes made by the Bill is to remove the subjective test from the disclosure procedure. Again, that appears from Clause 31 because the old formulation,
"in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine"
is substituted by the objective test,
"might reasonably be considered capable of undermining".
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, would restore a subjective element. We have been trying to get rid of the subjective element and to stick to an objective test that does not depend on which person is applying it.
688
While not disagreeing with the thrust of what lies behind the amendment, for the reasons I have given we do not consider it necessary. Accordingly, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. As he said, the assurance is not explicit within the Bill, only implicit. His response today has made the Government's assurances explicit and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Defence disclosure]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 106:
Page 20, line 31, at end insert "but the exchange of such a defence statement between the co-accused and its service by each accused on the prosecution shall be simultaneous"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 106, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110 and 111. Amendment No. 109 appears on the groupings list in error. It was withdrawn last week and is so marked on the Marshalled List.
There is also an error in the placement of Amendment No. 111. In the Marshalled List, it is placed at page 21, line 38. That is a printing error because it should be at page 21, line 42.
We now move to the issue of defence disclosure. Disagreements over this clause are rooted in concerns about how the Government appear to be tampering with the principle of what the defence should be allowed to do to resist the prosecution. It reflects debates on the relative and different duties of the prosecution and defence.
In the debates on this matter in another place, (col. 223 on 9th January) my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve made it clear that we accept the principle of disclosure of the principal defence facts. After all, it was introduced in legislation under the previous Conservative government. Even in an adversarial system such as ours, a criminal trial should not be a series of ambushes. It is therefore plainly desirable that, as far as is possible and reasonable, the principal facts and matters of a defendant's case should be made available to the prosecution before the trial.
As has been pointed out by many organisations which have briefed noble Lords, such as the Bar Council, Justice and the Law Society, the defence will usually have far fewer resources at its disposal than the prosecution to provide extensive information and to provide it speedily.
Amendment No. 106 would provide for the simultaneous exchange by defendants of their respective statements with each other and their service on the prosecution. We appreciate of course that there may be times when this will not be possible; for example, when the defendant is arrested late. However this does not deny the fact that it would be far better to exchange all statements simultaneously. If this is not

689
achieved, then the last defendant to join proceedings would have a distinct advantage over the others, which may not lead to a fair trial.
Amendment No. 111 develops this theme by taking the same line with regard to the simultaneous nature of exchange in circumstances where there has been an updated defence statement. Again we accept that this could create problems. Additional statements may be served for different reasons by different defendants at different times. Amendment No. 106 serves to remind us of the core principle of the fairness of the mutual exchange of statements. It is with the intent of putting on record the importance of that principle that we have put down these two probing amendments.
On Amendment No. 110, I note that the Bar Council and the Law Society have the view that with regard to Clause 32(2):
"Contents of defence statement gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe in regulations further details to be required in defence statements. This is too constitutionally sensitive and important to the balance of a fair trial and should require primary legislation."
That is their view. I have tabled the amendment, in part, so that the Government can put on the record why they believe it is appropriate for secondary legislation. I have also tabled it for my own purposes. I wish to clarify a situation that arose as a result of how this was dealt with in another place. I have given advance notice of this particular point to the noble and learned Lord's Bill team.
This matter was debated in another place on 9th January (Hansard, col. 240). It was an amendment put forward by my honourable friend, Dominic Grieve. The quick response from the Government was to say, "We accept it. It shall be an affirmative resolution." When the Bill appeared in draft after Committee, it reflected that by putting a new subsection (5) which referred to an affirmative resolution. As I understand it, the Government then brought forward a further amendment at Report to delete the new subsection (5). They tabled an additional amendment to insert a provision on page 302, line 22, to amend Section 77 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.
This is a hugely complicated procedure. When we looked at the Bill, it seemed at first blush as though the Government had reneged on their commitment in another place. We knew that was not the case. It would not have happened. But nobody could find where this amendment was. It was only when we spoke to the advisers of the noble and learned Lord that we were told what had happened. We believe it is important for clarity for those who have to deal with this Bill when it becomes an Act that the commitment of the Government is made clear. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm his understanding that the life history of Amendment No. 110 is as I have described it. I beg to move Amendment No. 106.
Lord Goldsmith: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 106, 110 and 111. Amendments Nos. 106 and 111 relate to procedure for the cross-service of initial and
690
updated defence statements respectively. Clause 32(1) seeks to fill a gap in the disclosure procedure drawn to the Government's attention by the Criminal Bar Association, namely, whether it was possible for the court to order the cross-service of defence statements. Since this Bill was introduced, on 22nd November 2002 the Court of Appeal, in the case of Regina v Cairns and Others, held that the court could indeed order cross-service. This clause still provides useful statutory backing to the Court of Appeal's decision. There is no objection in principle to cross-service. We are dealing here solely with the procedure to be followed. As the amendments are drafted, they would require the service of the co-defendants' statements on the prosecutor and their cross-service all to take place simultaneously. I do not think this is practical or, in many cases, desirable.
Subsections (1) and (3) of the clause make it clear that the power to order cross-service of initial and updated defence statements to co-accused is one for the discretion of the judge, either of his own motion or on application by any party. Subsection (1)(5D) also deals with the time when the statement should be served.
In the exercise of its discretion, the court would need to determine whether the defence statement in a case should be submitted simultaneously or whether there should be some different order as to time. If no statement were served until it had been proved to the satisfaction of all the defence teams that service would be simultaneous, that could delay and complicate the trial. For example, the illness of a single defendant could delay disclosure. Moreover, a delay in the prosecution's receipt of the initial defence statement would delay further prosecution disclosure to the disadvantage of defendants. That would not be acceptable. I understand the motivation underlying the amendments, as debated in Committee in another place, that one co-accused should not be able to derive an advantage from delaying his own statement until he has seen the line to be taken by the other defendants at the trial. However, we can safely rely upon the discretion of the judge in ordering cross-service to take account of this consideration.
Amendment No. 110 seeks to remove the power which subsection (4) of the new Section 6A of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 confers on the Secretary of State to make regulations on the details of matters to be included in the defence statement. Clause 32 as a whole addresses well-founded concerns which have been expressed and confirmed by research, as to the inadequacy of many defence statements. The changes it makes to the defence statement procedure are intended to remedy a problem of non-compliance which arises to some extent out of the fact that the present defence statement requirements are too vague. We hope that the changes introduced by new Section 6A will have the desired effect in improving the quality of defence statements. But the regulation-making power will enable further more specific and detailed guidance on their contents to be issued if it proves necessary. It will enable us to respond more quickly and flexibly to any

691
need for further guidance which may arise than is possible with primary legislation. The regulation-making power enables the Secretary of State to add detail to—or vary the detail of—matters which are to be included in defence statements. Those matters are identified in the primary legislation.
I turn now to the question that the noble Baroness put to me about the provisions of a form of resolution. The amendment on Report in another place was a technical one. It put the provision in the correct place in the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996. It was moved from the new Section 6A to Section 77 of the CPIA which deals with parliamentary procedures for all secondary legislation under the CPIA. I can confirm that it is still the affirmative procedure and does satisfy the undertaking which was given in Committee, as the noble Baroness knew it would. I hope for those reasons it is clear why I cannot accept these amendments.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. He confirmed that the life history of Amendment No. 110 as I described it was accurate. We can all rest assured. With regard to Amendments Nos. 106 and 111, I appreciate that there are practical difficulties. Like the noble and learned Lord, I am prepared to leave it to the judge to resolve those matters of cross-service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 109A to 111 not moved.]
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: Clause 32 links with Clause 33—the next item that we shall come to—and I have company in my attempt to persuade the Committee that Clause 33 should not stand part of the Bill. I base my approach to this matter essentially on what is in the memorandum filed in the Library of the House by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice following the debate on the legislation. The relevant part reads as follows:
"We understand the motivation behind the provisions in the [Criminal Justice Bill]. It is to redress what is perceived as an imbalance between the obligations of the defence and the prosecution. But the judiciary are concerned that the balance is being pushed too far the other way—for example, the notification requirements on the defence will be more rigorous than those on the prosecution. Sanctions are included in relation to non-compliance with the defence obligations without any equivalent sanctions being referred to in relation to the prosecution. These distinctions are likely to interfere with the spirit of co-operation which is required to exist between the prosecution and the defence when conducting this important part of the pre-trial process".
692
It then goes on to deal with the issue of experts, but that is the subject matter of the next clause. Basically, those are my reasons for lumping together Clause 32 and Clause 33, which we have not yet reached.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in expressing concern about this requirement on disclosure for the defence. In principle, the defence should disclose the areas of evidence which it will contest. The argument for introducing those changes, which took place some years ago, was to prevent an ambush of the prosecution by providing a defence which the prosecution could not then investigate in any way.
The new defence statement works very effectively in laying out the parameters of the defence. Because the present arrangements have worked rather well, I want to understand fully what is being sought here and what the Government feel is not happening. I am concerned that, by now expecting far more detail than ever before, the police will be burdened with an incredible bureaucracy. They will be expected to pursue witnesses and to investigate whether the detail given by the defence will be useful to the Crown.
We are seeing, first, an erosion of the presumption of innocence and, secondly, an erosion of the burden of proof, which rests with the Crown. That is quite an alarming change. I believe that the defence should outline the position, but I express concern about this provision. I know that that concern is shared by my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, who, unfortunately, was unable to stay for the debate on this clause. Our concern arises following many years of experience in the criminal courts. The opposition to the Question whether Clause 32 shall stand part sits alongside opposition to Clause 33 because the two go together.
Why is there an expectation that more should be disclosed and passed to the Crown? As well as being contrary to the burden of proof, one introduces into the need for co-operation on both sides a concern that, by giving out information on witnesses whom it is intended to call but who ultimately might not be called, witness intimidation will occur. That was always a concern. The intimidation need not be direct; sometimes it may result from what the witnesses themselves feel.
We had the terrible experience in some major miscarriages of justice of witnesses being seen by the police and then disappearing into the ether because they were frightened of being prosecuted themselves. I acted in the Guildford Four appeal. Carole Richardson was one of those convicted and she spent many years in prison. A witness could have shown that she was with him when the explosion took place—or certainly that she was with him within the parameter of time which could not have allowed for her participation. Yet that witness did not come forward. He had felt so threatened by the police that he did not make himself available and, of course, those acting for the Crown did not let anyone know that they had seen him.

693
Therefore, real concerns arise about this provision interfering with the system of justice. I believe there is concern among practitioners that not only does it provide scope for the intimidation of witnesses but, as the judiciary have indicated, that it is a balancing that goes too far. I should like the Minister, who I know does not have experience of practising in the criminal court, to explain why the provision is necessary. The dynamic of a trial is that it changes all the time. Sometimes one decides not to call witnesses and sometimes one decides that one does want to call witnesses. Why should a person be expected to make that disclosure beforehand? To what end is that intended?
Lord Renton: I was interested to hear the noble Baroness say that she was involved in the trial of the Guildford Four. It so happens that some years before that I was Recorder at Guildford for three years. I am very glad that she said what she did—in particular, as she stressed, that the burden of proof must remain upon the prosecution.
However, if the provisions of this clause and the two later ones come into force, I am afraid that the doubts that I have had for some time about the 1996 Act will be increased. In Clause 38, in particular—I know that it is slightly outside the scope of this matter but it is relevant—and in other clauses the burden of proof could appear to be moved on to the prosecution but on somewhat technical grounds. That is not part of our fundamental principle of justice in criminal actions.
Therefore, I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has performed a valuable service in opposing the Question whether Clause 32 stand part. I hope that I am not being outrageously irrelevant if I say that that is an example of our having to take great care about changes that may be made in the judicial composition of this House in future.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Like other noble Lords, I am deeply concerned about this provision. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has done a service by insisting that Clauses 32 and 33 should run together. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take this opportunity to think again about the proposal outlined here, as addressed by a number of noble Lords.
I have a lot of experience of criminal trials, although I gave up at the end of 1984. I learned that co-operation between the prosecution and defence is vital. I am worried that in their rush to deal with ambush defences, which the Government think are a real problem, although I do not, the Government are trying to prevent the House of Lords reaching a reasonable solution on this issue. Anything that impedes or impairs that degree of co-operation is likely to cause immeasurable harm in practice.
The prosecution trusted me—a great deal depends on trust—and I found that in discussions with the prosecution, whether it was represented, or with the police themselves, it was possible to reach a solution
694
that both sides found equitable. I cannot think of an occasion when the prosecution, or for that matter, the defence, were unreasonable if they were properly represented.
I find it impossible to accept that the balance to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred should be pushed quite as far as it is being pushed at the moment. My view is that the balance is about right. I am not against any change whatever, but it is important to preserve some balance. What my noble and learned friend has in mind is unacceptable. It is being said that the prosecution is disadvantaged by the present law, but it is not.
As I said, a great deal depends on trust. If a dishonest solicitor appears for the defence, that trust will be affected. Equally, a prosecution that is sanguine about revealing essential issues affecting prosecution witnesses would also be unacceptable.
However, in practice it does not work like that. I ask my noble and learned friend to think again about this issue. I hope that it will not be pressed to a Division tonight, but I cannot promise not to return to it later in our considerations.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to those who have spoken and, of course, I respect their views.
I shall spend a few moments on Clause 32, which is the clause that we are considering, although the debate has, understandably, ranged more widely. There are three different provisions. First, Clause 32 deals with the contents of a defence statement and updated defence statements. I shall say more about that in a moment, but it gives more detail to existing obligations under the 1996 Act, which noble Lords on the Conservative Benches will certainly wish to support, as it follows on legislation for which they were responsible.
Secondly, on the point to which my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred, Clause 33 deals with the notification of intention to call defence witnesses. It gives rise to an issue that has been touched on in another place, and it will be necessary to say something about it—specifically on the question raised by my noble friend about whether it might result in witnesses being somehow intimidated.
Thirdly, we shall come separately to Clause 34 on the notification of names of experts instructed by the defendant.
As it applies to all those clauses, I shall start with what the Lord Chief Justice said in his important statement that was placed in the House following Second Reading. He, and the judges for whom he spoke, as I understand it, say:
"Problems in relation to disclosure have been a significant impediment to proper conduct at trials. The problems have related both to the prosecution and to the defence and have resulted in acquittals, cracked trials and prolonged arguments as to abuse of process".
I noted that my noble friend Lady Kennedy talked about the present situation working effectively, but that is by no means a universal view. On the contrary,

695
let me identify what others have said. Independent research commissioned by the Home Office concluded that in 52 per cent of cases with a defence statement, it either contained a bare denial of guilt or did not meet the requirements of the existing provision.
The report said that most judges, barristers, CPS respondents and defence solicitors agreed that defence statements had not narrowed the issues at trial. While the point has been made that such statements are intended to avoid ambush defences, there is an important reason apart from that, which is sensibly to narrow the statement to know what is and what is not an issue. If everything is an issue, so be it. But if everything is not an issue, let that be identified at an earlier stage so that the court can sensibly manage the case.
When I have asked the question, the view almost to a man—or to a woman, I should say—has been that the present system of defence statements is on the whole not working.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asks me to think again. I assure him that it is a matter about which I have thought long and hard, as have other members of the Government. I shall then speak about the structure.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble and learned friend does so, he says that everybody who has been consulted agrees with the Government. I am afraid that that is not right. The Law Society, the Bar Council, Justice, and a host of others do not agree with the Government. What does the Minister have to say about that?
Lord Goldsmith: I said that everyone to whom I have spoken agrees that the present system of defence disclosure is not working effectively, despite what my noble friend Lady Kennedy says.
Defence disclosure has two functions. It is a trial management tool. It also presently informs the duty of continuing disclosure, which rests on the prosecution. The research has demonstrated that the system is not working.
Lord Justice Auld's comments are worth reciting because of their importance and the distinguished position that he holds, together with his great experience. Lord Justice Auld states:
"I do not see it as an attack on the prosecution's obligation to prove its case and the defendant's right of silence that he should be required to identify the allegations or facts that he intends to put in issue. It does not require him to set out his defence other than by reference to what he disputes. If he intends to put the prosecution to proof of everything, he is entitled to do so. But if his intention is, or may be, to take issue only on certain matters, the sooner he tells the court and prosecutor the better, so that both sides know the battleground and its extent".
It was the distinguished Runciman Royal Commission, from which the 1996 provisions come, that considered that defence disclosure was justifiable and legitimate.
We are seeking to tighten up the sanctions for inadequate defence disclosure in a relatively modest way. These things can be done if a defence disclosure
696
is inadequate. First, the judge has the power to warn the accused of the possible consequences of an inadequate defence disclosure. Secondly, the judge has the power to direct that the defence statement be given to the jury. Thirdly, the prosecution and other parties will be allowed to comment on defence disclosure failures, without the leave of the court in many cases. There is nothing there to prevent a defendant calling evidence, even if he has not given notice of it. Nor is there anything about denying the defendant the ability to raise a defence even though he has given no notice of it.
I note what is said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. With respect, however, I differ on this occasion from the proposition that the obligations on the defence are more arduous than those on the prosecution or that the sanctions are more serious. This is a very important point, so I will make it well. The obligation on the prosecution is not only to give the names of its witnesses, but to serve every witness statement on which it intends to rely and every document it intends to put before the court.
More than that, the prosecution is obliged to provide to the defence all the material in its possession that may be of assistance to the defence or undermine the prosecution even though the prosecution does not intend to rely on it. With respect, I must say that that is a far more onerous obligation than that on the defence to give details of the defence but not the witness proofs, and to identify witnesses it may intend to call.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I hesitate to interrupt my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, but it is very important that we do not swallow this idea of the level playing field, without recognising that there can never be a level playing field between the defence and Crown, because of the huge resources available to the state. The state has at its disposal the police, who can investigate and trace witnesses and have huge resources. Such a resource can never be balanced with that of the defence. That is why one takes account of that in the level of the disclosure expected of each side. That is why there is such difference.
We must also take account of the fact that the burden is on the state because it is able to punish at the end of the day. To talk about levelling the playing field is not reflecting the reality of the arms on either side.
Lord Goldsmith: I do not recall using the expression "levelling the playing field". I have not suggested that the defence obligation should be the same as prosecution obligations at all. I was making it clear that the sanction proposed—being able to invite the jury ultimately to draw an inference from a change of case—is modest. I challenge the proposition that the obligations placed on the defence are more onerous than those on the prosecution. They are plainly not.
What are the sanctions that may be imposed on the prosecution if it fails to give disclosure? I deal with this, despite what the noble Baroness said about my

697
experience, every day of the week. Prosecutions are constantly in difficulties because a disclosure has not been made which, it is alleged, ought to have been made and an application is made for the trial judge to stop that case. Cases are being stopped completely. People are being acquitted because of a failure by the prosecution to give disclosure. Evidence is excluded on the grounds that there has not been proper disclosure by the prosecution and that therefore it should not be admitted. A strong sanction is placed on the prosecution; a much stronger sanction than that of inference.
Many people outside Parliament would say that it is common sense to draw an inference in appropriate cases that a person's defence is not to be believed because they first said one thing and then said something else. It is one of the tools by which we in everyday life judge the veracity of a person. If they first say that there was an accident and then they say, "I didn't do it at all", many would say that we ought to be able to take that into account. At the moment, judges would allow that to happen. I do not want to go further than is appropriate to deal with a particular clause.
Lord Ackner: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for allowing me to intervene. He criticised what is to be found in a memorandum deposited by the Lord Chief Justice, which is unfair. I stopped reading at paragraph 9 to avoid being told that I was extending my attempts to stop Clause 2 standing part of the Bill by going to other clauses. The memorandum points out that the balance is being pushed too far the other way with regard to Clauses 31 to 38. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General did not read this part out. I did not read it either, but if he is going to criticise the statement deposited we should bear it in mind. The paragraph entitled "Experts" states:
"The defence is required, not only to identify an expert who is to be called as a witness, but also an expert who has only been instructed. It is not clear what legitimate use can be made of the information about 'unused' experts that the defence is under an obligation to supply. This procedure must not be used as a backdoor way of obtaining privileged information. If the aim is to eliminate 'duff' experts, a much better way forward would be to pursue the accreditation proposals that have been put forward with the support of Judge Thorpe".
The report continues:
"Again, this is an example of unequal treatment. If the prosecution go to four experts and only choose to call one they are not required to give that information to the defence, whereas the defence are required to provide such information. The question arises as to what use is to be made of the names of experts instructed by the defendants. Is it intended that they should be interviewed by the police? If so, this could be highly undesirable because, in order to instruct an expert, it is often the case that privileged information has to be given to the expert. Are questions to be asked at the hearing by the prosecution about experts instructed by the defence who are not called? If so, should not the defence be in a position to ask similar questions about the
698
prosecution's experts. The explanatory notes are silent as to the purpose of requiring a defendant to make disclosure as to experts instructed".
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before the Attorney-General responds to that, perhaps it may be helpful to the Committee if I make clear that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, appears to have taken us forward into Clause 34 and to a further grouping of amendments that I have tabled, in which Amendment No. 133, in particular, is intended to address those issues. I shall save my remarks until we reach that point.
Lord Goldsmith: As I said earlier, I was trying to avoid drifting into other clauses, while understanding why noble Lords were referring to them generally to make their points. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, I was of course not criticising the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice or his statement. I was respectfully taking issue with the proposition that the obligations on the defence are more onerous than those on the prosecution—I respectfully submit that they plainly are not—and with the proposition that sanctions are included for non-compliance with defence obligations without any equivalent sanctions being referred to for the prosecution. I was saying that the sanctions by which the court can exclude evidence or stop a prosecution altogether and call for a defendant to be acquitted seem to me, with respect, to be powerful—and more powerful than those that we intend to allow a judge to impose, or to be imposed, for non-disclosure here.
Even in relation to the point about experts—although I do not want to trespass too far—with respect, the statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice suggests that the prosecution would be able to conceal the fact—of course, he does not use that language—that it has shopped around among experts. I respectfully beg to differ. If the prosecution has been to other experts and decides not to call them, it is highly likely that it will have to disclose not just the names of the experts but their reports as unused material, because they are likely to undermine the prosecution or assist the defence case. So, with respect, I do not accept that point.
I return to the fundamental point. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis talked about the need for a spirit of co-operation between the prosecution and defence. I agree. In paragraph 9, the Lord Chief Justice's statement ends by referring to the need for a spirit of co-operation between prosecution and defence. I respectfully agree.
Clause 32, with which we are concerned, imposes modest but important requirements on the defence to indicate the matters referred to. The sanctions to enforce that are modest; they are intended to make something work that has not worked since 1996. The Government's view is that the clause should be supported.
Lord Ackner: At this stage, I do not propose to divide the Committee, but I shall return to the matter

699
on Report, unless we obtain some satisfactory resolution as a result of the debate on the objection to the next clause and the one thereafter standing part.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: In moving that the House be now resumed, may I suggest that the Committee begin again not before twenty-six minutes before nine.
House resumed.

European Union: Information
7. 34 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government how much money (a) they and (b) the European Union spend each year in the United Kingdom on information about the European Union, and how these sums of money are split between (i) schools, (ii) universities and other further education establishments, and (iii) elsewhere.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, many people have been concerned about the intrusion into schools, universities, public libraries and the media of what can only be described as one-sided propaganda by the European Union to promote political integration, rather than to provide balanced and factual information about the European Union. The Bruges Group, of which I am an associate member, has conducted research into the matter and has produced a pretty comprehensive brief, which the Minister has seen, showing the extent to which the European Union propaganda machine has penetrated our schools, universities and other institutions. We should be grateful to it for having produced such in-depth research from its own resources.
Let me be clear. There can be no objection to the European Union or the Government providing impartial and unbiased information. What is objectionable—indeed, in some aspects, illegal—is that taxpayers' money should be used to promote European integration, which is a highly sensitive and contentious issue that divides people throughout the European Union, not simply in Britain. It is also objectionable that it should be used to promote one side of the argument about British membership of the euro.
It is little wonder that so many people are worried and outraged by the European Union's use of taxpayers' money to promote European integration, while the same time denigrating, insulting and subverting the nations of Europe and, in the case of the United Kingdom, promoting the abandonment of sterling. The European Union propaganda budget—which is large, about 105 million euros—is used to fund all sorts of organisations: youth organisations, women's groups, youth parliaments, Europe Day, television programmes, press contacts, campaigning in candidate countries for a yes vote—you name it, they do it.
One area of greatest concern is EU propaganda in the classroom, where both European integration and the euro are being promoted. Indeed, it is Commission
700
policy to influence young minds. A paper endorsed by DG 22 welcomed the opportunity to implant the idea of European citizenship by placing the euro in its historic perspective and supports the use of teachers to inform children, so that they can be used as go-betweens to influence older generations to embrace the European ideal and, of course, the European currency.
To achieve its aims, the Commission has produced teaching aids and modules that are completely one-sided and made no attempt to achieve balance. One booklet, entitled Let's Draw Europe Together, designed for older primary school pupils, contains an opening section entitled, "My Country: Europe", implanting the idea in young minds that they are not British but European. The Government protest that they are in favour of a Europe of nation states—not a European superstate—yet, our children are being taught the reverse by the European Union and encouraged to turn their backs on Britain.
There is also the notorious European Union cartoon publication aimed at children called The Raspberry Ice Cream War. That nasty piece of propaganda so outraged British public by its one-sided and inaccurate portrayal of the European Union that it had to be withdrawn after only a handful of copies had been circulated in the United Kingdom. Another example of the misuse of taxpayers' money by the European Union is contained in the video for teachers entitled, Inside Europe. That video concludes by stressing the need for British pupils to think more in terms of Europe and less as an island race. No mention is made in the video of the great achievements of this island race: in science, industry, commerce, religion. culture, democracy at home and spreading it abroad, diplomacy—not to mention Britain's role in saving Europe from the clutches of a motley assortment of vicious dictators.
Every attempt is made by the European Union propaganda machine to make British children ashamed of their history and heritage rather than to he proud of it. I feel sure that I do not have to remind the Minister of Sections 406 and 407 of the Education Act 1996, which make it illegal to promote political partisanship in the classroom. Section 406 states:
"The local authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid—
(b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school",
while Section 407 states that pupils shall be,
"offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".
I ask the Minister whether the Government will issue a circular to all school governing bodies and head teachers reminding them of their duty of political impartiality under Sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act, making it clear that they will take all necessary measures to see that the Act is complied with. Perhaps the Government will also inform the European Commission that some of its materials are complicit in breaking United Kingdom law in relation to political balance, and that it should withdraw any offending material.

701
I turn now to the universities, where the Commission is setting out to extend its influence, and the promotion of integration through so-called research and development projects and the establishment of university departments of EU integration. In this connection, the Jean Monnet project of establishing chairs devoted entirely to European integration is a major problem in itself. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has taken a close interest in this subject, will deal with it in some detail when he comes to speak.
However, a host of other research and scholarly organisations are assisted through EU funding and, indeed, by the United Kingdom Government through matching funds over which they have no real control, with the object of promoting the European project and integration, and creating networks to assist in this process. Again, the research, all paid for with taxpayers' money, is often one-sided, although it is represented as being impartial. This ploy has certainly been used in relation to the highly political issue of scrapping the pound in favour of the euro when articles by academics in receipt of EU funding have been represented as coming from impartial sources.
In a short speech it is impossible to list all the examples of that dubious practice, but I intend to place a copy of the Bruges Group research paper in the Libraries of the House of Lords and the House of Commons so that information is made available to all Members of both Houses and their researchers. For those who do not have access to either of the Libraries, the Bruges Group website is www.brugesgroup.com.
The tentacles of the Commission do not stop at schools and universities. They embrace public libraries, the press and the sound and vision media, especially the BBC. A one-sided Goebbelsesque picture is therefore being presented to British society and I ask the Government to take some remedial action. For example, they could require the European Commission to adopt guidelines similar to those of the United Kingdom, to include a commitment to impartiality and objectivity, and to prevent taxpayers' money being used to promote only one side of politically contentious issues.
In the United Kingdom, consideration should also be given to the appointment of a watchdog to monitor the European Commission's propaganda activities. In any event, the Commission should be told that its methods are unacceptable in any democratic society.
It has been a privilege to ask this Question in the House this evening and I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords. I shall listen with particular interest to the reply of the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. In conclusion, I thank all those who have taken the trouble to take part in this debate for their effort, kindness and consideration.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for asking this hugely important Unstarred Question, which he
702
introduced in his usual lucid and forceful style. Like him, some of my briefing comes from the Bruges Group which, as the noble Lord has said, is available for noble Lords to read. Also like the noble Lord. I suppose that I should declare some sort of interest in that I am one of the Bruges Group's patrons and occasionally one of its sponsors.
The general picture is very disturbing. There appears to be a wide, complex and well-funded network of EU propaganda at work in the education systems of all EU countries, and this country is no exception. I am aware of course that some noble Lords, and perhaps even the Minister herself, may take exception to my use of the word "propaganda"—which was also used by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—but I fear, as we start examining what is going on, that the word may come to be seen as justified.
Because the subject is so wide, perhaps I may concentrate my few remarks on the Jean Monnet project, which is perhaps the principal mechanism for teaching "European integration issues" in our universities. I should remind your Lordships that I speak as one who spent 10 years on a voluntary basis in the British higher education system, from 1983 to 1992, when I represented commerce on the Council for National Academic Awards. The CNAA, as noble Lords may recall, was the validating and degree-awarding body for what was then the polytechnic sector; it held the Royal Charter for all the polytechnics and was abolished in 1992 when the polytechnics were miraculously and, in my view unwisely, metamorphosed into universities.
I was the honorary treasurer of the CNAA for five years between 1987 to 1992, and this experience gave me an unusual insight into the funding of higher education in general and into the attitudes of academics to such funding. I learnt, for instance, that students were known by senior academics as "units of resource". It took me quite some time to understand what that meant. I also learnt a good deal about academic freedom which, when properly pursued, is such a priceless asset in the culture of any free nation.
I learnt too that academic freedom carries with it the great responsibility to allow a genuine diversity of views to be expressed, especially at university level. Academic freedom does not grant a licence to push one-sided views or to present only one side of a political argument. Academic freedom can survive only in the absence of bias.
Another cherished feature of academic freedom when I was in the CNAA was that universities and polytechnics possessed the sole and unfettered right to appoint their professors and lecturers. The funding of the system was entirely separated from those appointments. I confess that I am a little out of touch with the university sector today, but I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that what I have said about academic freedom still applies today. If it does, the Jean Monnet programme appears to fail the test of academic freedom on both counts. The courses it funds appear to be largely, or even wholly, biased in

703
favour of the European project and all its works, and the Jean Monnet professors have to be approved by the European Commission. If they are not approved, they do not get appointed. So in effect the Commission has the power of appointment.
I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am relying on government Written Answers. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, answered a Written Question on 29th January 2001 from Lord Shore of Stepney in which she revealed that there were then 102 Jean Monnet Chairs in the United Kingdom: 87 Chairs and 15 Chairs Ad Personam. Also, there were 13 Jean Monnet European Centres of Excellence. The noble Baroness then listed the institutions concerned. She then stated:
"(i) Projects are financed by the European Commission for the first three years; they must be taught for at least seven years;
(ii) The Jean Monnet subsidy is given to the university (not to the professor); approval of choice of professor must be granted by the European Commission; should a professor leave the university, the Commission would need to approve the successor".
So it seems fairly clear that one of the central tenets of British academic freedom, if I have understood it correctly, is being breached by the Jean Monnet programme because the Commission appoints the professors or, through the power of veto, can whittle any number of professors down to the one it wants.
What about academic freedom? What about the lack of bias? Here again the reply of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is informative. In answer to the same Written Question she stated:
"(iv) The majority of Jean Monnet Chairs correspond to the setting up of new teaching activities. A Chair Ad Personam allows Universities to allocate chairs to professors and senior lecturers who already devote 100 per cent of their teaching time to European integration issues, and would not therefore meet the criteria of providing new teaching activities".—[Official Report, 29/1/01; col. WA 28.]
That seems clear enough, but what are "European integration issues"? Do the courses which teach European integration put both the case for European integration and the case against it? Or do they put only the case in favour? I hope that the Minister will tell us of some of these courses which really do encourage both sides of the argument, where open and vigorous debate takes place among students, lecturers and professors—along the lines perhaps of the recent debate in your Lordships' House on 27th June and several other occasions. In that case, I hope that the Minister will feel able to name the courses and institutions in question—but I am advised that they will be very much in the minority if, indeed, any exist at all.
Looking beyond these shores, there is no doubt that the Jean Monnet project is a substantial weapon in the EU's attempt to create a European demos, to persuade the peoples of Europe of the benefits of integration under Brussels. I understand that there are now at least 1,500 professors teaching the benefits of European integration to more than 250,000 students across Europe. So the financial investment must be very substantial if these figures are anywhere near accurate.
704
I have a feeling that this short debate may be the start of a much wider investigation. We can only scratch the surface tonight. For instance, I am told that colossal sums are spent on EU research budgets, mostly in academe, which may sound fair enough until one discerns that the underlying purpose of a substantial part of these funds is again to promote European integration—a kind of common European research policy. Some harrowing details of this aspect are to be found in the Bruges Group document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
In conclusion, I note that the Question asks what sums are being spent by the Government and the EU on "information about the EU", and of course we look forward with anticipation to the Minister's reply. The trouble is, as far as I can see, that all so-called "information" put out by the Government and the EU about the EU exclusively extols its virtues—which some of us find very hard to identify—and never puts the alternative view. That alternative view is, of course, that the United Kingdom would be very much better off outside the European Union altogether, a view which is clearly held by a large proportion of the British electorate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I ask the Minister where is the balance in all this, especially in our education system? How much does this propaganda cost? I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest. Until 2000 I was in receipt of an EU grant for research as an academic at the University of Sussex. I am also the co-author of what is probably one of the definitive texts on the science and technology policies of the European Union. The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about how much is spent on science and technology programmes is somewhere in the region of 2 billion a year, now spread between 26 countries because the aspirant countries are coming in as well. So it is quite widely spread and amounts to rather less than 0.1 per cent of the research budgets of most countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, cited the amount spent on information within the European Union as 105 million euros. That is about £70 million. I believe I am right in saying that Surrey County Council spends somewhere in the region of £5 million per year on promotions of one kind or another, ranging from talking about the rambles that take place in Surrey led by the countryside stewards to a great deal of information about various legislation, about schools, about youth groups and so on. If it is to do its job, any governmental organisation has to tell people what job it is doing.
The European Union now covers some 340 million people in 15 countries. Shortly there will he 25 countries in the European Union. It does a great deal. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, regret this but it funds a large number of

705
schemes in relation to small businesses, regional grants, local regeneration and so on, as well as trying to tell people what it does.
Is this information propaganda, information or advertising? Where is the line to be drawn? That is always a difficult question. Do we want our young people to know about the European Union at all? Is it a legitimate part of their history, current events, citizenship lessons? I would answer a big "yes". It should be a part of their history, of their learning about current affairs, of their learning about citizenship.
Let me illustrate this by recalling my experience at the University of Sussex, which I joined in 1981 as a lecturer/research fellow attached to the science policy research unit. The job I inherited included teaching science students about what was going on in Europe. In the mid-1970s, Sussex introduced a programme called "Science and European Studies" and made a considerable effort to ensure that it was not only science and French or science and German, but science and European studies. Besides studying the language, the students taking this course also had to learn about the cultural, economic and social contexts. The small part I taught them in this one-term course was about the European economy.
It was a challenging task. I had science students who had not taken history even at GCSE. In the 1980s I had to teach them about what was happening in relation to the Single European Act. Then we moved on to the 1990s.
I began with the Industrial Revolution and took the students through the two world wars, the great depression and the ups and downs of the 1950s. I talked to them about unemployment in the 1980s and why we had recessions. I talked to them about the single European Act. It was not focused on the European Union, but if one spoke about Europe in the post-war period one talked about the European Union. We talked about the Monnet project and his vision of building links between countries so that they did not go to war again and that the centuries of war were done away with. Bonds were made of cultural understanding and common economic and social desires so that one did not need to go to war again. We looked at the Soviet Union and the East and West divide. We had the exciting period of the early 1990s when the Soviet empire disintegrated.
As a teacher I found the material available to me from the Commission at that time extremely useful. There were maps which showed the countries that belonged and the enlargement of the European Union. There was material which provided information about the Single European Act and later what the Maastricht Treaty was about and the meaning of the single currency.
But these were supplemented. I hoped that in my own presentations I provided some balance. At the beginning of the 1990s I was strongly against the single European currency. I thought that it was a move too far and that Europe was not ready for it. I argued that case before my students. But they also had material
706
showing the other side and that was right. I believe any self-respecting professional does that. One know that one's task is to present both sides of the question.
At the end of the day I was very proud to present the European project in which we were trying to build a partnership between countries so that they would not go to war again. One of the greatest compliments I received was from a fourth-year student who returned from a year abroad and said to me, "At the time, while I found your lectures interesting, I never really understood why you taught us all that stuff. It was only when I spent my year abroad that I realised how useful it was. I could keep up with my contemporaries. I knew what they were talking about". We called it the ERASMUS programme in which we encouraged our students to spend a year away from their university studies. In our Science in Europe programme Sussex was almost a precursor to it. We had physics, chemistry and biology students studying a language along with science and spending a year abroad.
Likewise, we had very many students come to Sussex from other countries. That is now being extended within the concept of the Bologna programme with the idea of reincarnating the medieval scholar who could move from European university to university and get the best out of them. I very much enjoyed having foreign students come to my classes. They often provided a spark and a catalyst in talking about ideas. Someone from a different culture does provide a degree of broadening to what is being talked about. They very much enjoyed coming to Britain because they had contact with senior members of staff. The concept of the tutorial system is totally alien to most European universities, where there are huge numbers at lectures. Libraries are totally inadequate and our libraries were an absolute joy for these students from abroad.
There were relatively small classes. When I began at Sussex University we had classes of four or five students to talk to, which is far from the Oxbridge notion of two people at a tutorial. In 1981 it was typically four or five people. When I left it was usually in the region of 15 to 17 students to a class. Nevertheless, there is a degree of personal contact even at that level.
I shall never forget the French student from Nantes saying to me, "Madame le professeur, you know that in France they even give separate staircases to the lecturers so that they do not have to rub shoulders with the students". That was the joy of being able to meet and talk with me about the essay she had written—an opportunity that she never got in France. She enjoyed it so much.
We should not forget that one of the great spin-offs, which the science, engineering and medical people tell you time and again, is that when they come to Britain and train on British equipment they return home and buy the same equipment, which is very useful.
What about the reverse, with students going to European universities and whether they are brainwashed? I do not know about that. Regrettably, we do not have nearly as many students going to other

707
universities. There is an imbalance. We have more students coming this way than going to Europe because we do not have the linguistic skills. We should not be happy about that experience.
Having seen the students in their second year, I found that they had matured when they returned to the fourth year. They were a year older and wiser. But there is no doubt that they saw things differently after having been away. They were horrified by many of the universities. I shall never forget the students returning from Italy who had been at Bologna University. Nobody would take care of them. The concept of pastoral care is alien. They had to make do for themselves, but they did and learnt from it.
The students returned broadened in many senses. There had been a complete break. They returned proud of their British heritage, but they recognised their European heritage as well. They saw themselves as European citizens. I was glad that they saw themselves as such.
After centuries of conflict, I for one am of the opinion that it is splendid that our young people see themselves not as enemies of our partner countries in the European Union but as neighbours and friends. They are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggests, ashamed of their national history. They are proud that we as a country have played a part in putting this narrow nationalism aside and promoting instead a spirit of co-operation and collaboration between nations.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has made an interesting speech but I believe it has completely missed the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. The two noble Lords who initiated this debate are particularly concerned about the European project that produces only one-sided information and uses taxpayers' money to do so. That was the essence of what they said. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, made an interesting speech, but she did not address that particular question.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch have posed many important questions and issues about which there is concern and which I hope the Minister will address when she comes to reply. There is an issue of information versus propaganda; information is one thing, but propaganda is another. A one-sided story about anything is propaganda, and can be regarded as such. The issue of bias versus balance has also been referred to, and again the noble Baroness has to reassure us that balance will prevail.
The two noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch also asked about expenditure and I want to add to their questions. What is the quantum of expenditure? How is it distributed? Who determines the priorities?
Materials used for educational purposes are another issue. There are issues for discussion here. What about the authorship of these materials? What about
708
editorial oversight? Who oversees editorial issues? In much of the materials that I have seen the content appears wholly devoid of the controversial nature of the subject of European union. It is irrefutable that it has a controversial nature. Young people at key stage 4, aged 14 to 16, sixth formers, aged 16 to 19, and indeed adults at university are capable of hearing the full story—all sides, all dimensions of this subject—and of making up their minds. It is patronising in the extreme to expect them to be "educated" by one view of the world from Europe.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, will forgive some of us for expressing some disquiet because there is evidence that some in the EU, in key positions, are unequivocal about the aim of spending so much money on education in schools, colleges and universities. The European Union is involved in a long-term project to shift the public's loyalties from the nation state to the European Union's institutions and to underpin the newly emerging European state. I resent being called a "Little Englander", because I am proud of my Britishness, I am proud of England being part of the United Kingdom. Simply because I take a rather healthy view of what is taught in schools, I think we owe it to our young people that bias is not part of that education.
Senior representatives of the European Commission admit that there is a campaign to educate the public about the advantages of EU membership. In an interview on the BBC's "Breakfast with Frost" programme, the former EC President Jacques Santer said:
"We have as politicians to inform the population and train them in this direction".
Train them in this direction? The de Clercq report produced in 1993 said that:
"European identity must be 'ingrained in people's minds as a 'good product' using marketing techniques and that certain social categories, particularly 'women and youth', should be 'priority target groups'. More controversially, it suggested that newscasters and reporters must themselves be targeted, they must themselves be persuaded about European Union … so that they subsequently become enthusiastic supporters of the cause."
This is not education. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to propaganda in the classroom. He referred to the publication Let's Draw Europe Together, the opening section of which is entitled "My country: Europe". The euro, which again we know is controversial, is talked about in glowing terms. The other notorious publication is, The Raspberry Ice Cream War, a comic for young people on a peaceful Europe without frontiers. The story involves schoolchildren falling into medieval times. They have to bribe their way past a border guard and explain to the king why the EU is such a wonderful place:
"Frontiers and barriers everywhere, people fighting wars for the stupidest of reasons, that is exactly what it looks like here, kind of weird."
Young readers are also told,
"We're even going to have the same currency soon as well. It's called the Euro and we won't have to change our money all the time".

709
Thankfully, only a handful of the 75,000 copies were ever distributed in the UK. Public outrage led to the British Government agreeing that,
"This undoubtedly was an ill-judged and, in part, factually incorrect publication".
Does Section 406 of the Education Act 1996 apply to this form of education? It states:
"The local education authority, governing body and head teacher shall forbid…
"(b) the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school".
Section 407 provides that all points of view get an airing, so that pupils,
"are offered a balanced presentation of opposing views".
It is important that we have an answer to that.
Equally worrying is an article in The Times of 1st July 2002 entitled,
"Economy 'has met Brown's five tests for joining euro'".
The article was based upon a study by Professor lain Begg and co-written by Brian Ardy and Dermot Hodson. The study concludes that entering the euro would not be,
"a costless exercise for the UK"
but that any negative consequences,
"will be outweighed by the benefits".
With the authority of a leading newspaper, the report had the appearance of an impartial academic treatise. But Professor Begg writes pro-federalist reports for the European Parliament and the European Commission. He was an ex officio member of the University Association for Contemporary European Studies, which promotes a pro-European agenda via university courses. He was also a council member of the Federal Trust, a pro-European body which calls for the creation of a federal European state. Brian Ardy was a Jean Monnet professor. Dr Dermot Hodson was closely linked with the "One Europe or several?" project which is dedicated to producing academic evidence linked with federalisation. Hodson was also a former board member of the ESRC and spoke, along with Professor Begg, at the One Europe conference later in July.
Is the Minister justifying such bias? We all know that the Jean Monnet project is the mechanism for teaching European integration in universities. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, the projects involve full-time teaching posts entirely devoted to the teaching of European integration.
I declare an interest too. I have a son in academe who enjoyed a two-year joint European-Japanese scientific experience at Tokyo university. Thankfully, it did not involve any underlying European message. But the Jean Monnet project is entirely separate from the framework funding that is used for the political scientists and is the mechanism for teaching "European Integration in University Studies". It is managed by DG Education and Culture to facilitate,
"the introduction of European integration studies in universities by means of start-up subsidies".
710
Currently 7,000 universities are involved, with 1,500 professors teaching more than 250,000 students a year.
Another dimension of the European debate is the Convention on the Future of Europe. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that taxpayers' money will not be spent on the promotion of a way forward on the future of Europe, about which the British people will be denied by this Government the opportunity to have their own say via a referendum.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at the outset of this debate, no one is arguing against impartial information and education in relation to European issues. Co-operation—even collaboration—between professionals and across educational establishments is one thing. However, to use taxpayers' moneys to press a one-sided message—one view of the world—without recognising other legitimately held opinions gives rise to the accusation of deliberate bias and even propaganda. Almost all the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, have happened since Adam was a boy. As I said, my son has enjoyed that kind of collaboration and many, many students have gone to European countries to take sandwich courses from which they have benefited. That is very different from the essence of this debate.
I hope the noble Baroness is able to answer the questions posed in this debate. Control over information versus propaganda, bias versus balance, the interaction and effectiveness of British law dealing with balanced teaching and the effectiveness of Section 406 of the Education Act. As for expenditure, what is the quantum, what is the allocation, what are the priorities and what is its justification?
Finally, I agree with the comment of my noble friend Lord Pearson. Academic freedom survives only when there is a lack of bias and when taxpayers' money is not used to support bias on the part of external bodies as powerful and all-embracing as the European Union.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for initiating this debate.
8.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for giving me the opportunity to speak about moves the Government have made to ensure that schools, universities and other educational establishments have access to impartial—a word upon which we would all agree—information about a range of European and wider international issues, many of which are a central part of the national curriculum. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was good enough to send me the 58 pages of briefing from the Bruges group, much of which has been mentioned this evening. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to understand the background of the debate. Noble Lords may have disagreements in this House but we all stand proud in our heritage in this House when debating issues from positions which may be different but which, nonetheless, are equally valid.

711
The Government's position is clear. Europe is changing rapidly and we are all living in an increasingly global society. It is important that our people, especially our young people, understand those changes. It is essential that young people are prepared for the world in which they live. That is why we ensured that citizenship within the national curriculum included a module on Europe. Moreover, the need for unbiased information and materials on Europe will increase now that EU enlargement approaches. It is important that young people receive information not simply concerning Europe but on all global issues. We must provide young people with the broadest possible knowledge about world affairs and the value of citizenship; and information on the European Union comprises an essential part of that process.
I give a simple example. All our young people need to understand the workings of the euro if they are to travel within Europe. They need to know what a euro note looks like to ensure that they receive the correct currency and understand how it is used. That would be true of all opportunities for young people to travel.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me whether I thought a circular to all governing bodies was necessary. I shall come to Section 406, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would expect.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the Minister say that we need to be taught in schools about the euro because we travel to euroland? If that is the case, do we need to be taught about the dollar because we also travel to America?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, within the school curriculum young people need to know and understand changes in currencies, and about currencies in general. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that it is important that students know about the big change in currency and that they know what happened when those members of the European Union who chose to do so joined the euro.
There is an issue about whether we describe information as propaganda or propaganda as information. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, dealt well with that issue. But from the briefing I have read, I believe that we stand in slightly different places as regards what is information and what is propaganda. I shall attempt to be clear about my understanding of what is spent, and what it is spent on. I refer to Sections 406 and 407. I hope to address the questions raised by noble Lords. However, should I fail in any respect, I shall write to noble Lords and shall address questions outside your Lordships' House.
The Government are committed to increasing the awareness of European and wider international issues in schools. Teachers, of course, must have the right resources in order to do that. From 1997 until December 2002, the European Commission subsidised—by 360,000 euros (approximately £250,000)—the provision of information to schools and some colleges in the UK through a network of European resource centres. The host organisations,
712
mostly educational authorities but some colleges and a few universities, met the remainder of the costs by providing accommodation and staff resources. In some areas, input from those ERCs appears to have resulted in an increased take-up of EU programme funding. However, as always, the provision was mixed across the UK.
Those centres played an important role in providing information to students and teachers, face-to-face and on the phone, as well as offering a range of materials including, for example, the loan of European Treasure Chests. The Treasure Chest project, with financial assistance from Building Europe Together, was funded through the EU Prince Programme. It was developed in response to demand from teachers for European information resources and activities for use in primary schools, when organising, for example, European activities. Chests contain CD-Roms. books and maps about Europe. The project subsequently extended to the secondary sector. The European Parliament has also funded 12 for the north-west region to the tune of £6,741. There are approximately 65 of those projects in the UK at a cost of £400 each.
In January 2003 the Secretary of State set up a review of the provision of information to schools and colleges in England. As a result of the findings, the Government propose in future to provide information through an enhanced website with clear signposting to sources of information on a wide range of European and international issues. We think that this is the most efficient way forward. Want to build on the support that we are currently providing through a number of organisations who produce materials with a focus on global citizenship, which includes understanding Europe and beyond. This will reach not only schools, but also parents, students, colleges and members of the public and will provide more information to a wider audience.
I firmly believe, as noble Lords would expect, that the teaching of citizenship and democracy is important for all schools, young people and local communities. Global citizenship is an important part of the citizenship national curriculum. Through citizenship education, young people learn about the world as a global community and are able to debate and discuss the political, economic, environmental and social implications of this community, of which they are part. Through citizenship education young people will learn about their role as active members of our global community and how they can make a difference as members of this community. It is essential for young people to learn about the relationships which exist within both the European and international communities.
It is important to contribute to pupils' sense of identity through knowledge and understanding of Britain's diverse society and the local, national, European, Commonwealth and global dimensions of their lives. The citizenship website is devoted to languages and discussions of issues linked with European citizenship, such as human rights, freedom of movement, communications and sustainable development. The Department for Education and

713
Skills provided £2 million between 2000 and 2002 to fund a number of organisations, including the Citizenship Foundation and the Institute for Citizenship, to produce resource materials to support the teaching and learning of global citizenship in schools. This has included specific materials, which focus on global citizenship, of which understanding Europe is a related part. Some £27 million was made available through standards funds arrangements, to support the introduction of citizenship education. That went directly to schools.
Teaching about Europe and Britain's relationship with the European Community is essential in the global community in which we live. It is not designed to encourage particular European views, but helps give young people a broader and more global perspective. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has rightly pointed out, there are safeguards in law—Section 406 of the Education Act 1996—to guard against biased or unbalanced teaching. I agree that teachers are professional in their approach to teaching controversial issues and must, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views. It is for teachers to choose the teaching materials which best meet the needs of their pupils in the classroom—but that should happen within the provisions of Sections 406 and 407.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us the proportion of funding spent on materials to support opposing views?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I did not hear that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can she tell us the proportion of European money, or indeed our national money, which is spent on producing materials to support opposing views to the pro-European view?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give an exact figure. I shall try to give the noble Baroness a figure. My presumption is that within the range of materials available to schools it is, as the noble Baroness would acknowledge, for schools to choose those materials that best suit the needs of their pupils. It is also, within the work that is provided, for them to ensure that a range of views is represented. I shall attempt to provide the noble Baroness with something.
It would be surprising if I did not make reference to the importance of language, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also raised. The importance of communication in other languages is increasingly important. Your Lordships have heard me talk many times about the needs that businesses have over their ability to have the opportunities to trade with other partners by taking on people with the capacity for languages. So we are building that capacity to support business in particular—and to give greater opportunities for our young people.
714
I shall deal with universities. The majority of UK higher education institutions, and all the larger ones, have European or international officers, funded by the individual university. They provide detailed information about the ERASMUS programme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. An ERASMUS bulletin hoard is located at the University of East Anglia, which receives many e-mails and exchanges from ERASMUS students sharing information about their time spent abroad.
In the UK, ERASMUS is managed by the Socrates-ERASMUS Council, which receives an administrative budget from the DfES and expects, in 2003–04, to spend £196,000 of that on information activities. That includes information about TEMPUS, the EU co-operation scheme for higher education, which provides technical support for higher education institutes to run the ERASMUS programme. It supports the process of HE reform in eligible countries.
European documentation centres are an EU-wide network providing EU information to the academic community. They help universities and research institutes to promote and develop education and research on European integration.
Many noble Lords raised the Jean Monnet project. Its aim is to provide start-up subsidies to facilitate the introduction in universities of studies into the construction of the European Community and its related institutional, legal, political, economic and social developments. There have been 491 chairs since 1990. On that basis, it does not surprise me that the European Union plays a key role. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right: the approval of the choice of chair must be granted by the European Commission. As I say, that does not surprise me.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does that not go against British academic freedom? It should be the institution that appoints the professor, not some outside funding body with an axe to grind.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we could debate whether there is an axe to grind, but the way in which the project is set up is very specific. Because of the nature of what the Jean Monnet chairs are designed to do, I do not think there is any strangeness about how it is then proposed that people be appointed. The noble Lord may disagree; that is one of the joys of debate. Within the objectives of the Jean Monnet chairs and what is proposed, my view is that it would make complete sense for there to be a strong role for those involved in that way.
National agencies are responsible for administering the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and youth programmes. They are about disseminating information, but that is not related to publicity about the EU in any shape or form. Rather, it is geared to ensuring that the UK gets the maximum take-up it can from those programmes. We receive funding direct from the department, and grant from the EU; it varies from programme to programme. For completeness, I shall say that the EU contribution to Socrates is

715
20 per cent, Leonardo 77 per cent and youth 30 per cent. For 2003, estimates within the programme for providing information are £57,000 for schools and further education colleges, £196,000 for higher education students, £92,000 for young people in training, and £52,000 for young people interested in participating in youth activities.
As I said as I began, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for raising this important issue and I have listened to all the contributions and read the briefing with great interest. I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that it is important for us to keep all those in our educational establishments informed of current developments in the European Union and the effects that they are likely to have for us all. The provision of impartial information encourages debate about the kind of society we wish to create for ourselves and our children. Once the facts have been placed in the public arena, it is for all of us to consider them and come to our own conclusions. To withhold information would be to the detriment of us all.

Criminal Justice Bill
8.34 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 33 [Notification of intention to call defence witnesses]:
On Question, Whether Clause 33 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dholakia: The clause inserts a new Section 6C in the 1996 Act, which imposes a new requirement on the accused to serve, before the trial, a notice giving details of any witnesses he intends to call to give evidence at his trial. Details of the witness's name, address and date of birth must be given to the court and to the prosecutor within a time limit specified in regulation made under Section 12 in the 1996 Act.
There have been a number of adverse comments, particularly from the Home Affairs Select Committee, which said that it is perhaps the most controversial provision of Part 5 of the Bill. At present, the defendant is required only to give advance disclosure of any alibi or expert witnesses. Clause 33 will extend that obligation significantly by requiring disclosure of the name, address and date of birth of every defence witness.
In a recent article, Michael Zander QC sets out a powerful argument:
"If the addresses of potential defence witnesses have to be given, the obvious danger is that police will use the interview to browbeat and cajole or wheedle the witness to change his evidence or, failing that, not to testify for the defence".
It is not too difficult to imagine ways in which the police may seek to help a defence witness to "refresh" his memory, possibly to "lose" his memory, of events. Such things have happened in the past. During the Home Affairs Select Committee's recent inquiry into the conduct of investigations into abuse in children's
716
homes, it came across a number of cases in which the police were said to have brought charges against a defence witness before trial in order to discredit him.
Coming from the Home Affairs Select Committee, that is a very powerful argument against the clause. It is important to recognise the recommendations the committee makes. It suggested that the Bill he amended so that where the prosecution wishes to interview a defence witness in advance of trial, it should be required to notify the defence and offer to interview the witness in the presence of the defence. It further suggests that any interview should be tape-recorded. It goes on to say that it would prefer to see a provision of this nature included in the Bill rather than left to codes of practice.
A number of criminal justice agencies have responded very strongly to the proposal that the defendant should provide witness details before trial. Justice comments that,
"an adverse inference being drawn from a failure to do so will fundamentally undermine the presumption of innocence in the right of an accused person to remain silent".
The Bar Council says,
"Clause 33 places an unnecessary burden on the defence which does nothing to improve the prospect of conviction of the guilty and has a number of deeply undesirable consequences".
The Law Society cannot see any benefit in this provision, but does anticipate difficulties, as do a large number of other organisations. The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association says:
"The proposals that such a witness notice should he served during the relevant period demonstrates a lack of understanding of the practicalities of running a defence case".
Those are very strong arguments against the clause.
Baroness Mallalieu: I, too, have concerns about the way in which the provisions are intended to operate. I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give me some guidance as to what is being aimed at by the provisions.
We have gone a long way towards making it easier for witnesses to come to court and to give evidence in relation to prosecutions. We have taken steps to make it easier for them to give evidence via video links and the like to try and avoid their hanging about at court and being subjected to unnecessary or insulting cross-examination. If our intention is to ensure that witnesses come forward to give evidence so that the correct result is obtained, we should apply the same standards and give the same assistance to potential defence witnesses.
These provisions achieve, in a sense, quite the opposite. A criminal trial is dynamic and changing all the time. When one first receives the papers, one gets some indication of likely witnesses. At a later stage, it may be clear that some of them are no longer necessary. As the trial proceeds, witnesses for the Crown and the defence are jettisoned because their part of the evidence no longer becomes contentious, it no longer seems relevant, it has been admitted, or whatever. Therefore, the witnesses you believe you are going to call before the trial starts ultimately may play no part at all.

717
Is it proposed that once the names and addresses and the other details of the defence witnesses are given to the Crown, those people are to be seen and interviewed by police officers? If so, there will be a large amount of wasted police time, with witnesses who ultimately play no part whatever. If there is intended to be parity between the Crown and the defence, it is curious that the addresses of the witnesses for the Crown are not given to the defence, although the defence is required to provide addresses to the Crown.
We have all heard of cases in which witnesses have been interviewed by police and often witnesses who one would not necessarily choose because they may be young, or have convictions, or may have been close to the incident. That is likely if, for example, they are witnesses to an assault, an affray or even a murder. It is easy, particularly for young witnesses, and those who sometimes have little command of English, to find it intimidating to be interviewed by anyone. It is difficult enough to persuade those witnesses to see a defence solicitor to take a statement without having a police officer knock on the door and ask to do so in their home.
While I welcome the outline of the code of practice, which we will debate at Amendment No. 126, that does not specifically provide for a solicitor to be present. Those of us who practise in the London courts have had experiences of an unfortunate nature, where youngsters have been interviewed without anyone else present, where the parents speak no English, and where they have been cross-examined by a police officer, often armed with pieces of information which at a later stage will properly be used by counsel in court. In effect, they have been browbeaten in their own homes into making a statement based on material they are shown and without proper legal advice. The result is that the statement is taken which either changes the story that had been given earlier or results in the witness saying, really can't remember". When the witness turns up at court, that statement is used against him.
There is considerable scope—I do not say this pejoratively—for police malpractice. In unscrupulous hands, the right to go and interview a witness, particularly a young or vulnerable one, without proper safeguard, would be a most powerful weapon in the hands of an unscrupulous prosecutor.
Leaving that aside, with the best will in the world, the most pleasant and amiable police officer knocking on the door, often in an area where the neighbours will be well aware of what is happening, wanting to know who is coming round and why, is enough for many parents to say, "I'm not letting my youngster go. I don't want anything to do with this. We will not allow him to attend court". There are all kinds of reasons why these provisions might prevent genuine witnesses coming forward—the very thing we try to avoid in relation to the Crown.
Furthermore, I had understood that notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, the burden of proof remains on the Crown. What is the obligation,
718
at any rate before the Crown makes its case in court, for a defendant to provide material? If there is a suggestion that these provisions are intended to deal with what I have heard about in this House but never come across in a courtroom—the so-called "ambush" defence—I can say only that the other provisions in the Bill which require considerable detail to be given in advance disclosure in statement form would surely put paid to any such ambush. Therefore if it is intended to put a burden on the defendant in some way at an early stage and before the Crown has called any evidence, it seems to me that that is a fundamental attack on the burden of proof. I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would be able to tell us what the reason is for this provision. Is it intended to interview all witnesses whose names are provided in this way? If that is not the case, what is the point for what would appear to be needless bureaucracy?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: During the course of the deliberations on this Bill, the word "balance" has frequently been prayed in aid. It is a reasonable concept to use in the handling of these matters. Therefore in looking at this provision it is reasonable to do what the previous speakers have done and try to weigh the benefits to be secured by this provision against the risks and dangers that flow from it. I have to say that I find myself wholly persuaded about the risks and not anywhere near being persuaded about the benefits. On the so-called ambush defence, what evidence is there of its use and how frequent is it? And what will be done with the material required as a result of this provision?
In a sense it is unfair to ask the noble and learned Lord to answer that question. All that this does is to require something to be done. The use that it is then going to be put to is out of the hands of this Chamber and of the legislature. Therefore, one can but speculate. But to speculate that the consequences would be unfortunate and unfair is not an unreasonable form of speculation. A witness who might have been persuaded with great reluctance to appear for the defence might take a very different view if he knew that he was instantly going to be given to the prosecution to be interviewed. That is not a far-fetched fear; it is one that makes sense for anyone who has had even the smallest contact with the criminal justice system over the years.
The bureaucracy that will arise is very real if the provision is used in any significant way. Without wishing to be unduly contentious at an inappropriate time, the other provisions in this Bill do not give me confidence in the Government's intentions. Their concept of balance is insufficient to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lord Renton: I do hope that your Lordships will forgive me for intervening. I missed the first few minutes of this debate. There is one point on this clause which worries me. There is an obligation upon the defence to notify the intention to call witnesses. But

719
must the defendant call those witnesses if he decides ultimately that there is no need for them to give evidence?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My noble and learned friend referred to Lord Justice Auld's report. He prayed it in aid to support the contention that the defence statement was not working. I would like to quote Paragraph 180 from that report.
"As to the defence statement…the present requirements, if observed, seem to be adequate to enable identification of the issues…for the purpose of determining the scope and form of prosecution evidence required for trial. I have considered whether to recommend any additional requirements, for example, a general obligation to identify defence witnesses and the content of their expected evidence similar to where the defence is alibi or it is intended to call expert evidence for the defence. Whilst, as a matter of efficiency, there is much to be said for them, many would find them objectionable as going beyond the definition of the issues and requiring a defendant to set out, in advance, an affirmative case. And they would be difficult to enforce".
And so Lord Justice Auld did not recommend anything more than we have at present. Obviously one would like to see the defence statement observed more effectively, and that is down to the management of the courts by the judges. But Lord Justice Auld certainly did not suggest that there should be disclosure of defence witnesses and the contents of their expected evidence.
In the face of that feeling that the provision would be objectionable, I should like to hear from the Minister why the Government somehow find it unobjectionable. As my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, it is objectionable because potential defence witnesses are often the very people who harbour, rightly or wrongly, a deep mistrust of authority and of the police in particular. Knowing that their details will be disclosed and that they may be investigated and interviewed by the police will provide a very powerful incentive for them not to come forward to assist the defence. That then deprives the defendant of relevant truthful evidence that might exonerate him. It is not a sufficient answer to suggest that the defendant would have the option of taking out a witness summons.
Therefore, in that situation there would be an erosion of the very delicate relationship that exists in order for the criminal justice system to function well and properly. Indeed, there is a very real risk of interference by the investigating authorities in the due administration of justice, and there is scope for intimidation of the witness by an over-zealous, or even unscrupulous, police officer. Therefore, we press upon the Minister our concerns, which are shared by professionals with many years of experience in the criminal court and the judiciary. We ask the noble and learned Lord to explain to us why, in the face of those concerns about this provision being objectionable, the Government are pressing on.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I do not have an overall hostility to the clause, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that there are some serious questions of procedure and practice here which need to be probed and which the Minister needs to clarify
720
today. 1 agree with my noble friend Lord Brittan that the application of the provision will be out of the hands of this House once the Bill is enacted.
Reference has been made to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal—a government amendment—which follows Clause 38 and introduces a new clause concerning a code of practice for police interviews of witnesses notified by the accused. I hope that when the Minister comes to deal with that, he will bear in mind my concerns, which relate closely to the operation of Clause 33.
Reference has already been made to the fact that, because it is a code of practice, it is not on the face of the Bill in detail. However, the problem is that, in relation to the code of practice in the new clause, proposed new subsection (2) states:
"The code must include (in particular) guidance in relation to",
such matters that include,
"the attendance of the accused's solicitor at such an interview".
That is where the root problem occurs. One needs more than guidance; one needs assurance of that fact.
At the end of the list of items where guidance will be given, it is stated:
"Any police officer who arranges or conducts such an interview shall have regard to the code".
When we go into something as significant as that, I believe it is necessary for the Government to reconsider the words "shall have regard to". Why should there not be a duty upon police officers to abide by the code? I know that that takes us forward to the government amendment, but I believe that it has a great bearing on how acceptable—or unacceptable—Clause 33 is in its operation.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to those who have spoken in the clause stand part debate. I want to emphasise what the clause is not about before coining to what it is about.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shawls quoted from Lord Justice Auld's report. I remind the Committee that the passage that Lord Justice Auld was considering referred to the proposition that an additional requirement might be imposed. The report said that there would be a general obligation to identify defence witnesses and the
"content of their expected evidence".
I am reading from paragraph 180.
We have not proposed that the content of defence statements should be included. Lord Justice Auld's comment, which was carefully considered by the Government and taken into account, has been accepted to the extent that we have not sought in the clause to impose an obligation to disclose the content of defence statements. It is limited to the identification of the name, address and date of birth of each such proposed witness. They are the identifying details. That is what the clause is about.

721
Secondly, in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, it does not bring with it an obligation on the defence to call a witness who has been identified as someone they want to call.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If that is so, should it not be stated?
Lord Goldsmith: I do not believe that it needs to be stated because the only sanction that is provided is one in relation to a defence when the defence calls a witness of whom it has not given notice. There is no possible sanction in relation to the defence not calling a witness. Clause 38, which sets out what the sanctions are, identifies under subsection (2)(f)(iv) that there may be a sanction in terms of an inference being drawn where the defence calls a witness of whom notice has not been given. But there is no suggestion of a corresponding sanction where it does not call such a witness.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: There are two matters on which I should like assistance. First, it may be that one is only asking that the defence discloses names and addresses, but what is the purpose of the interview if not to find out what the witness will say? Therefore, the content is ultimately disclosed in advance as the interview would be to no purpose if it were not to discover what the witness would say.
Secondly, the Minister said that there would be no sanction. One knows that if the accused gives evidence, the defence will be asked, "Are you calling Jimmy McGillycuddy, or Johnny Smith?". The list will be put to him and fun will be made of the fact that he may say that he does not know, or that he does not think they are being called. The jury will know that if they are not called, there must be some rationale for that.
Capital will be made by the Crown by its having that list available to it.
Lord Goldsmith: The latter happens already. It is commonplace that a defendant gives evidence that on such and such an occasion, events happened in the way that he said they happened. He will be asked, "You say that X, Y and Z were there. Are they coming to give evidence?". That is a point that is perfectly open to be taken as it stands. There is nothing new about that.
I am anxious to develop the points that I am making, although I am always happy to give way. On my noble friend's former point, in paragraph 180, Lord Justice Auld appears—it is always dangerous to construe what a judge has said—to have talked about a requirement on the defence to disclose not only the identity but the content of the statement that had been received from the witness.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu dwelt on the circumstances in which the interview takes place. I shall come back to that point, as it is extremely important and in my respectful view the real and only point in relation to the clause. If in the course of that interview, the witness says what happened and that exonerates the defendant, it is a good thing that that
722
has come out at an early stage. One presumes that the witness is someone who will give evidence in court and is happy in those circumstances to stand up and say, "This is what happened. It was not the defendant's fault".
I see a great difference between requiring the defence to disclose the statements it has taken and simply providing that, in certain circumstances, it should be open to others to interview that witness to discover what is said. In the courts of this land it has always been said the there is no property in a witness. That must be right. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu said that prosecution witness names and addresses are not given. That is right, but if the defence wants to interview a prosecution witness, it can always make inquiries through the good offices of the prosecutor in the CPS.
I will now turn to the purpose of the procedure. There is nothing conceptually new in what is being done. It is already the law that the defence is required to provide advance notice of two categories of witness—alibi and expert witnesses. The proposed procedure builds on that and is not a radical departure from existing legislation. Noble Lords who have spoken so far have not complained that the police currently browbeat or intimidate alibi or expert witnesses or prevent them giving evidence. Perhaps some anecdotal evidence will be given, but I have not heard any yet.
9 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: I thank my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General for giving way. It is precisely because of the experience with alibi witnesses that I raised my concerns. It is a matter of great concern. Those of us who practise in the courts have certainly had experience of this on a number of occasions. Some cases have ended up in the Court of Appeal. They arise because police officers, often without any warning, knock on the door of the house and interview a young person without any responsible person being present—certainly no solicitor or legal advice is available. The system does not work well, which is the very reason why I am grateful that there will be guidance. It is much needed. The system is by no means perfect.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I will come to the guidance in a moment because, as I hope the Committee will agree, it gives a substantial degree of protection about the real point of the clause—the circumstances in which such an interview would take place.
The clause would deter the calling of surprise witnesses and help avoid adjournments and the concomitant delay to which that gives rise. It would help weed out inadequate, incomplete, or false defences. It would enable the police, without making any interviews, to check the criminal records of defence witnesses so that the jury would be able to use that information if they saw fit, to assess credibility. In certain cases, if appropriate, it would allow the police

723
to interview defence witnesses before the trial and make further inquiries. Those interviews may even assist the defence as well as the prosecution.
I cannot say how often that will happen, but I strongly suspect that, in many cases, the witnesses who will be identified by the defence as people it wants to call will be people already known to the police in the sense that the police would have interviewed them before. It is quite likely that the defence has their identities because they form part of the unused material that has been disclosed by the prosecution. That is entirely proper: the prosecution has seen those witnesses and does not think that they would help its case; the defence wants to call them. The police and the prosecution will know what those witnesses are going to say, so it is unlikely that any further steps will be necessary, but at least they will know what is to be said. As I said, there is nothing conceptually new about that.
Two things happened as a result of the full debate that took place in Committee in another place. First, the clause as drafted would have required the defendant to give notice of an intention to give evidence himself or herself. That has been changed. We agree that that would be inappropriate; we have accepted that point. The second is to deal with what I suggest is the only significant objection that has been raised here: the risk that the police might be given the opportunity to put undue pressure on defence witnesses.
In what I am about say, I do not accept the basis of that, but important protection is provided in the amendments, which would give rise to a new clause enabling a code of practice to be made governing the conduct of police interviews with defence witnesses disclosed under the new arrangements. That will provide a substantial safeguard. An undertaking was given in another place to introduce that provision and the amendments will discharge that undertaking.
I know that we shall come to them later, but let me identify what the amendments will do. They will require the Secretary of State to consult chief police officers, the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Institute of Legal Executives before issuing the code of practice or any revisions; a significant degree of consultation is anticipated before the code will be finalised. A number of practical issues will require careful thought. It will then be brought to this House and another place for consideration. The initial code will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and the affirmative procedure may also apply if the code is revised.
We have produced a first draft of such guidance, which was sent by letter by my noble friend Lady Scotland to Members of the Committee. It includes provisions that address concerns that have been raised—I understand why—today. For example: what about somebody simply going around and knocking on the door without notice? The guidance would require a police officer wanting to interview a witness first to notify the accused's legal representative and to invite that person to be present at the interview.
724
It would also require a careful and accurate record to be made of that interview, advising the witness in advance that a record will be made and copying it to both the witness and the accused. So the accused will have a record and if there is any question of anything wrong being done during that interview—of undue pressure—the record will stand for the court's consideration. The record will also be seen by the witness, so that he or she can also check that it is accurate.
Where the accused is not legally represented, the police officer will have to inform the accused that he intends to interview the witness. The code will probably provide that he will then invite the accused to appoint a legal representative to be present at that interview. Special provision is proposed for witnesses who are juveniles, mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, with a recommendation that an appropriate adult should be present during the interview.
Those, then, are the principal provisions of the indicative draft code.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I should make it clear that neither I nor my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts have had sight of the draft code. I am sure that it is simply the fault of the post going astray, but it means therefore that I shall make no further comment today on the code of practice when we reach the government amendments. I shall have to reserve my position until the Report stage, when I will have had an opportunity properly to consider the paper that perhaps has gone to others.
Lord Goldsmith: Of course I accept entirely what the noble Baroness has said. I had understood that the noble Baroness had received the letter; indeed I have here a copy of the letter that is addressed to her. I understand that she is not in a position to give a detailed response, but I hope that what I have said about the substantial provisions—we are not debating the code at this stage—at least indicates that the Government have taken the concerns into account and propose a code of practice which will address and deal with them. I refer in particular to the principal objection, which is the risk that witnesses will be dealt with in an improper way.
I hope that in the course of my remarks I have dealt with the points raised by noble Lords. There is a difference of philosophy between certain people. I understand that Professor Michael Zander has never been in favour of any defence disclosure. I do not criticise him for that; it is a perfectly respectable point of view, but it not one that Parliament took in 1996 when it passed the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and it is not one with which this Government agree.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Does not the Minister realise that he is making it more difficult for people to go along with what he proposes because in fact he is giving considerable weight to the argument for the thin end of the wedge? When proposals were put forward

725
and enacted requiring the disclosure of alibi and expert witnesses, those were definitely presented as exceptions to the norm. They were exceptions to the rule; because of something in the particularity of those defences, it was reasonable to ask the defence to provide certain details. To declare now that because those exceptions were admitted, conceded and enacted, the past has been sold and we can generalise on it, makes any future argument that what is being done is only minor and exceptional one that will be increasingly difficult to accept.
Lord Goldsmith: It is gratifying to see that the noble Lord has not lost his skills as an advocate. In what I have said this evening I have never advanced the argument that because something was done it means that we can do more. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, drew attention to and placed reliance on what has been said by Professor Zander. I simply indicated in response that Professor Zander has always approached this from a different point of view. I believe that I am right in recalling that he was in the minority on the Runciman Royal Commission.
Of course the amendments to the defence disclosure code being put forward by the Government have to be considered on their merits. I seek to put forward what are those merits. As I have said, I sought simply to indicate that people have approached this from different points of view. There is a point of view which holds that there should be no disclosure at all by the defence, and there is a point of view which holds that that principle is not right. In these clauses we can consider what that detail should be.
I appreciate that I have spoken for some time on this clause. Finally, nothing in this clause or in the other provisions changes the burden of proof.
Lord Renton: Thank goodness.
Lord Goldsmith: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I agree entirely on that—a point made sotto voce by the noble Lord from a sedentary position. I do not disagree with him at all: the burden of proof will remain with the prosecution. The fact that the defence has had to give notification on certain points on which it takes issue with the prosecution and the fact that, under this clause, it will have to provide the names of the people it intends to call as witnesses, does not take away from the fact that it will still be for the prosecution to prove the case. That remains, and rightly so.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: I am grateful to the Minister. As with Clause 32, I am sure that we shall come back to this issue on Report.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Notification of names of experts instructed by defendant]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 22, leave out lines 37 to 39.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 112, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 113 to 116, 118, 119 and 241.
Amendment No. 112 is a simple drafting amendment. It leaves out subsection (2) because we simply cannot understand why it is necessary. It appears otiose and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is vital to the Bill.
Amendment No. 113 goes to the heart of our objections to the provisions of Clause 34, which imposes a new requirement on an accused to serve before the trial a notice giving details of the name and address of any expert witness consulted, even where that expert witness is not then called. This is the step too far. The noble and learned Lord has explained how we need not worry about the exercise of any of these clauses because this is nothing much of a change; it is a rather rational, pragmatic development. As far as we are concerned, this is not so much a step change as a jump off a cliff. The clause widens considerably the disclosure duty imposed on the defence, which already has to give details of any expert witness it proposes to call to give evidence.
Our amendment represents a compromise to our objection to the clause. It prescribes that if the evidence of a witness is not relied upon by the accused, and no copy of that witness's report has been served on the prosecution, no reference should be made at the trial to the fact that the defence had originally instructed the expert witness. Without this compromise we would find Clause 34 unacceptable.
I am grateful to the London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association for its briefing. It points out that in order to give expert opinions of substance. instructing experts requires openness both with the legal adviser and with the client. Almost invariably experts will be given legally professionally privileged material. They can be instructed for a variety of reasons, including on areas of cross-examination, in complex areas of expertise.
I come back to the question which was asked in a slightly different context during the debate on the previous clause: why should the prosecution require a notice specifying the name and address of the person instructed with a view to his or her providing any expert opinion for possible use as evidence at the trial of the accused? One can only assume that it is to enable the Crown to approach such witnesses and to obtain details of the opinion sought. We would argue that that would threaten to disclose legally professionally privileged material. That could not only compromise the expert's integrity but also derail trials following applications for stays of proceedings on the basis of abuse of process.
It is also possible that the new measure would deter practitioners from seeking more than one source of advice. I am sure there is nothing wrong per se in doing

727
that. It would deprive the accused of expert advice and weaken the independence and vigour of the accused's defence representation. There may be justifiable reasons for approaching more than one expert; there may be nothing shady or dodgy in doing so. For the prosecution at a subsequent trial to try to draw adverse inferences from the fact that one has been to more than one expert would be very retrograde. There can be justified differences of opinions among experts—in the medical world that is not uncommon. It could be that someone has sought expert opinion and that opinion has simply turned out to be wrong.
We are concerned about this provision. We are seeking a way forward through compromise. As the clause stands, our compromise is that the prosecution should have the information about the expert but that that information should not be used to draw adverse inferences during the course of the trial.
The Government have had long warning of this compromise. It was debated in another place at the beginning of this year and so they have had half a year to consider it. I hope that they have reflected well. I am certainly aware that many of my colleagues think that I am being far too generous to the Government in making this kind offer of a compromise to them. Of course, I am always sweet reason, particularly at this time of night.
I can be extremely brief on the last group of amendments. The other five are all consequential on Clauses 33 and 34 standing part of the Bill. I have tabled them for completeness. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: May I support most strongly my noble friend Lady Anelay on this amendment? I ask the Attorney-General what is the purpose of this new clause. It states:
"If the accused instructs a person with a view to his providing any expert opinion for possible use as evidence al: the trial of the accused, he must give to the court and the prosecutor a notice specifying the person's name and address".
If he is intending to call the expert witness whom he has approached, then his reason is now required in the law as I understand it, that he should disclose that evidence to the prosecution when the expert is called. But if he consults an expert whom he chooses not to call and does not intend to call, what is behind the suggestion that he should be required to give that expert's name and address to the prosecution?
For the purpose of this argument I am prepared to accept that the Attorney-General is correct when he says that the Lord Chief Justice was wrong in saying that if the prosecution went to four experts and they intended to call two of them, they would not be required to disclose details of the other two. As I understand it, I believe that under the rule of unused evidence they would be required to disclose the names of the other two experts.
But that totally ignores the whole issue of the burden of proof in a criminal trial. If a person is charged with an offence and those on his behalf choose to go to an expert who says, "I am sorry, I cannot help you" or says, "I am even more strongly against you
728
than the prosecution expert has disclosed in the depositions", what use is the prosecution then going to make of that statement? Is it intended that they should take a statement from that expert? If so, is it not almost obvious that they will be faced with the problem of professional privilege? Are they going to attempt to obtain evidence from the expert of what he has been told by the accused, which they could not get otherwise because it would be covered by professional privilege'? If he goes to a doctor with a defence of diminished responsibility and the consultant says, "I do not think that your client is of diminished responsibility", presumably that would be based on evidence he has learnt through professional privilege from the solicitor, from the client.
What is the other possible use of knowing the name and address of the unused expert? Presumably, it is to ask the defendant when he goes into the box, "Tell me, did you go to see professor so-and-so in his rooms in Harley Street on 10th December?" "Are you going to call him?" "No". What would be the purpose of that? Would it be an improper line of cross-examination or would it merely be to sow the seeds that there is an inference to be drawn from the fact that he is not going to call his expert?
I have kept quiet on Clauses 32 and 33 I have listened with interest to what the Attorney-General has said. I am away from it now, but I understand that there is a lot of complaint about the time taken up on the disclosure procedure and that in fact the fault is not all on one side. On any view it seems to me that it is going too far to ask the defence to express, expose or give the name and address of any expert that they have chosen to consult. I shall be grateful to hear the Attorney-General's justification for such a change.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I, too. would like to express concern about these matters in this Bill. I want particularly to raise concerns about the impact of this sort of change. I sometimes wonder whether governments embark on change without understanding the long-term impact that some of the changes might have on the ecology of the legal system, doing huge damage without thinking through areas of change. The temptation for some defendants would he to instruct only those experts who could be guaranteed to express an opinion favourable to the defence. Such a breed of tame defence experts would be an inevitable, unattractive and unwelcome feature of the criminal justice system. I ask the Government to take into account the way in which there are unforeseen consequences of what looks like reasonable change.
This change offends the common law principle of the privilege against self-incrimination. I want to remind the Minister that in the Court of Appeal last year, 2002, there was a judgment in the case of Regina v Davies. The court examined the relationship between a defendant and an expert instructed on his behalf, holding that evidence obtained by the expert in such circumstances should be treated in the same way as communications between the defendant and his legal representative. In that particular case the defendant was convicted of murder and his defence was, among

729
others, diminished responsibility. The trial judge ordered the defence, on application by the Crown, to disclose the opinion of a consultant psychiatrist instructed by the defence to examine and report on the defendant, but upon whom the defence had not been relying. The doctor gave evidence at the trial for the Crown. The Crown chose to use this particular expert and to rely on him because he had a view contrary to the one that was ultimately being relied on by the accused.
The conviction was quashed and the Court of Appeal found that the judge was wrong to order disclosure of the psychiatrist's opinion, being an item subject to legal privilege. Of particular relevance to this response was the following passage in the judgment of the court, which I recommend to the Minister:
"The appellant was…entitled to be protected from inadvertent self-incrimination. If a defendant agrees to be interviewed by a doctor instructed by the prosecution, he has the opportunity of being advised and knowing that what he says to the doctor may be used in evidence at the trial. If he is interviewed by a doctor at the instigation of his own lawyers for the purposes of his own defence, he is entitled to assume that what he says has the same status as his communications with his own lawyers."
I do many cases involving psychiatry in which the expertise of psychiatrists is very important in the conduct of the case. Sometimes, for example, I may decide not to call a psychiatrist who I have instructed because I would be running a number of defences. For example, a battered woman who had killed her husband may be saying, "I was defending myself, he was battering me at the time and I picked up a knife and I assaulted him and it led to his death". So self-defence may be my predominant area of defence, but I might also want to explore the possibility, as an alternative, of diminished responsibility. It may be that I have a report from the psychiatrist that says that this woman is on the margins. She might be diminished, because she is a battered woman who is suffering from depression and falls into the category of battered woman syndrome, but it is very marginal and can easily be challenged. I may make the calculated decision not to distract the jury from the central issue of self-defence and therefore not to rely on the psychiatric evidence. Should it then be handed over to the Crown in those circumstances? I may want to rely on psychiatry in running provocation, which I can nowadays do. Should I be expected to disclose that information to the Crown?
We are moving into quite dangerous territory here because of the way in which it may lead to miscarriages of justice. The enforced disclosure by the defence of unused expert reports would violate common law, statute and current case law. In my submission to this House, we see nothing in the proposals to justify such a course. In fact, it would be very detrimental to justice.
It is important that the Government look at the unforeseen consequences of some of these recommendations. I think that the quality of expertise will be contaminated because tame experts will come
730
forth. I greatly support the recommendation of Lord Justice Thorpe that the way to deal with bad experts is to have a system of accreditation.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I could not hope to improve on the contribution of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. However, I want to assist the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, which will confirm everybody's belief that there is an unholy mafia between those who have held that office. I want to help him take the opportunity to explain the principle behind the clause by suggesting this scenario.
Let us suppose that there is a notorious prosecution or, more accurately, a notorious offence, which is the subject of a prosecution. At some stage—and this is not bizarre—one or more people with expert opinions and qualifications volunteer their assistance and send to the defence copies of their opinions and what they would be prepared to say. They have not been asked for it, but they volunteer it. The clause does not cover that—there is no obligation to disclose that, and quite right too, because that would surely be in conflict with the preservation of the burden of proof regarding which the noble and learned Lord so fervently said amen to my noble friend Lord Renton. But why not? If it is proposed to go ahead with Clause 34, what is different from the scenario that I suggest? It would be quite wrong, because that would be to compel the defence to give access to their pool for the purpose of allowing the prosecution to fish in it in order to enhance the prosecution case.
What is different in principle with a case in which the defence has instructed and consulted the expert? It just adds to the inherent validity or persuasiveness of that expert's opinion that he has been consulted on behalf of the defence. So if the noble and learned Lord is to avoid the charge that this provision is to enable the prosecution to fish in a pool to which the defence has been compelled to give them access, I would be very much obliged if he could explain the difference in principle between those two cases.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The great objection to this clause seems to be on the basis of legal professional privilege, the primacy of which has very recently been underlined by the Privy Council in the case of B and Others which was decided on 19th May last. It may very well not have played any part in the noble and learned Lord's consideration, and certainly not in the consideration of those who have drafted this clause.
It was said very firmly by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Millett, delivering the judgment, that it was decided as long ago as the 16th century that legal professional privilege was a supreme right for people. From a public policy point of view, although there may be compelling reasons for legal professional privilege to be breached in some way or other, nevertheless the decision was made, as long ago as that, that legal professional privilege should always prevail.

731
There is a distinction between Clauses 33 and 34. Clause 33 deals with witnesses of fact. Clause 34 deals with expert witnesses who give opinions on instructions. It is inevitable that those instructions will have to be based to a degree, sometimes very considerably so, upon privileged information. Often it will contain an account of what has happened. In the kind of case to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred, where one is obtaining a psychiatric report, and so on, an account of the incident may be given which is subject to legal professional privilege and details may be given to an expert in other fields as to how an incident happened, all of which should not be disclosed—as was said in the case of B and Others and, earlier, by the Judicial Committee of this House in the case of Derby Magistrates—in a way which would in any way interfere with the confidential relationship between the lawyer and his client.
If one approaches the issue from that point of view, it seems to me that any disclosure of names and addresses of witness who will not be used can have no other purpose than to encourage the prosecution to do the kind of fishing expedition to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred a moment ago.
Experts frequently are not used. They sit in court. They have provided reports which are riot disclosed. But they are there to advise the defence in dealing, for example, with a pathologist, a psychiatrist, and so on. Sometimes only one expert is heard for the prosecution; and the defence is advised, confidentially, without the expert himself giving evidence for the defence at a later stage.
Cases vary. In a case in the news last week—I was involved in it at earlier stages—there were four psychiatrists on one side and three on another. I can think of another case where there were three pathologists on one side and two on the other. That happens from time to time. More frequently, the expert for the defence is not called.
This clause is an intrusion upon that delicate balance to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred, which has preserved the reputation of the criminal justice system of this country over the years.
Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I may repeat to the noble and learned Lord the questions which others have asked and which cause me anxiety about the clause. First, why is it necessary? Secondly, what is the use to which the noble and learned Lord anticipates it will he put if it forms part of the Bill?
There are a number of reasons why in a criminal trial experts may be instructed by the defence. First and foremost, the Crown has served its experts and you want someone to check whether or not it is all right. Secondly, you have some instructions from your client—for example, he says he acted in self defence—and you want to know from an expert whether the injuries the deceased suffered were consistent with that. In other words, you want to know whether he has some support for his defence. On other occasions, you have a theory perhaps of your own. It may not form
732
any part of his case but you may have doubts about his mental state and his capacity. In those circumstances, you would instruct an expert to discover whether there was a possible medical defence.
As the noble Lord. Lord Thomas, said, often an expert is instructed simply for the purposes of assisting defence counsel with cross-examination during the course of the trial. In order to obtain a report, privileged information will have to be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has indicated the difficulties which—it seems to me and others—arise with provisions of this sort. I am not sure that I understand from the wording of the provision as it stands to what extent, for example, not just unsolicited expert opinion has to be notified, but informal opinion, which is often the way in which solicitors and barristers make initial approaches. They telephone an expert who has been known to them from other cases, and ask over the telephone for comments on the facts. Are all those names and addresses to be provided? If they are, what happens when they reach the prosecuting authority? Is someone going to interview each of those witnesses? If so, will privilege thereby be breached?
Lord Goldsmith: I shall start by saying something about the concern that led to this clause, and then to talk about what this clause does not do. I have indicated, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, was good enough to repeat, that where the prosecution have consulted more than one expert, but only intend to call one, then there is at least a strong likelihood that they will be required to disclose that fact as part of the unused material, and are likely to have to disclose the unused report itself.
The police believe that there are some defendants who might consult several experts until they find one who provides a report that suits their case, and which is used at trial—so giving an impression of the merits of the defence case, which is at variance with the facts, because of the seemingly authentic, impartial and authoritative aura of an expert witness. There was a desire that, given that experts are intended to be independent, impartial and not advocating for one side or the other, there should be no reason why such unused reports should not be disclosed. But that is not the effect of the clause. It does not require that any unused expert report should be disclosed, precisely because of legal professional privilege, the importance and existence of which the Government and I were well aware before this clause was finalised.
Equally, legal professional privilege means that it would not be appropriate if an expert was known to have been consulted and was then seen by someone from the prosecution. I remind noble Lords that there is no property in a witness. It would not be appropriate to probe that expert over the opinion that he had given before, still less to say to him, "please, can you provide a copy of the report that you have given". It would be inappropriate to ask for information that would indicate material which had been provided by the accused, for example. If it were a psychiatric report—my noble friend Lady Kennedy gave an example in

733
which the psychiatrist based his opinion upon an account given by the defendant of what had taken place—that would be privileged information and ought not to be disclosed.
There are circumstances in which an expert does not have privileged information and where it would not be inappropriate for one party to consult an expert who had been consulted by another. That happened to me in a case in the early 1980s—not a criminal case, a civil case. But it went to the Court of Appeal, which said that it was quite appropriate for the other side to have consulted an expert that we had consulted, there being few experts in that field. Of course, he was not at that point giving evidence. He then did give expert evidence, not on the basis of what he had said to us, but following his discoveries as a result of the instructions that he had received.
The clause was intended to deter shopping around when it is improper—I am not at all suggesting that it always is—and to do something to redress the balance between prosecution and defence disclosure requirements in the area. It would be possible under the clause, provided that the expert was not questioned about the work done for the defendant or asked to give any opinion that would disclose in any way legally privileged material that he had had, for such a person to be consulted and employed by the prosecution. However, I accept that the clause does not attract the sanctions provided for in Clause 38, as Members of the Committee may have noticed. Again, legal professional privilege lies behind that restraint on behalf of the Government.
The provision remains modest and does not involve disclosure of the report, although my noble friend Lady Kennedy suggested that it did. I fully recognise the constraints of legal professional privilege. I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who reminded me of several cases that refer to it. I am glad to say that I was well aware of those principles previously. Although the clause, because it is modest, may have limited effect, it will still do something to redress a balance that exists.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: The Minister has talked at length about the limitations on the use of the clause—there must not be interference with professional privilege, there must not be disclosure of communication from the defendant to the particular witness, and everything else that is not allowed. If all those constraints are accepted, it is very difficult to see any significant benefit in such a clause. What are the circumstances in which it is really desirable to ask Parliament to change the law which would properly enable the clause to be used in a way that has real value?
I am not persuaded, and I do not think that the Minister has begun to give any kind of colour as to the circumstances in which that would be really beneficial. We must bear in mind in particular that, even if one wished to be as scrupulous as possible in avoiding
734
impairing professional privilege, what an expert says after he has been approached by the defence is bound to be coloured by that. It is extremely unlikely that, in a criminal as opposed to a civil case, he would be able to give evidence to the prosecution that would be proper.
Lord Goldsmith: I do not accept that the question of legal professional privilege depends, when one is talking about a defence expert, on whether the case is criminal or civil. Exactly the same principle applies.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I merely want to point out to the Minister that, in practice, shopping around does not take place these days because legal aid is not granted for it. The fact is that 99.9 per cent of cases are legally aided. Every time one wants a professional and expert opinion these days, one has to apply to the fund for it to be granted. That is the way to control shopping around, not to deal with it in the way proposed in the clause.
Lord Goldsmith: I hear what the noble Lord says. My point in response to the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, is that I make a virtue of the fact that the proposal is modest, because it does not contravene the principles referred to as important by Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate. It will have some value for that, and some benefit in deterring shopping around and not allowing a false impression to be provided in certain cases. The Government will seek to ensure that the clause stands part.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If the purpose of the clause is to avoid a false impression being created, it follows that the prosecution will reveal to the jury or to the adjudicating magistrates that other people have been approached for their names and addresses. If that information is not given, the false impression to which the noble and learned Lord referred remains.
Lord Goldsmith: I repeat. Read Clause 38 and see in what circumstances adverse inferences can be drawn. It does not include that.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble and learned Lord sits down. He has been assailed by many noble Lords, because, no doubt inadvertently, he omitted to deal with a little scenario that I suggested. If the principle or rationale of Clause 34—as much in what it does not do as what it does do—is to protect legal privilege, how is it that the volunteer of an opinion is not included in the same provisions? In his case, no suggestion of legal privilege can arise, and yet the Bill does not propose to catch such a volunteer in that way. I asked rather tentatively and diffidently what was the principle that led to that distinction.
Lord Goldsmith: I apologise for not having addressed the example that the noble and learned Lord put to me in what I understood to be a friendly way.

735
The principle is that the provision in Clause 34 relates only to those cases where the accused has instructed a person with a view to his providing any expert opinion. The principle therefore is those he has instructed, but then does not use. If the defendant is fortunate enough to be assailed by offers of gratuitous expert advice from all sides, that is an entirely different issue. If the defendant does not take those offers any further, but then instructs one or more of those people actually to provide a report for possible use as evidence at the trial, there is no reason why this provision should apply. It is not just legal professional privilege which is the principle behind the provision. Legal professional privilege is a safeguard that should be guaranteed.
Perhaps I may address Amendment No. 112, which the noble Baroness moved. The provision is not otiose, as she suggests. Clause 33 introduces a general obligation for the defence to disclose the witnesses it intends to use at the trial—an obligation which has applied in the case of defence alibi and expert witnesses for many years.
Clause 34(2) removes the obligation of the defence to disclose an expert under Clause 34 who has already been disclosed under Clause 33. In short, it makes it clear that Clause 34 applies only to unused expert witnesses.
The amendment would duplicate the witness notice requirements. The accused would be required to include details of experts that he intended to call to give evidence both in the witness notification provision and in the expert provision. There seems to be no need for that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Will the Minister deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, about the inquiry? Frequently, if not invariably, the solicitor will telephone a particular expert to get a feeling as to how he will deal with the issue at hand. Is that "instructing" in the terms of the Bill, or does it mean a formal letter of instruction for which payment will be given?
Lord Goldsmith: Whether someone is "instructed" within the terms of the clause does not depend on whether it is done orally or by letter. English law does not depend on formalities in that way. It is a question of fact. Has the accused instructed a person with a view to his providing any expert opinion for possible use as evidence at the trial of the accused? I can envisage circumstances in which an inquiry on the telephone—which may include questions such as "Does this fall within your field?" or "Have you got experience of this sort of incident?"—would fall short of instructing someone with a view to his providing an expert opinion for possible use as evidence at trial. It will always be, and is, a question of fact in each case.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am sorry to prolong the debate and I shall do so for only 30 seconds. The Minister concedes that the prosecution has to disclose evidence which is adverse to its case. Let us suppose that the prosecution is favoured with a volunteered opinion which is adverse to its case and favourable to
736
the defence. Surely it would then be incumbent on the prosecution to disclose it. Yet if the roles are reversed, the Government do not intend to apply the same rule. Is there any reason for that, save that to do so would impinge on the burden of proof?
Lord Goldsmith: We are adopting an entirely different approach between prosecution and defence. If the prosecution has examples of expert reports that undermine its case or advance the case of the defence, it will be obliged to disclose them. That is not what is being proposed in relation to the defence. The obligation on the prosecution in relation to unused material is more extensive. I do not complain about that—that is the way that we have drafted the Bill and it will remain more extensive.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his answer to Amendment No. 112 and I accept his explanation. He took us further forward than was done in another place.
Several Members of the Committee have spoken as though Clause 34 stand part is grouped with these amendments. The Minister perhaps thought that it still was, but it has been separated. It is natural for Members of the Committee to take that within the general debate on my group of amendments.
The Minister said that the clause is intended to deter improper shopping around and redress the imbalance between prosecution and defence. That has taken us to the root of the objection which many of us on all sides of the Committee have with this clause.
I was disappointed that the noble and learned Lord returned to the phraseology used in another place, trotting out the old argument of shopping around. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was right in putting forward the point that most people are on legal aid. The Legal Services Commission will not allow one to shop around for experts. It is the guardian on that.
Even so, why should not the defence be allowed to instruct more than one expert and on receipt of that report then decide whether to rely on it without the threat that the prosecution might leave the court to draw an adverse inference on the defence's decision not to use the expert's opinion? Why should a defendant's case be prejudiced by arguing in court on peripheral matters about why an expert has not been called? That is liable to distract the jury from the real issues in the case.
The noble and learned Lord said that he would look at Clause 38 and that adverse inferences affect Clause 34. In that case, he should accept my Amendment No. 113 with open arms. It makes it clear that the information which goes to the prosecution with regard to the name of an expert whose evidence will not be relied upon cannot be used in court. My amendment

737
makes it clear that that evidence cannot be used and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn. My honour will be satisfied.
I have offered that compromise to the Minister, but he has not seized it. I therefore give notice that although I shall now beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 112, I shall ask to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 113.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 22, line 41, at end insert—
"(4)In the event of the expert evidence of a person named in subsection (1) above not being relied upon by the accused, and no copy of his report having been served by the accused on the prosecutor, no reference shall be made at trial by the prosecutor or evidence adduced by him, to the effect that the accused had approached such a person for his expert opinion.""
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
9.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 113) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 47.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Blatch, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hylton, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Luke, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Craigavon, V.

Naseby, L.

Crathorne, L.

Renton, L.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Roper, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Dundee, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Geddes, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hanningfield, L.

Ullswater, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Andrews, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Gale, B.

Barnett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Bassam of Brighton. L.

Golding, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Chandos, V.

Hoyle, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Crawley, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

David, B.

Jordan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Judd, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Layard, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

738

Radice, L.

Thornton, B.

Simon, V.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Whitty, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.8 p.m.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Further provisions about defence disclosure]:
[Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 23, line 22, at end insert "having heard representations from all parties"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would alter proposed new Section 6E of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. In its current form, the Bill would allow the court, either of its own motion or on the application of any party, to direct that the jury may be given a copy of the defence statement. Amendment No. 117 would add one further qualification to subsection (5)(a) in that there would have to he representations from all parties.
We received advice on this matter from the Bar Council and the Law Society, which believe that it is essential in order that the court may give the defendant an opportunity to have a say about what effect such disclosure would have on his or her case. Surely one should allow all the parties involved in the justice system to make their case.
The defence statement itself will be submitted very early on and, of course, may be extremely detailed. It will have been submitted with the implied authority of the defendant, who may not easily be contacted or he may have mental health difficulties or require an interpreter. Any of those may mean that there is some information of which the defence is unaware or about which it is perhaps not too content and which the defendant feels would harm his defence if it went before the jury.
The fact that this document may be given to the jury in its entirety will increase the pressure on the defence representatives. Of course, while we are fully supportive of early preparation and disclosure—we made that clear in our support of earlier clauses in this part—we are concerned that these proposals take no account of the constraints of time and resources and the timetables of other agencies involved, such as the police, the CPS and prison officers, or, indeed, the time constraints of the Legal Services Commission.
I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether funding will be available for the additional staff and earlier instruction of counsel that will be required as a result of this new regime. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I agree with the substance of what the noble Baroness has said in the first part of her

739
observations, but I do not think that it is necessary. I am not sure that I understood the second part of her remarks, which may be my fault.
The amendment would include in Clause 35 a provision that before a judge gives a copy of a defence statement to the jury, he should hear representations from all parties. Clause 35 says that the judge can give the defence statement to the jury. I find it hard to believe that a judge would not want to hear representations from the parties before taking that step.
The courts make many orders during a trial, and judges will invariably look to the parties for representations as to whether or not the order should be made. I anticipate that a judge will always seek representations before making an order. However, I would object to putting it on the face of the Bill that, before making the order, representations have to be considered. That would then mean that every time we give a court a power to make an order, it must do so only after making representations. What will then happen when we do not include such provisions?
I hope that those remarks will reassure the noble Baroness on the fundamental point behind her amendment, and I invite her to withdraw it.
The noble Baroness then asked about timing and payment for defence counsel. The particular provision on giving the defence statement to the jury does not seem to me to involve additional work on the part of the defence team, which, at the moment the judge considers giving it to the jury, will have to make a representation. But that will simply be part of the defence's preparation. I cannot give a further answer. I probably misunderstood the point.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I shall just say a word to support the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I am sure that he is right that before a decision is made about giving a statement to the jury, counsel on both sides would be asked for their views. No judge would do something like that without seeking some sort of agreement—or disagreement, in which case he would have to adjudicate. I should have thought it basic to the running of the court that that should happen.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. This amendment was tabled as the direct result of a briefing from the Law Society. It is the Law Society's own drafting. I shall check its response to the Minister's remarks. In the last debate, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden referred to occasions upon which one may not seek expert advice, but it can be volunteered. Such expert advice was volunteered by my husband on Saturday evening, and it concurred entirely with what the noble and learned Lord said, so I am not entirely surprised. However, I will check with the Law Society whether we should take this matter any further on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 and 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Faults in defence disclosure]:
10.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 119:
Page 25, line 6, leave out ", (3) and (4)" and insert "and (3)"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is to be taken with a later group. For the moment I will not move it.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 25, leave out lines 40 to 45.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendments in this group is simply to exclude from Clause 38, which deals with faults in defence disclosure, references to the failure of the accused to give a witness notice in time in relation to witnesses, or calling a witness who has not been adequately identified. In defending somebody, it is difficult to decide in advance whether a witness will he called. Almost by principle, defence witnesses are not called unless it is absolutely necessary so to do.
Furthermore, issues arise in the course of a trial that the defence has not expected. A witness may say something that calls for a riposte. It is not a sufficient safeguard for the court simply to have regard to whether there is any justification for the failure. That is not a sufficient safeguard in the sort of circumstances that I envisage.
We are opposed in principle to punishment for failure to give notice of defence witnesses. It has never happened before and should not be allowed by this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on the three amendments to which I have put my name, but I am not proceeding with Amendment No. 122, which I tabled.
Lord Goldsmith: I speak to Amendments Nos. 120 and 121, not to Amendment No. 122, which is not being proceeded with, to Amendments Nos. 123 and 125, and to Amendment No. 126, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland.
We had thought that Amendments Nos. 120, 121, 123 and 125 were consequential upon the deletion, had it happened, of Clause 33, which requires the defence to give notice of intention to call defence witnesses. Of course, if the clause had gone, it would make sense no longer to include the provisions to which the amendments refer. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said in moving the amendment that he proposes that, although Clause 33 stands—that is to say, there is still an obligation on the

741
defence to give notice of defence witnesses—no sanction whatever should attach to a failure to comply. I respectfully suggest that that would be inappropriate.
Important safeguards are provided, including that in proposed new subsection (6), which provides, where there is a failure arising under proposed new subsection (2)(f)(ii), that leave of the court would be required before comment could be made. Now I read the detail, that is not as relevant as I thought when I began that proposition.
Surely, it makes sense that if there is a good reason why a new witness has been called—there is no failure to call a witness but a new witness is called for a good reason—no adverse inference will be drawn and there can be no harm in the provision. On the other hand, if the defendant had had all opportunity and had no justification for suddenly producing a witness who could plainly have been identified before, common sense suggests that people would say, "Now you say that this man was standing next to you when the incident took place, saw everything, and that you travelled home with him. Why on earth did you not say that before? If you have a good reason for that, let's hear it. If not, an inference is likely to be drawn".
Viscount Colville of Culross: The same point arises again. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would agree with me, but the drawing of inferences is not a matter that goes undiscussed before the judge directs the jury. There is often occasion to discuss how that will be put. Indeed, that is to some extent consolidated in the guidance given to Crown Court judges. I should have thought that common sense would indicate that if there was a good reason why the witness had not been caught before, that would be aired in the absence of the jury between the parties in the court and, very likely, no adverse inference would be put before the jury. I may be wrong about that, but that is certainly how I would have dealt with that.
Lord Hylton: Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, asked how often ambush defences occur and how often they succeed. It might be appropriate to our consideration of the amendment if the noble and learned Lord could answer that question.
Lord Goldsmith: I am happy to do that with such information as is available to me this evening. It goes back a little bit, but a Crown Court study was conducted for the purposes of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice under the chairmanship of Lord Runciman. According to research undertaken then, when asked, prosecution barristers considered that there had been an ambush defence in 7 per cent of cases in which there was a substantive reply. The Crown Prosecution Service, looking at a different number of cases, put the figure at around 10 per cent. The police considered that there had been an ambush defence in a larger number of cases, but I should make it clear that the sample of cases was different. Prosecution barristers said that some 41 cases out of 601 involved
742
ambush defences; for the CPS it was 70 out of 724; for the police it was 152 out of 581. According to the police, ambush defences occurred in 21 per cent of contested cases ending in a verdict of not guilty, with 34 per cent of cases ending in a verdict of guilty.
The figures given in the course of this research study indicate that, in the views of those asked—the police, prosecution barristers and the CPS—there were ambush defences in a significant number of cases.
I should have spoken to Amendment No. 126. If noble Lords permit, I shall do so now before moving it formally in due course. The amendment introduces a new clause, adding a significant safeguard to the requirement for the defence to provide advance notice of witnesses. It provides for any police interviews with witnesses to be disclosed to the prosecution under the new procedures to be governed by a code of practice. In an earlier part of this debate I indicated the areas covered by that code.
The new clause addresses concerns raised by the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee about the risk of undue pressure being put on defence witnesses. The committee recommended that any such interviews should be covered by a code of practice, and that is what is proposed. I hope that the clause will be welcomed by all sides of the Committee.
Lord Hylton: Earlier this evening the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that a record kept by the police of interviews with defence witnesses whose names had previously been disclosed would be given both to the witness and to the accused. I do not see any reference to that in the proposed code of practice. How is this to be dealt with?
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment sets out the enabling powers for a code of practice; it does not include in its terms the code of practice itself. I was referring to an indicative code of practice, of which notice had been given, so I believed, to a number of noble Lords. However, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said earlier that she had not received a copy. I do not know whether that indicates that there has been a more general failure of disclosure. The letter indicates that it had been copied to all noble Lords who attended the Second Reading debate. I cannot immediately recall whether the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, did so, but I shall certainly ensure that a copy of the letter is sent to him very soon. He will then see the indicative provisions that we have in mind.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I wish to comment first on ambush defences. I am not surprised that the figures differ as to whether it is the prosecutor or the police coming to the conclusions just set out by the noble and learned Lord. It depends on what is meant by an ambush defence. It happens frequently in a case that facts come to light or circumstances change which were not expected by the prosecution. For example, the prosecution may have one version of what happened during an interview, but when the defendant comes to give his evidence he says that for one reason

743
or another those events were not true and then gives the actual defence. Would that be defined as an ambush defence?
My second point concerns the code of practice. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell us whether it will apply equally to alibi notices, or the equivalent of alibi notices in the defence statement. A problem that arises in practice with the police interviewing alibi witnesses is that they have in their possession a statement which they do not disclose, saying that there are public interest reasons for not doing so. The defence is then more or less obliged to call its alibi witnesses blind, not knowing precisely what is set out in the statement that the police have obtained. If the code means that all statements taken from defence witnesses, including alibi witnesses—and, of course, interviews—will now be in the hands of the defence, that is a great advance which I certainly welcome. Can the noble and learned Lord enlighten me on that?
Lord Goldsmith: The provisions of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 126 provide for a code of practice,
"in relation to the arranging and conducting of interviews of persons…particulars of whom are given in a defence statement in accordance with section 6A(2), or…who are included as proposed witnesses in a notice given under section 6C".
So it will be necessary to consider the detail of that. Section 6A(2) appears to include alibi witnesses and therefore it would appear that I am able to answer the noble Lord's question in the affirmative.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am very pleased to hear that.
My third and final point in relation to the amendments that I have moved and spoken to is that the clause envisages the disclosure of the defence statement to the jury. Up until now it has been impossible to get a defence statement before a jury even if one wants to. In a particular case in Liverpool the defence wanted to do that but the judge refused leave for that to happen. I take it that defence statements will be disclosed to the jury if the jury is to be invited to draw some inference from them. I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord that there will be discussions between counsel and the judge before the judge invites the jury to draw inferences of that kind. That is what happens in the usual course of events.
I shall consider this matter having regard to the reply given by the Minister. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 123 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 27. line 5, leave out "5" and insert "6A(3)"
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment makes a technical correction to the draft. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
"CODE OF PRACTICE FOR POLICE INTERVIEWS OF WITNESSES NOTIFIED BY ACCUSED
In Part 1 of the 1996 Act after section 21 there is inserted—
"21A CODE OF PRACTICE FOR POLICE INTERVIEWS OF WITNESSES NOTIFIED BY ACCUSED

(1) The Secretary of State shall prepare a code of practice which gives guidance to police officers in relation to the arranging and conducting of interviews of persons—

(a) particulars of whom are given in a defence statement in accordance with section 6A(2), or

(b) who are included as proposed witnesses in a notice given under section 6C.

(2) The code must include (in particular) guidance in relation to—

(a) information that should be provided to the interviewee and the accused in relation to such an interview;

(b) the notification of the accused's solicitor of such an interview;

(c) the attendance of the interviewee's solicitor at such an interview;

(d) the attendance of the accused's solicitor at such an interview;

(e) the attendance of any other appropriate person at such an interview taking into account the interviewee's age or any disability of the interviewee.

(3) Any police officer who arranges or conducts such an interview shall have regard to the code.

(4) In preparing the code, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) to the extent the code applies to England and Wales—

(i) any person who he considers to represent the interests of chief officers of police;

(ii) the General Council of the Bar;

(iii) the Law Society of England and Wales;

(iv) the Institute of Legal Executives;

(b) to the extent the code applies to Northern Ireland—

(i) the Chief Constable of the Police Service
of Northern Ireland;

(ii) the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland;

(iii) the Law Society of Northern Ireland;

(c) such other persons as he thinks fit.

(5) The code shall not come into operation until the Secretary of State by order so provides.

(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the code and subsections (4) and (5) shall apply to a revised code as they apply to the code as first prepared.

(7) An order bringing the code into operation may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.

745

(8) An order bringing a revised code into operation shall be laid before each House of Parliament if the order has been made without a draft having been so laid and approved by a resolution of each House.

(9) When an order or a draft of an order is laid in accordance with subsection (7) or (8), the code to which it relates shall also be laid.

(10) No order or draft of an order may be laid until the consultation required by subsection (4) has taken place.

(11) A failure by a police officer to have regard to any provision of a code for the time being in operation by virtue of an order under this section shall not in itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.

(12) In all criminal and civil proceedings a code in operation at any time by virtue of an order under this section shall be admissible in evidence.

(13) If it appears to a court or tribunal conducting criminal or civil proceedings that—

(a) any provision of a code in operation at any time by virtue of an order under this section, or

(b) any failure mentioned in subsection (11),
is relevant to any question arising in the proceedings, the provision or failure shall be taken into account in deciding the question.'

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Allocation of cases triable either way, and sending cases to the Crown Court etc]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 184, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) Where the court makes a decision under subsection (1) that the offence is more suitable for summary trial, having been informed of the accused's previous convictions under subsection (2)(a), the court as constituted shall not continue to try the accused."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 127, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 128, 129 and 130, which give rise to a very important point of principle.
I am very concerned that where a court has made a decision having been informed of the accused's previous convictions, then that court should not continue to try him. That is the purpose of the subsection I seek to insert in paragraph 5 of the third schedule. For the existing Section 19 there is to be substituted a decision as to allocation. The court will give the prosecution an opportunity to inform the court of the accused's previous convictions, if any, and will also give both the prosecution and the accused an opportunity to make representation as to what sort of trial is more suitable.
Having come to that conclusion, we consider that the court should disqualify itself from sitting to determine the matter as ordinary magistrates. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: I speak to Amendments Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130. Amendment No. 127 would disqualify magistrates to whom antecedents had been revealed at allocation from hearing any subsequent summary trial.
746
The Government recognise that there will be circumstances when lay magistrates or district judges consider that information which has been revealed to them in the course of an allocation hearing is sufficiently prejudicial that they feel it would not be proper for them to hear the trial of that defendant if summary trial is agreed.
In those circumstances it is appropriate for the magistrates to stand down; and that is what they would do. But the question here is whether that is what magistrates should be required to do by putting it on the face of the Bill. It is quite well known that magistrates will hear cases involving defendants where one or more of them were involved in convicting that same defendant some time before. Indeed. in some parts of the country with the more prolific local offenders it would be quite hard sometimes for the local Bench not to recognise a defendant as someone they dealt with only recently. It would be odd if a magistrate were disqualified automatically by reason of being informed that a defendant had a certain previous conviction, but would have a discretion to hear the case if he himself convicted him a month before. We are prepared to trust magistrates and district judges to know when it is appropriate for them to sit.
For that reason we believe that the automatic disqualification for which Section 42 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 provides can he dispensed with. We would therefore not accept Amendment No. 130, which is consequential on Amendment No. 127.
Amendment No. 128 deals with a different point. That would require a prosecution application to have a case re-allocated for Crown Court trial to be made within seven days of the decision to allocate it for summary trial. The justification for allowing such an application is that an allocation decision may have been made on the basis of incomplete information. If it is discovered, for example, that a defendant who was believed to have no previous convictions in fact has many and all for offences similar to that for which he stands charged, and this discovery is made before the start of his trial, why should he not be sent to the Crown Court to be tried? Why impose a time limit of seven days, which would be quite arbitrary?
The idea of being able to move from summary trial to committal proceedings is not an innovation: there is existing provision for that.
Finally, Amendment No. 129 would require the defendant to be notified of such an application. I am sure that the normal practice would be for the Crown to inform the defendant wherever it was practicable to do so. My only doubt is whether a statutory requirement to do so might lead to unnecessary delay in cases where notification was for some reason not practicable and the need for Crown Court trial indisputable. But I am prepared to consider whether a statutory requirement could be incorporated.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the light of those assurances I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I

747
am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that the court will consider whether it should continue to sit in particular circumstances. When that is drawn to the attention of the magistrates I am sure that they will come to a proper decision. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says about Amendments Nos. 128 and 129. I should be grateful if he would consider the placing of the opportunity to make representations on the face of the Bill. I wait with interest to see what he will do. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 127.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127A to 130 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 131:
Page 199, line 19, leave out from second "offence" to end of line 20 and insert "triable either way;"
The noble and learned Lord said: I move Amendment No. 131 and speak to Amendment No. 132. Amendment No. 131 brings the definition of an either way offence into line with that of the Interpretation Act 1978. It is therefore a technical amendment that I hope will be acceptable.
Amendment No. 132, which appears to be very substantial in length, makes numerous consequential amendments to Schedule 3. It results from the new allocation and sending provisions, which are provided in that part of the Bill that we have just dealt with. It is necessary, in the light of the new provisions for allocation and for sending of cases, that such consequential amendments be made. Noble Lords will understand why, at this hour in the evening, I do not propose to go through every one of such consequential provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 210, line 5, at end insert—

Criminal Justice Bill

  PART 2 MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (c. 36)
  29 (1) Section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedure for indictment of offenders) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "committed" there is substituted "sent",

  (b) paragraphs (aa) to (ac) are omitted,

  (c) for paragraph (i) there is substituted—

  "(i) where the person charged has been sent for trial, the bill of indictment against him may include, either in substitution for or in addition to any count charging an offence specified in the notice under section 57D(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, any counts founded on material which, in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to that Act, was served on the person charged, being counts which may lawfully be joined in the same indictment;",.

  748

  (d) paragraphs (iA) and (iB) are omitted.

  (e) in paragraph (ii), for "the committal" there is substituted "such notice", and

  (f) the words from "and in paragraph (iA)" to the end are omitted.

  (3) In subsection (3)(b), for "committed" there is substituted "sent".
  Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80)
  30 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 1967 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 9 (proof by written statement), in subsection (1), the words ", other than committal proceedings," are omitted.
  (3) In section 36 (interpretation), in subsection (1), the definition of "committal proceedings" is omitted.
  Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)
  31 (1) The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 1 (right of appeal), in subsection (3), for "committed him" there is substituted "sent him to the Crown Court".
  (3) In section 9 (appeal against sentence following conviction on indictment), in subsection (2), the words from "section 41" to "either way offence" are omitted.
  Theft Act 1968 (c. 60)
  32 In section 27 of the Theft Act 1968 (evidence and procedure on charge of theft or handling stolen goods), subsection (4A) is omitted.
  Criminal Justice Act 1972 (c. 71)
  33 In section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (admissibility of written statements outside England and Wales), subsections (1A) to (1C) are omitted.
  Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)
  34 In Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 ( words and expressions defined)—

  (a) in the definition of "Committed for trial", paragraph (a) is omitted,

  (b) after the entry for "Secretary of State" there is inserted—

  ""Sent for trial" means, in relation to England and Wales, sent by a magistrates' court to the Crown Court for
  trial pursuant to section 51 or 5IA of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998."
  Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
  35 (1) The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 is amended as follows.
  (2) Sections 4 to 8 (which relate to committal proceedings) shall cease to have effect and the cross-heading preceding section 4 is omitted.
  (3) In section 29 (power of magistrates' court to remit a person under 17 for trial to a juvenile court in certain circumstances), in subsection (2)(b)(i), for the words from "proceeds" to the end there is substituted "sends him to the Crown Court for trial under section 51 or 5IA of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; and".
  (4) The following sections shall cease to have effect—

  (a) section 97A (summons or warrant as to committal proceedings),

  (b) section 103 (evidence of persons under 14 in committal proceedings for assault, sexual offences etc), and

  (c) section 106 (false written statements tendered in evidence).

  (5) In section 150 (interpretation of other terms), in subsection (1), the definition of "committal proceedings" is omitted.
  (6) In section 155 (short title, extent and commencement), in subsection (2)(a), the words "8 (except subsection (9))" are omitted.
  Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
  36 (1) The Supreme Court Act 1981 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 76 (committal for trial: alteration of place of trial)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "varying" (where it first appears) to "to Crown Court)" there is substituted "substituting some other place for the place specified in a notice under section 51D(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (a "section 51D notice")",

  (b) in subsection (3), for the words "fixed by the magistrates' court, as specified in a notice under a relevant transfer provision" there is substituted "specified in a section 51D notice",

  (c) subsection (5) is omitted, and

  (d) in the heading, for "Committal" there is substituted "Sending".

  (3) In section 77 (committal for trial: date of trial)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for "committal for trial or the giving of a notice of transfer under a relevant transfer provision" there is substituted "being sent for trial".

  (b) in subsection (2), for "committed by a magistrates' court or in respect of whom a notice of transfer under a relevant transfer provision has been given" there is substituted "sent for trial",

  (c) in subsection (3), for "of committal for trial or of a notice of transfer" there is substituted "when the defendant is sent for trial",

  (d) subsection (4) is omitted, and

  (e) in the heading, for "Committal" there is substituted "Sending".

  (4) In section 80 (process to compel appearance), in subsection (2), for "committed" there is substituted "sent".
  (5) In section 81—
  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) in paragraph (a)—

  (a) the words "who has been committed in custody for appearance before the Crown Court or in relation to whose case a notice of transfer has been given under a relevant transfer provision or" are omitted, and

  (b) after "51" there is inserted "or 51A",

  (ii) in paragraph (g), sub-paragraph (i) is omitted, and

  (b) subsection (7) is omitted.
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)
  37 (1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 71 (microfilm copies), the paragraph beginning "Where the proceedings" is omitted.
  (3) In section 76 (confessions), subsection (9) is omitted.
  (4) In section 78 (exclusion of unfair evidence), subsection (3) is omitted.
  Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23)
  38 (1) The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 7A (powers of non-legal staff), for subsection (6) there is substituted—
  "(6) This section applies to an offence if it is triable only on indictment or is an offence for which the accused has been sent for trial."
  (3) In section 16 (defence costs)—

  (a) in subsection (1), paragraph (b) is omitted, and

  (b) in subsection (2)—

  (i) in paragraph (a), for "committed" there is substituted "sent", and

  (ii) paragraph (aa) is omitted, and

  (c) subsection (12) is omitted.

  (4) In section 22 (power of Secretary of State to set time limits in relation to preliminary stages of criminal proceedings), in subsection (11)—

  (a) in paragraph (a) of the definition of "appropriate court", for "committed for trial, sent for trial under section 51 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998" there is substituted "sent for trial",

  (b) for the definition of -custody of the Crown Court" there is substituted—

  ""custody of the Crown Court" includes custody to which a person is committed in pursuance of—

  (a) section 43A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (magistrates' court dealing with a person brought before it following his arrest in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Crown Court); or

  (b) section 52 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (provisions supplementing section 51);".

  (5) In section 23 (discontinuance of proceedings in magistrates' court), in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) to (c) there is substituted—

  "(a) any stage of the proceedings after the court has begun to hear evidence for the prosecution at a summary trial of the offence; or

  (b) any stage of the proceedings after the accused has been sent for trial for the offence."

  (6) In section 23A (discontinuance of proceedings after accused has been sent for trial)—

  (a) in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the words from "under" to "1998" are omitted, and

  (b) in subsection (2), for "51(7)" there is substituted "51D(1)".

  Criminal Justice Act 1987 (c. 38)
  39 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 1987 is amended as follows.
  (2) Sections 4 to 6 (which relate to the transfer of cases to the Crown Court) shall cease to have effect.
  (3) In section 11 (restrictions on reporting)—

  (a) in subsection (2), paragraph (a) is omitted,

  (b) subsection (3) is omitted,

  (c) in subsection (7), "(3)," is omitted,

  (d) in subsection (8), "(3)," is omitted,

  (e) subsections (9) and (10) are omitted,

  (f) in subsection (11), paragraphs (a) and (d) are omitted.

  Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33)
  40 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 30 (expert reports), subsection (4A) is omitted.
  (3) In section 40 (power to join in indictment count for common assault etc), in subsection (1)—

  (a) the words "were disclosed to a magistrates' court inquiring into the offence as examining justices or" are omitted,

  (b) after "51" there is inserted "or 51A".

  (4) Section 41 (power of Crown Court to deal with summary offence where person committed for either way offence) shall cease to have effect.
  Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)
  41 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 1991 is amended as follows.
  (2) Section 53 (notices of transfer in certain cases involving children) shall cease to have effect.
  (3) Schedule 6 (notices of transfer: procedures in lieu of committal) shall cease to have effect.
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
  42 (1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 34 (effect of accused's failure to mention facts when questioned or charged), in subsection (2)—

  (a) paragraph (a) is omitted, and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), there is substituted "paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".

  (3) In section 36 (effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for objects, substances or marks), in subsection (2)—

  (a) paragraph (a) is omitted, and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), there is substituted "paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".

  (4) In section 37 (effect of accused's failure or refusal to account for presence at a particular place), in subsection (2)—

  (a) paragraph (a) is omitted, and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), there is substituted "paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".

  Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c. 25)
  43 ( ) The Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 1 (application of this Part), in subsection (2)—

  (a) paragraphs (a) to (c) are omitted, and

  (b) in paragraph (cc), the words from "under" to the end are omitted.

  (3) In section 5 (compulsory disclosure by accused)—

  (a) in subsection (I), for "(2) to" there is substituted "(3A) and",

  (b) subsections (2) and (3) are omitted, and

  (c) in subsection (3A), in paragraph (b), for "subsection (7) of section 51" there is substituted "subsection (1) of section 51 D".

  (4) In section 13 (time limits: transitional), in subsection (1), paragraphs (a) to (c) of the modified section 3(8) are omitted.
  (5) In section 28 (introduction to Part 3), in subsection (1)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—

  "(a) on or after the appointed day the accused is sent for trial for the offence concerned,", and.

  (b) paragraph (b) is omitted.

  (6) In section 39 (meaning of pre-trial hearing), in subsection (1), for paragraph (a) there is substituted—

  "(a) after the accused has been sent for trial for the offence, and".

  (7) Section 68 (use of written statements and depositions at trial) and Schedule 2 (statements and depositions) shall cease to have effect.
  Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37)
  44 The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is amended as follows.
  45 In section 52 (provisions supplementing section 51)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after "51" there is inserted "or 51A",

  (b) in subsection (5), after "51" there is inserted "or 51A",

  (c) in subsection (6), after "51" there is inserted "or 51A", and

  (d) in the heading, after "51" there is inserted "and 51A".

  46 In section 121 (short title, commencement and extent), in subsection (8), before "paragraphs 7(1)" there is inserted "paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to this Act, section 52(6) above so far as relating to that paragraph,".
  47 In paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 (reporting restrictions)—

  (a) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph ( I ), for "Great Britain" there is substituted "the United Kingdom",

  (b) in sub-paragraph (8), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

  "(bb) where the application made by the accused under paragraph 2(1) above relates to a charge for an offence in respect of which notice has been given to the court under section 5IB of this Act, any relevant business information;",.

  (c) after sub-paragraph (9) there is inserted—

  "(9A) The following is relevant business information for the purposes of sub-paragraph (8) above—

  (a) any address used by the accused for carrying on a business on his own account;

  (b) the name of any business which he was carrying on on his own account at any relevant time;

  (c) the name of any firm in which he was a partner at any relevant time or by which he was engaged at any such time:

  (d) the address of any such firm;

  (e) the name of any company of which he was a director at any relevant time or by which he was otherwise engaged at any such time;

  (f) the address of the registered or principal office of any such company;

  (g) any working address of the accused in his capacity as a person engaged by any such company;

  and here "engaged" means engaged under a contract of service or a contract for services.",.
  (d) after sub-paragraph (11) there is inserted—
  "(11A) Proceedings for an offence under this paragraph shall not, in Northern Ireland, be instituted otherwise than by or with the consent of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland."
  Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23)
  48 (1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 27 (video recorded evidence in chief), subsection (10) is omitted.
  (3) In section 42 (interpretation and application of section 41). in subsection (3)—

  (a) paragraphs (a) and (b) are omitted,

  (b) in paragraph (c), after "51" there is inserted "or 51A".

  Powers of Criminal Courts ( Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)
  49 (1) The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 148 (restitution orders), in subsection (6), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—
  "(b) such documents as were served on the offender in pursuance of regulations made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.""
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 40 agreed to.
  Lord Goldsmith: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Civil Contingencies
A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered the committee appointed by them to meet with the Lords committee on Tuesday 15th July at half-past three o'clock, as proposed by this House.

Mental Incapacity
A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered the committee appointed by them to meet with the Lords committee on Tuesday 15th July at half-past three o'clock, as proposed by this House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Fire Services Bill
  (Third Day)
  Monday, 14th July 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell):
  The usual rules of Grand Committee apply. I must just remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, we shall adjourn, as soon as the Division bells have rung, for 10 minutes. Then we shall resume.
  Clause 2 [Supplemental provisions]:
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 2, line 28, at end insert—

  "(1A) An act shall not constitute an unlawful act or unlawful means for the purposes of the law of tort by reason only that it is—

  (a) a breach or contravention of or non-compliance with this Act or an order made under this Act, or

  (b) an inducement or incitement of or agreement to commit such breach or non-compliance.

  (1B) In subsection (1A) "act" includes deliberate omission."

  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 34, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 41.
  It may help if, in moving the amendment, I say things that are relevant to the amendments that follow. Many of them are an attempt, as this is, to cure the silence of the Bill about what happens if and when fire brigade members or a fire authority do or induce something that offends either a direction under Clause 1(1)(b) or fail to abide by or refuse to accept an order concerning conditions of employment under Clause 1(1)(a).
  The difficulty with that is that it involves the problem of civil wrongs, usually referred to today as economic torts. They sound technical, but they are not. They do, however, require some explanation. In the past 40 or 50 years, there has grown up a clearer liability for what is usually referred to as deliberate damage done by unlawful means, for which an injunction or, ultimately, damages might be obtained on proof—in the case of an injunction—of anarguable case. It happens often in injunctions obtained or claimed against those who have threatened or taken strike action.
  Parliament has referred to the issue many times in the past few years. 1 remember, though, that the last time on which it was fully debated was 12th June, 1980. It was debated for an hour or more, largely by myself
  GC 168
  and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone. We both put many authorities on the record, some of which it will be necessary to refer to again today because, as I have said in previous proceedings, I do not like making propositions that rest on principles of law without referring to their authorities. Our task, in this amendment especially, is, first, to get the Government to appreciate the problem in the Bill and, if we can, to help to remedy the uncertainties that beset the Bill in respect of what is sometimes called—jurisprudentially inaccurately, in—this country—the right to strike.
  I am sorry to have to say to the Committee that, after discussion and considerable consultation, I must detain the Committee first on a relevant contextual issue, of which I have given notice. It will take a little time, but it was not my choice to put such matters into the purview of the Committee or of Hansard. That was the choice of my noble friend the Minister. In previous sittings of the Grand Committee, accusations were made about me and my noble friends that went to our integrity and our bona fides. It was not my choice to air the matters in Hansard, but they are now there and are all over the world on the Internet.
  On 3rd July, in this Committee, my noble friend Lord Rooker suddenly—with some asperity and without giving the conventional notice and, as far as I know, without much inquiry or previous consultation—accused my noble friends and me of malpractice that day over the groupings of amendments. That is at col. GC 286 of Hansard. He followed that on 7th July by accusing us of improper conduct and behaviour. He said that I had been guilty of improper conduct and behaviour in respect of a member of staff,
  "in the Chief Whip's Office … last Thursday".—[Official Report, 7/7/03; col. GC 39.]
  That accusation was without foundation.
  My noble friend based his angry words on a misunderstanding of the arrangements set out in the Companion with regard to groupings and, at best, a misapprehension, based on hearsay, about events at or about 12.15 p.m. on 3rd July in an office in which he was not present. He said that my noble friends and I had changed the groupings at 12.15 p.m. That was wrong. He said that, when he arrived at work, they were in one grouping, and then they were all separated. He said:
  "So, do not start telling me about the changes in the rules of this place. I am new here. My noble friend has been here for donkey's years. If he wants to work in a situation of anarchy, that is up to him".—[Official Report, 3/7/03; col. GC 286.]
  I asked the Minister to retract that and apologise, but, so far, he has not done so. I hope that he will. He also said that we had twisted his words and claimed that noises that he had heard between my noble friend and me—we were sitting down—meant that his good faith was being doubted. No mention was made of his good faith. My noble friend Lord McCarthy explained to him the principles and practices followed over two decades in the Companion, of which he seemed unaware. We had spent two weeks drafting and

  GC 169
  arranging our amendments to allow for sensible debates on difficult issues. It is not our habit to try to produce anarchy.
  On the events about which the Minister suddenly launched his accusations there has been considerable correspondence. My noble friends and I had had full co-operation from that office up to 12.15 that day, as we had had for 25 years. I found that inaccurate draft groupings had been placed in the Prince's Chamber. I was entitled to ask that they be removed because I had not agreed to them. They were not. My request was refused, and I was annoyed that that was denied me, which was wrong.
  I have already written to the member of staff involved to say that I regret my annoyance, that I regret any unintended affront that it was thought to convey and that I wish to put the whole matter, even though it has been put into Hansard on no direct evidence—
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: May I intervene?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I want to finish the statement. It is important to me to get it right. My noble friend will have plenty of opportunity—
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: It is a point of order.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: We do not have points of order.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: You are making a personal statement, when you ought to be speaking to Amendment No. 34.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am speaking to Amendment No. 34, in the hope that our debates today can be improved. I also have something to say that is relevant to my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting. I have given him notice, so, perhaps he will allow me to say it.
  I was not guilty of any abusive behaviour.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am sorry to interrupt. I heard you abusing a member of staff. There are five witnesses. Your behaviour was absolutely disgraceful. The irony of the situation is that we are talking about industrial relations, when you treated a member of staff of the House of Lords in a way the like of which, in 30 years as an employer, I have never seen.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend was not present. I was with the member of staff in the middle office. At the choice of the Chief Whip, the
  GC 170
  matter was discussed there. I did not abuse him, but if they like to go on saying that, what I shall say in a moment will, I suggest, be relevant.
  Lord McCarthy: If we go on like this, we are breaking the law. We are denigrating people. It will go into Hansard and be published. It is actionable.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend would need to take further advice on that.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Will the noble Lord please give way for one second?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: With pleasure.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Lord and everybody else, I beg to move.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: You cannot.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I know, but I still beg to move—although we are all clobbered—so that we can move away from a personal discussion. This does not concern any of us. I do not know who is right or who is wrong or what happened. I do not care. It can be sorted out somewhere else between noble Lords. I ask the noble Lord to allow us to get on with our job.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most appreciative of the noble Lord's comments. I agree with him. I am trying to set our discussion in a context that is different from that created by those who wish to destroy the integrity and honour of my noble friend and myself. As that was done in Hansard, I am entitled to reply in Hansard.
  I come to the most astonishing fact of all. I pause only to say that the intervention of my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting is the first time that anyone has said anything like that in an extensive and detailed correspondence with those in his office, including the Chief Whip. Nobody said that he was there, and nobody has said that there were all those witnesses. If the noble Lord wants to produce them and there is some due process in this matter—instead of the launching to and fro of accusations without any inquiry—I shall be happy to deal with it and to publish entirely all the documents—to one of which, I come.
  I collected up my papers after going to Hansard on the night of 7th July. I have a great number of files on the matter, as noble Lords will know. When I got home, I put them away. I looked at them the next morning, and I found in them a document that is relevant to the Committee's discussion. I am sorry to have to put it into Hansard, but I did not choose Hansard as the vehicle for the attack. If it is a vehicle for the attack, I am entitled to use it as a vehicle for the defence.
  The document that I found the next morning among a jumble of papers, most of which were mine and several of which I could not understand, is dated 3rd July, 2003, the day that the trouble began. It is addressed to Matthew Evans—the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting—and copies were to be sent to the Chief Whip and to the noble Lord, Lord

  GC 171
  Rooker. It is headed "Fire Services Bill", and it gives the name of the sender, which I shall not read into Hansard, although it is, in fact, the member of staff who was involved in various matters that we touched upon and in which my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting intervened in a way that is not substantiated by evidence. It reads as follows:
  "Lord Lea of Crondall will speak to his amendment 33 with amendments 10 and 12 which have been tabled by Lords McCarthy and Wedderburn. It is in order for Lord Lea to do so and he has given notice to the Minister of his intention. However, Lords McCarthy and Wedderburn may object because they de-grouped their amendments from his".
  It is correct that we de-grouped them. It then says:
  "If they object on the floor you should inform the committee that Lord Lea is quite in order".
  My noble friend did not inform the Committee of that.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I did.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend informed the Committee that he was in order to move Amendment No. 33. If he does not know the difference, he should read the Companion again. The document goes on:
  "Background.
  Lord Lea tabled his amendment between Clause 1 and Clause 2 on the advice of the Public Bill Office. It was therefore given amendment number 33. However, Lords McCarthy and Wedderburn have used Lord Lea's text in the negative to put down amendment 10 which they have tabled in Clause [1]".
  I interpose to say that I could if the Committee wishes, explain the ignorance and absurdity of that description of our amendments on which we had worked for many weeks before we ever saw the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lea. It ends:
  "They have subsequently put down other amendments in order to delay progress and stop 33 being reached".
  If anyone is telling me that there have not been a series of statements of that kind about us and that this document is proper, then I think they need to study noble Lords' procedures and normal methods of debate.
  No one, no member of staff and no Member of your Lordships' House has the right to say that we table amendments to delay progress. My noble friend, who is quicker at this than I, spotted last time—the Committee will remember—that perhaps what we were really being accused of was filibustering. This has nothing to do with filibustering, except on the part of those who have not bothered to understand the amendments.
  With generosity, this astounding communication from a member of staff might be attributed to inexperience or treatable misjudgment. For a Minister, who presumably relied on it since he had a copy, or other officer of the House to distribute such a document—and it is my belief that the document fell into the hands of other noble Lords—which my noble friend has suggested contains defamatory accusations and which certainly impinges on our integrity, seems to me to go much deeper in the context of our debate and to require further, fairer and proper investigation.
  GC 172
  I hope my noble friend Lord Rooker will retract his allegations in suitable form and we can happily move on to Amendment No. 34, which I have to move. I could not move Amendment No. 34 on the basis that people sat around the Table saying that I was doing so with a lack of bona fides.
  If the noble Lord does not wish to intervene, I shall move to the substance of the matter. I assure my noble friends that I have not been worn down by my much greater interest in the amendments which can make sense of the silence of this Bill. I assume that the law in our amendments has been the subject of close study and careful investigation by the Minister and his advisers. I therefore intend to outline very briefly the case. I shall do so without my notes and will return to any of the authorities if any of my propositions of law are disputed in the reply.
  Strikes in this country are lawful, in so far as they are, when they can rely upon the protection of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—largely Section 219. That section and others like it protect actions taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute where they would otherwise be tortious on certain grounds. As far as our context is concerned, the relevant grounds very largely induce a breach of strikers' contract of employment. What is not protected in trade disputes and in industrial conflict is action which induces a breach of or breaches a statutory duty which is independent of the contract.
  That sounds like a technical point, but it is not very difficult to understand. Sometimes statute makes the duty a part of the contract. Members of the Committee will know, because they are interested in the matter, that in the Equal Pay Act 1970 and in the Employment Act 2002, duties on employees and employers were made part of the contract by statute. They therefore became contractual duties and rights—in the one case the equality clause and in the other case the right and duty to have disciplinary and grievance procedures followed before appeal to an industrial and employment tribunal.
  Where the statute does not make the nature of the duty clear, it is frequently found that the statutory duty rests on the basis only of statute and is nothing to do with the contract. The issue for the courts is: what is to be done if it is broken, or, more particularly, what is to be done if any organisation induces its breach? I quote one case. In Meade v Haringey Borough Council in 1979, the union induced a breach of duty by the local authority and its custodians of schools which broke the Education Act duty to provide educational facilities. The Court of Appeal held—and very understandably—that this was an inducement of a breach of a statutory duty and could not possibly be protected by trade dispute industrial legislation, even though it was clearly a trade dispute because of the nature of the common law wrong; not because of the nature of the industrial conflict legislation, but because of the nature of the tort inducing breach of statutory duty.

  GC 173
  Inducing breach of statutory duty constitutes unlawful means. A breach of statutory duty constitutes unlawful means. There is an argument, which I shall deploy to the Committee if it becomes necessary in reply, as to precisely what kind of illegality that is. There are unanswered questions in the courts. The Court of Appeal in 1989, in the most important authority, itself showed how difficult that area is. But there is absolutely no doubt on the basis of that judgment, which went to the House of Lords on quite different matters, and on the basis of some 50 other judgments—which I am perfectly happy not to deploy today, but to place them in a document which will be available to the Committee if it wishes—and especially in the light of Mr Justice Laddie's summary of the law on unlawful means in a large judgment of 2001, it is perfectly clear that a breach of a statutory duty is unlawful means.
  As I said to the Committee at our last session, for the award of an injunction in industrial action cases, all that has to be proved is an arguable case that wrong has been done. Therefore, once the claimant claims an arguable case and the court sees the balance of convenience and public interest favouring the claimant, which at that point it often does, an injunction will be issued. I, and some other Members around the Table, have been in cases time and again where that has happened. Often, we have tried to argue that no common law wrong has been done, but if Members of the Committee now try to argue that where there has been a breach of statutory duty, they will be met by the authorities which I shall cite, if necessary, in reply.
  I am summarising my case. The noble Lord thinks the summary is too long. I am sorry, the case is complex; it is a complex Bill. I direct the noble Lord's attention to Clause 1(8). It illustrates that the Government have gone some way towards solving the problem in which there is a breach of duty by a fire authority employer. I moved an amendment in our last meeting suggesting that it should be even more explicit. It says that it is a duty of a fire authority employer to comply with a direction made under an order; it does not tell you what will happen if it does not. I said that I could not believe that the Government wanted all third parties who might be damaged by such a failure to comply to have the right to go to court to seek injunctions. If so, there would be a flood of litigation.
  The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but, as I understood him, that did not worry him at all. He thought all possible third parties should have the right to bring action for a breach of duty. If the same is true—as it appears to be from the mere silence of the Bill—that it is a breach of duty for a fire brigade member to break an order made which affects him in terms of his employment, and if it is true that a union that induces that breach of the order is inducing a breach of a statutory duty, there is no protection in strike law, trade dispute law or trade union law for that industrial action.
  GC 174
  Of course that makes extraordinary the Government's insistence that nothing in the Bill will affect the legality of industrial action. Someone, somewhere has either overlooked the point or thought somehow that it was not relevant. I think I know why that is. I shall conclude by saying so. I believe they have concentrated only on the point they have made, although they have made it inaccurately in their White Paper by misquoting the section involved. They think that it is all about whether the Attorney-General can bring an action. He might bring an action, but centrally it has nothing to do with that whatever. What it has to do with is the right of every citizen—which I take the Government, from what the Minister said last time, will not in any way try to stop—to bring an action for an injunction to stop strike action where he thinks it is illegal using unlawful means and where he claims his interests and his property may be involved.
  Indeed, the Minister has pressed upon us the fact that orders will be made under the Bill, only when there is a crisis or, as I remember, an emergency. In a crisis or an emergency, many people might feel their interests were involved. It may amuse the Minister but it does not amuse them, and they are likely to seek injunctions. On my reading of the Bill and the authorities, which I shall be happy to cite, they very likely in most cases could do so. Our amendments try to stop liabilities in industrial action being extended by the Bill. At the moment, the courts would be entitled, and indeed very likely obliged, to hold that those strikes and threats of strikes would be illegal on the grounds I have outlined.
  Our Amendment No. 34, and, although in rather less perfect form, Amendments Nos. 35 and 41, are alternatives for the Government not to let the Bill open an avenue for injunctions against strikes because of a breach of the Bill. They say they do not want that. Therefore, I urge them to accept, at any rate, the thrust of our amendment, especially Amendment No. 34, which is the best—if they want to redraft it, that would be quite normal—to get rid of what is in fact a threat to the legality of strike action by fire fighters and their union, which the Bill, as drafted, at the moment presents. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: One addresses the Grand Committee under a very potent threat that the noble Lord will return to his authorities if any proposition of law which is stated is disputed. The noble Lord knows perfectly well—we have been against each other several times in the courts and at times in the Appellate committee—that I cannot possibly accept his exposition on certain aspects of the common law, and would never do so, and why I would not. However, I have no intention of entertaining esoteric legal discussion here today. I just want it to be noted that, as far as I am concerned, I am unable to accept the substance of the noble Lord's assertions.
  My reason for rising was really to make the point that these amendments are in a sense looking at the reform of trade union law dealing with these common law authorities, putting an interpretation on them that may or may not be legitimate. However, this Grand

  GC 175
  Committee is not the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. These amendments, put forward in this way, all but breach the limitation of the long title and the intendment of what after all is an ad hoc, short-term Bill under which conditions of service may be imposed by government decree to resolve fire brigade disputes.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will the noble Lord advert to the words of the amendment? They deal with the,
  "contravention … or non-compliance with this Act".
  They are not concerned with anything other than "this Act".
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Yes, I will follow the noble Lord's lead in many ways, and I shall take my own course.
  What I was going to say was that this is an ad hoc, short-term Bill as a matter of construction under Clause 1(1 )(a), under which conditions of service may be imposed by government decree to resolve— what?— only fire brigade disputes and to resolve them on their own terms. I suggest that regardless of whether the noble Lord is right in his assessment of the inferences and implications of the common law to which he referred, these amendments are not appropriate for a Bill such as this. They are appropriate only for a Bill of general application as part of the long-term strategy to reform trade union law.
  The proposal for reform will be of general importance. It is urgently required. It is understood that another Bill will be brought in about a year, year and a half or two years. The proposal will have to be set out in a White Paper. It will have to be discussed and then debated in Parliament. In those circumstances, I really do not think that it is right to support these amendments to this Bill.
  There is a final matter which is complicated hut none the less strange. I very briefly referred to it to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on his way to the dentist or something this morning. Under the Bill as drafted, the members of the fire brigades are put at a disadvantage in relation to members of other trades unions in disputes affecting the public services. So there is a disparity there. Under this group of amendments, the members of the fire brigades are put in a position of advantage over members of other unions in relation to such disputes. The interpretation given by the noble Lord to the common law, to which I have referred, is beneficial to these members under this Bill. However, that is not available to the rest of the unions which are not affected but are subject to the law which—as the noble Lord said, and I agree with him—leaves unresolved areas.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Does the noble Lord agree that the wording of these amendments relates precisely to this Bill? We are not talking about a White Paper. We are not talking about anything but this Bill,
  GC 176
  what this Bill says and the absence from this Bill of certain protections which we think should be there, even in a short-term-type Bill.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged at the intervention. I agree with the noble Baroness that they are nothing to do with the White Paper. I did not say they were. They are related to the Fire Brigades Union.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: To this Bill.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: In fact I said they were. The fact remains that there is this disparity one way or another. It arises on the amendments because the amendments pre-empt an interpretation of the common law which favours the fire brigades to the disadvantage of the other unions in the public services.
  This is far too technical to deal with. I have only made the point. I think that it is a point of substance. I apologise for having taken so long. I oppose the amendment.
  Lord McCarthy: Ministers seem curiously reluctant to speak. We must go on.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): I will reply to the debate. That is what I normally do.
  Lord McCarthy: All right; do not get cross. I want to get back to the Bill anyway.
  The essential point, we are saying, is that no one has told us in so many words whether the case is as we fear it is or if it is not. This seems an appropriate moment, the first possible moment, for the Minister to reassure us that, "In the opinion of the Government we've got all this wrong. If you like, we agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken". We think that we have reason to believe that when this Bill is passed, all kinds of liabilities may develop for trade unions—the Fire Brigades Union and its members—and for certain other parties involved. We want a government assurance that we are wrong. I suppose someone should say that, if we turned out to be right, the Government would do something about it.
  The first question may be whether the Government want to take the risk that they are wrong and there is a liability. Are they saying, "No, there is no risk. So we don't have to take it"? I do not think they can really say that. Or are they saying, "Well, if there was a risk, then we would immediately act to set it aside"—in the same way that, for example, Harold Wilson said that he would set aside the effects of Barnard. It took him three years, but ultimately he did it.
  Or, as the noble Lord said before me, they may say, "Your formulation is all wrong". We are very used to that. We have suggested all kinds of amendments. When the Conservative government were in power, I suggested dozens and dozens of amendments. Very often they turned me down by saying, "You've got the words wrong. You've put the semicolon in the wrong place. It doesn't mean what you want it to mean". Our answer was quite simple, though the then government never accepted it. We said, "The government are the

  GC 177
  experts. If you are behind the principle, afraid of the possible consequences and averse to the risk, then you should find the form of words. Give us a form of words. Give us your form of words". Sometimes they did.
  If the Government do not say any of those things—if, as I fear, they are going to remain silent today—then it is very difficult not to come to the conclusion—I am reluctant to come to this conclusion because it is so fearful—that they are thinking, "It is a jolly good thing if there is a risk". So what? So there is a liability that may take some time to emerge. A third party may advance a claim as my noble friend suggests. If that happens but workers continue to work as before while the employers try to impose one or another of the changes; and if someone is denied a service which creates a dangerous situation and they bring an action, we will simply say, 'Serves them right'.
  If there were a strike, official or unofficial, and the union were found to be in breach not of existing law in relation to breach of contract, but of these orders, then the Government would say, "Jolly good thing. Fair enough". My noble friend and I want that point to be cleared up. We want Ministers to clarify that for us today.
  I should like very briefly to remind Ministers of three points. The first has to do with statutory protection. The promise that the existing framework of law would protect workers has been made on very many occasions. Although workers were assured of that by those in authority, it has turned out to be totally wrong. In 1875, trade union leaders thought they had achieved a legislative framework which would remove both criminal and civil liability in industrial action. But they turned out to be wrong. They thought that they achieved it again in 1906, when they finally got the Trade Disputes Act 1906, but they turned out to be wrong. The same happened again in 1961 in relation to Barnard. It has happened over and over again. So, based on the historical record, no one can say that it might not happen on this occasion. If so, I do not see how the Government can take the first option of saying that there is no possible chance of that happening.
  Secondly, within the next six months, we are going to see the Government and employers attempt to put through a very considerable programme of change. The White Paper contains the objectives, and they are going to try to do that within the next six months. When they have the White Paper, they will not wait for legislation. They may introduce legislation in relation to additional powers, but the changes in relation to grading, management structures, additional responsibilities, shifts, personnel policies and the location of work will be negotiated in the course of those six or nine months in order to ensure that the unions get the next tranche of money.
  So we are not talking about a distant period when there may be further legislation. We are talking about this Bill and this Act. The Government will seek to use orders; indeed, the Secretary of State says that he will have to do that. In the White Paper, the Secretary of
  GC 178
  State says that there is not a chance that the changes they want will be agreed by the parties concerned. So I say that there is a very real possibility that this will happen. It is for the Government to tell us the answer.
  Thirdly, it is not as though the Government are proposing to introduce the changes by greatly expanding collective bargaining. One aspect of the White Paper is that it is extremely authoritarian. There is no attempt to develop, for example, a partnership in the fire service. The Government are in fact proposing to restrict the right to collective agreement so that, when they get the next Bill through, they can nominate those who negotiate on the part of the union. In that context, we are bound to ask for some reassurance that there will be action by the Government if any of those developments arise.
  In concluding my remarks, I want to say one word about the way in which my noble friend Lord Wedderburn began his speech. There is no malpractice charge among us; we do not charge anyone with malpractice and we do not believe that anyone else should charge us with it. There was no attack on good faith; there was full co-operation with the Whips' Office, as there always has been. What we are trying to do, and had thought that we were doing—which in the past has been accepted—is to explain that we see a dark future for the trade union movement, and particularly for the Fire Service, if this Bill is passed.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: I hope that I can satisfy my noble friends as to the intent and purpose of the Bill and show them that the amendments are unnecessary, because they are seeking to provide for something that already exists. My one controversial remark is that the amendments are not intended to revise the Bill—these are not revising amendments. They are legitimate amendments, but they are not revising amendments. They deal with what happens if the relevant trade union or employer decides not to comply with the orders made under the Bill. It is clear from what both my noble friends have said that they are concerned about what happens in the event of non-compliance by fire brigade members or their trade union. They are seeking clarity, which I hope to be able to give them in a short time.
  My noble friend referred to the legal background to the issue—the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It sets out limited protection against dismissal for employees when there is an industrial dispute that has followed the proper balloting procedures. The protection from legal action is also given by the Act to those inducing or taking part in industrial action, provided that proper balloting procedures have taken place. That is a fundamental principle, and it is not something that we are seeking to interfere with.
  Amendment No. 34 appears to try to side-step the requirements about ballots of the 1992 Act. I say "appears" because the opening sentence of my notes about purpose and effect states that Amendment No. 34 is somewhat unclear in its effect. Its effect would be

  GC 179
  to ensure that failure to comply with an order under the Bill is not unlawful as a tort, and nor is inducement or incitement to commit a breach or non-compliance. The Government consider that a very unattractive picture.
  If the Bill became law and the Secretary of State were to make an order under Clause 1(1)(a) that altered shift patterns, for example, a trade union could incite staff to breach their new terms and conditions without being liable in law. What is more, a union could call its members out on strike without balloting them, and still enjoy the protection given by the 1992 Act. That is why the amendment is incredibly unattractive. If a union or an employer did not like what was contained in an order made lawfully under the powers in legislation that had passed through this House and another place, it need not worry. It could with impunity ignore the order and incite others to do the same, which would mean that unions representing fire brigade members would be given special treatment not available to workers in other industry, because the Bill applies only to the Fire Service. That is why the amendment is not constructive and why I would argue that it does not seek to revise the Bill. I cannot see how it would help the fire and rescue services to run more effectively.
  Amendment No. 35 has a similar effect. An act done as part of a trade dispute would not be actionable if it only involved breach of, or non-compliance with, an order under this legislation. Non-compliance with other legislation would be actionable—it is only this legislation that would not count. The union would not even have to ballot its members about strike action to gain the protection available under the 1992 Act. That is a loophole—although I always thought that loopholes happened by accident, and this one is quite clearly intentional. It would not apply to fire authorities or to their duty under Clause 1(9) to comply with the orders. Under our interpretation of Amendment No. 35, firefighters could quite rightly sue for non-payment by their employers of an imposed pay rise, for example. How can it be right that firefighters, other staff or their unions could ignore the orders under the Act but employers could not? That is not a good way in which to build industrial relations in the service—or, indeed, to rebuild them.
  It is true that amendments of this kind could in certain circumstances provide opportunities for the fire brigade staff and their unions to frustrate the purpose of the orders made lawfully under the Bill. I do not believe that members of the public would see it quite that way. If the Bill passed into law, it should be treated with respect. If people disagree with that, as my noble friends obviously do, I respect their position. However, it would be better to address that directly than to build into the Bill positions that deliberately undermine it. The amendments are not revising the Bill in any way, shape or form.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, the amendments are revising the Bill in a very effective way, because they alter the whole scheme of implementation. They pre-empt an interpretation of
  GC 180
  the common law decisions that favours their point of view and opposes the Government's. They are fundamentally revising the provisions related to the Bill.
  Lord Rooker: Well, that is my fault for not being a lawyer. The Lord Chancellor has been on his feet on the Floor of the House saying that judges should not be part of this place. There is an argument that lawyers should not have anything to do with making the law and that they should leave it to us lay people, who use common sense. I did not bring my dictionary with me today, but I would have thought that the word "revise" did not mean root and branch rewriting of the fundamental principles. That is what the amendments would do—they would frustrate the operation of the Bill. To that extent, they do much more than revise, and that is how I have used the term.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: The Minister said that we were seeking extra protection that was not available to other employees. Amendment No. 41 makes specific reference to that section of TULRA that relates only to protected strike action. In other words, we are not seeking in the amendments—particularly not in Amendment No. 41—to put into the Bill some sort of protection for fireworkers that other employees do not have.
  Lord Rooker: With respect, I have not dealt with Amendment No. 41 yet.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: No, but the amendments are grouped together.
  Lord Rooker: Yes, my noble friends grouped them together. The point made by the noble Baroness applies to what I have just said about the other amendments. There would be a protection. I am being really shorthand, and I know that this is only fourth form, but it would mean that people could go on strike and have a dispute without a ballot, and that they could do it with immunity. That is more or less the import of Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. Because the Bill applies only to the Fire Service, the firefighters would get those powers. That is a short way of putting it, and I realise that it would not get many marks out of 10, but it is what would happen in common sense.
  Amendment No. 41, like other amendments to which we shall come later, seeks to extend the protection available under TULRA. My noble friends are of the view that the amendment is required to afford the same protection to individual members of staff who breach an order or to anyone inducing such a breach. We have said repeatedly—and it is on the record, in Hansard, although I have not brought chapter and verse with me—that the Bill does not touch on the ability of firefighters to take industrial action.
  Lord McCarthy: You cannot say that.
  Lord Rooker: Well, I am saying it. That is our position, and it is what has been said from the day when the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear in

  GC 181
  another place. We are not attacking the right to strike—the Bill is not about that. In fact, there is a discussion of that matter in the White Paper. We have no plans to attack, undermine or weaken the right to strike, as currently set out in the law. I am just about to make that position abundantly clear in respect of Amendment No. 41, because it is unnecessary.
  We have made our position clear. The Bill is not about the right to strike; it is about giving the Secretary of State the ability to deal with any further dispute by removing the cause of the argument. If people do not like what the Secretary of State does and have a ballot under the law, as required, and go on strike, there is no problem. However, the first two amendments appear to get round that position by avoiding the need for a ballot. The fact is that, under the law as it stands, if a ballot takes place in further trade disputes, the protection will be there. Therefore, Amendment No. 41 is unnecessary in the sense that it puts on the statute book something that is already there. We do not want to affect the right to strike—it is not part of the Bill. Amendment No. 41 asks us to do something that is not required. People are already protected under the existing law.
  If the Secretary of State makes the orders under Clause 1(1)(a), they immediately become part of the terms of conditions of the staff, and the union does not like them and decides to ballot its members on whether to take industrial action to protest against the order, the resulting industrial action would constitute a trade dispute. They have had a ballot, so they can go on strike. Therefore, Amendment No. 41 is unnecessary.
  I hope that I have clarified our position for my noble friends. We are not seeking to attack the right to strike, and Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 would go to the heart of ripping out the purpose of the Bill and frustrating it. We do not think that that is very good—the Government could not support it. Amendment No. 41 is simply not required because the rights are already there and protected.
  Lord McCarthy: Let me try again. I said that the Government could not say that the Bill did not give rise to liabilities because they are making a statement about the future. I did not say that they intended that. My noble friend and I are asking the Government to tell us that they do not intend that, and that they will do something if they turn out to be wrong.
  The Government are making a statement about the future. In 1875, in 1906, in 1961, in 1974 and 1999, the relevant authorities told us that it was safe. They did not intend to increase the liabilities on trade unions and their members; indeed, they intended to make industrial action lawful. They meant that at the time, but it is impossible to say what the common law will do or what the judges will do. We might have an idea, but we cannot talk about the precise way or case that would transfer the liabilities to the Fire Service—and neither can the Government.
  We are not attacking the Government's bona fides. We are saying that that is possible, if the future resembles the past. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn
  GC 182
  says that he has concrete cases in which the past has resembled what we fear in the future. Why will the Government not tell us that, if that is how matters turn out, they will take immediate action to set the provisions aside, because they do not intend for that to happen?
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: This is not easy, because I have been challenged as advancing false propositions of law, so I have to make them good—and I shall. Before I do so, I must say that this new doctrine that lawyers should have nothing to do with making the law is not one to which I subscribe. In making the law, noble Lords should consider the law as it is. Sometimes lawyers who have spent 50 years with a subject may be helpful—and sometimes not—in explaining the effect that it might have on a misplaced provision or absence of provisions in a Bill.
  Amendments such as all three of those to which the Minister spoke, which refer to what should happen by reason of the Act, are hardly a programme for general law reform. Nor is it true that they are, in a sense, out of order because they are not relevant to the Bill or they frustrate it. I am trying to secure one very simple proposition. I am trying to secure in law—I am sorry to be a lawyer speaking about the law but I have no alternative—that what the Government say they intend is reflected in the Bill. At present, it is not.
  Your Lordships have the Law Lords in the premises at present, instead of their being in a new supreme court, which will be the case in the near future. I greatly welcome that, not because I want to see them go—they are a great joy to have—but because the noble and learned Lords are your Lordships' Appellate Committee as the highest court in the land. It just so happens that last week, on 11th July, the Law Lords delivered a unanimous, very important decision in the case of Wilson v First County Trust (No. 2) in the House of Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, gave the opinion. Without going into the detail, the question, among others, was the extent to which ministerial pronouncements and other similar pronouncements were useful in interpreting Acts of Parliament. I shall read the whole text if the noble Lord wishes, but I am certain that the following is relevant and not out of context. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, said:
  "The occasions when resort to Hansard was necessary … would seldom arise. The present case was not such an occasion. Courts had to be careful not to treat the ministerial or other statements as indicative of the objective intention of Parliament nor give a ministerial statement determinative weight. It should not be supposed that members [Members of Parliament] generally agreed with the minister's reasoning or his conclusions".
  We keep hearing what the Government intend. That will not be necessarily—or, indeed, in this case, probably—what the courts see as the intention of Parliament. Ministers are not Parliament. They may take powers to make orders determining rights, but what your Lordships decide should go into the Bill will be construed by the courts as determinative of what is Parliament's intention.

  GC 183
  Mr Justice Laddie, in Michaels v Taylor Woodrow [2001] Chancery Report 582, said:
  "the courts are trying to implement the presumed intention of Parliament. if Parliament has considered the question 'what relief should be available to a person harmed by breach of this legislation?' and has furnished an express answer it is not for the courts to legislate other forms of relief … If no relief is specified then the court again has to decide what was the legislative intent. It may be that, from a consideration of the whole of the Act and the history of the legislation, the legislative intent is found to be not to give any rights of action to harmed individuals at all. But where no relief is specified the court may be more willing to assume that the legislative intent was that the common law should provide a cause of action".
  Although I am not entirely clear, as I understand it, the Minister was saying, "Yes, some kind of remedy should be provided by those harmed by a breach of duty under the Act", whether it is a breach of duty of a fire authority, which we debated in the previous Committee sitting, a breach of duty on the part of members of the fire brigade, or—and this is the most important—a breach caused by an inducement of a breach of statutory duty by a union or indeed any other person.
  That is why the Bill as it stands raises the issue of breach of statutory duty. Breach of statutory duty is a form of unlawful means. There is a technical issue on the case law, which I shall try to summarise in a sentence without citing. The issue, which is not difficult to understand, is whether a breach of a statutory duty is of a duty that is immediately remediable by a person affected as a class of the public—which is a term of art—or whether it is not immediately remediable by the person damaged but simply stands. in a sense, by itself. The question, therefore, of whether a narrow or wide meaning is given to unlawful means in the sense of breach of a statutory duty is of central relevance and issue to the case and the Bill. With the greatest respect, the Minister's reply did not understand the case. Although inferentially he gave an answer, he did not tell me clearly whether a breach of duty by a fire brigade member, a union or a fire authority is meant to be a directly remediable breach of statutory duty.
  There are so many decisions on the matter that it is difficult to know which to cite. Since I must do so, I shall first cite Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd., where Mr Justice Laddie, in 2001, summarised many, many of the past authorities. I think that in that case he cites around 12 leading authorities, which I hope the Minister's advisers have read. If they have not, what is the point of having advisers? I would hope that the Ministers would read it. Mr Justice Laddie said in that case that many torts are involved in the problem of breach of statutory duty and unlawful means generally—usually referred to as economic torts, conspiracy, intimidation, inducing breach of contract and interference with trade or other rights by unlawful means. He said:
  "There is much to commend the suggestion that the principles which apply to economic torts should be consistent with each other. After all, these are creations of the common law and it is difficult to see why, for example. an unlawful act which is sufficient to ground a cause of action for unlawful interference with trade should not also be sufficient to ground an action for unlawful means conspiracy and conversely why an unlawful act,
  GC 184
  if any, which is insufficient to support one should not also be insufficient to support the other. If different types of unlawfulness will support different common law causes of action it would give rise to a degree of obscurity in the law which serves no useful purpose. The point is made particularly clearly in Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 17th ed (1995), pars 23–61: 'Since the four species of tortuous liability, intimidation, indirect procurement of breach contract, conspiracy to use unlawful means, and unlawful interference, all depend upon proof of an illegal or unlawful act threatened or employed by the defendant, it would make for brevity, logic and elegance if the principle could be stated that the definition of "illegal- or "unlawful" was the same under all four rubrics. The reason for the requirement is clearly the same in all four cases'".
  He then says that, unfortunately, as the book says, that is not clear in the case law. I must declare an interest immediately, as that judicially approved citation was from a chapter that I have edited for 40 years. I am happy to agree with the learned judge. He then quotes other cases that say the same. So, as he puts it, everything depends on what is meant by unlawful means. Does that include the wide meaning—any and every illegality—or does it mean only a very narrow interpretation, especially on statutory duties?
  In Williams v Department of Transport, in The Times Law Reports, 7 December 1993, and the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Transcript No. 1382 of 1993, Lord Justice Dillon and his brother Lord Justices faced the case where protestors had held up construction of a bypass over Twyford Down. Members of the Committee may remember the case. Protestors had interfered with the construction of the bypass being engaged upon under statutory powers. Their actions were said to be breaches of orders and regulations under the Highways Act 1980. Lord Justice Dillon recorded the defendants' counsel as accepting that,
  "injunctions to be granted for the tort of wrongful interference with business if the appellants interfered with the plaintiffs' activities by unlawful means. But … they do not accept that section 303 automatically renders any wilful interference illegal, because section 303 merely provides for a fine".
  In other words, that was the issue in the case. He concluded:
  "I accept [the] submission that an injunction founded on the tort of wrongful interference with business can be granted if Mr Ward interferes with the plaintiffs' motorway building activities and ancillary activities by unlawful means … by virtue of section 303 any wilful interference is unlawful, and, in my judgment, constitutes unlawful means for the purposes of the tort".
  He then cites another two House of Lords cases, from 1949 and 1982, and concludes:
  "The claim is founded on a recognised tort at common law, just as the claim in trespass is, and anything which is illegal under any statute provides the unlawful means".
  Anything which is unlawful under any statute provides the unlawful means. On that basis, an injunction can be granted. Not only that, even if Lord Justice Dillon were wrong ultimately as it is found in this dispute about exactly what are unlawful means, on which there is a vast literature, it will not be finished in two years. For the next two years, the question is a live one Illegal means is arguably based upon anything which is illegal under any statute.

  GC 185
  Members of the Committee will remember that, at the previous sitting, I submitted that all you have to do to get an injunction, where the balance of convenience in the eye of the court is in your favour, is prove that you have an arguable case. Lord Diplock called it,
  "a serious issue to be tried".
  Is the Minister, his advisers or anyone telling me that when it is common ground between us that it would be illegal to defy an order under the Act, and that it would be unlawful to refuse to work? I believe the Minister gave the example of shift patterns, where the order says "You will work those shift patterns" or "You will move this appliance from one station to another", but feeling on the ground is so high that people refuse. It could be that they appeal to their union officers and the officers say that they are supporting their members. In that situation there is a threat or actual breach of the order. That is illegal. It is a breach of a statutory duty, which we hope to imply into a contract, because if it were a breach of contract duty then there would be protection under Section 219.
  I break off to refer to the opening words of Amendment No. 134. The Minister made a particular point, saying that the opening words,
  "An act shall not constitute an unlawful act or unlawful means for the purposes of the law of tort by reason only that it is … a breach … of … this Act"
  were not relevant to the Bill. The whole point of the legality of industrial action rests upon three things: first, whether it is wrongful at common law; secondly, whether the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation Act 1992 protects it—largely in Section 219—and, thirdly, whether all the other procedures have been complied with.
  I wish to make the following point as briefly as I can. The Minister raised what I can only regard as the quite mystifying argument that somehow all three of our amendments displace requirements for ballots. They were improperly understood; they do not. It is true that Amendment No. 41 mentions them because I thought that the Minister would raise the point—it is the usual point that people make. Our amendments say nothing at all about displacing obligations for ballots. If noble Lords would like actually to read the amendments instead of talking about them they will see that that is the case. I cannot stress that strongly enough. The idea that this is some conspiracy to avoid ballots is so wrong that it defies words.
  I have one further authority to refer to. I am sorry to refer them to Members of the Committee, but if you want to discuss the law, you had better discuss the law and make good law. It is quite clear that an injunction can be obtained on the grounds that I have submitted. In Associated British Ports v TGWU [1989] 1 WLR 939, the Court of Appeal granted an injunction against the dock strike of 1989. It was granted on the basis that
  GC 186
  the union had taken action to call the strike which infringed the obligations of dock workers under the dock works regulations.
  The Court of Appeal accepted that the dock works regulations gave no right to the employers to sue for mere breach, but because there would be a breach of statutory duties, this would be unlawful means. All three members of the Court of Appeal accepted the general proposition put forward by Lord Justice Denning, as he then was, in Daily Mirror v Gardner [1969] 2 QBR 762 where he stated that if one person deliberately interferes with the trade or business of another and does so by unlawful means, an act he is not at liberty to commit, he is acting unlawfully even though he does not procure any actual breach of contract, and went on to say that an injunction would be granted against him. Were I submitting the case in full there would be a large number of other authorities, which in the past five years have accepted and applied that principle.
  I want to conclude by saying that that is my case on the law. We are making law so it would be useful to attend to what the law is. I appreciate that the Government have reached this curious conclusion that it is impossible for them to be wrong when they say that their Bill does not threaten the legality of strikes. It would be more useful if they attended to Cromwell's great cry:
  "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".
  The case against them is very strong. I have cited the authorities. If I have missed out authorities which are relevant to the case, I would be happy to consider them either now or at any future time.
  Amendment No. 35 is an inferior alternative to Amendment No. 34, and Amendment No. 41 is not the best way of doing things. So, if we take a stand on anything, it is largely on Amendment No. 34, but there are alternative words which could be considered in those other amendments. We have seen that the union will not be granted a chance of arbitration, or its members. We have dealt with arbitration in previous amendments. If they object to the terms of an order made after consultation with the National Joint Council they will not be granted any third party assistance. The Minister, the Secretary of State, will impose the order. If they offend it or induce the offence of it they will be acting illegally. On the basis of that an injunction could be clearly granted, trade dispute or no trade dispute. Of course it may be a trade dispute, but there is no protection against inducing a breach of statutory duty. There is no protection against unlawful means in this form, nor should there be. There should be no general protection for inducing breaches of statutory duties in general. I do not want anyone to have the right to induce a breach of the regulations and statutes about driving dangerously; of course I do not. What I and my noble friends say is that this Act should not extend the range of illegality in industrial disputes against fire-fighters and their union because that is the implication that we see in it at present.

  GC 187
  I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment, most regrettably. It seems that the Government are not going to—
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: You can withdraw it when I have finished. You can withdraw it when you like, but if I am going to say anything I have to get up before the magic words are uttered, which is why I stood.
  To cut a long story short, if an order is issued under the Bill it directly operates on the conditions of service of members of the fire brigade. The conditions of service are altered by the operation of the law immediately the order comes into force. It is therefore impossible to avoid being outside the order or failing to comply with the order because the order is imposed immediately and has an immediate effect on the conditions of service. Once the order comes into force, the fire-fighters' conditions of service are changed at that point. If they do not like it, and a dispute arises and they have a ballot, they are free to strike. That is the end of the story, in a short, common sense way of summing-up.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate that what the Minister said is right. It is quite right that if they have a ballot thus far they are protected. If it becomes a contractual matter, they may be protected. We will come to that on Amendments Nos. 37 and 39. That is the separate issue we have raised in those amendments. That is why we have grouped the issues separately.
  However, with respect, the Minister is wrong to say, that that is all there is to be said about the matter. If I depart from conditions of service under Clause 1(1)(a), I turn to an order under Clause 1(1)(b). If an order under Clause 1(1)(b) requires a fire authority to move specialist appliances or to close a station—we have been over this ground and the Minister said in previous debates that yes, this may involve the closure of a fire station—there is then a legal duty statutorily upon the fire authority to comply.
  If the members, the union or whoever it is object and threaten to take action in the form of industrial action against that, there is no protection anywhere, neither in the 1992 Act nor, certainly at the moment, in this Act. That means that an order under this Act, which is all our amendments are concerned with, can and clearly does extend the illegality of industrial action. That is quite clear.
  We will come to contractual terms when we come to the relevant amendments. I deeply regret, as the last intervention by the Minister indicates, that the Government are quite resolute in refusing all these amendments. The ones we shall come to need detain us only a very short time because, as I understand it, they are against pretty well all of them. I hope they are not against Amendment No. 37, but we shall come to that. On this amendment I have nothing to do but, as I was about to do a moment ago, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 2, line 30, after first "service" insert "means contractual terms and conditions of employment and"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 36 touches on the question of the nature of the impact of the order made under Clause 1(1)(a) of the Bill. The Minister was absolutely right in stating that an order takes effect—he said immediately but it takes effect from whatever date it is to take effect from. Often, as he suggested in previous debates, it will be made only in the context of a crisis, so it will presumably take effect immediately.
  What we ask in this amendment is for a change in the Bill in this respect. At present it appears to impose a statutory duty upon members of fire brigades to comply. I take the case of changes, perhaps, in shift pattern, changes in hours or changes in other duties, at any rate. Where that is so, a statutory duty imposes itself on all those to whom the conditions of service apply to conform and comply with the order.
  There is an alternative way in which that can be expressed. I have already touched on it in previous discussions and shall summarise it in this way. An Act of Parliament can state, "This duty applies to you through the conditions of your contract". That is what is stated in Section 29 of the Employment Act 2002 and Section 1 of the Equal Pay Act 1970, which came into force in 1975. Parliament does not often do it but it does sometimes.
  If the order came into effect, as we advance it should in Amendment No. 36, through the contractual terms of conditions of employment and not otherwise, although I have to admit that "not otherwise" will come up under a later amendment, the protection in Section 219 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 would apply if the union induced a breach of contract because Section 219 applies in trade disputes and now applies where there has been a ballot—this amendment also has nothing to do with ballots—and where all the other conditions—there are far more conditions than that in the Act, of course—are satisfied and the Act is in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute. Then, if it is contractual it will fall within the words of Section 219 that there is no action in tort to be brought where it induces a breach of contract. That is quite different from inducing a breach of statute, as such.
  I hope that the Minister will look again at all his stuff about giving people complete immunity. Making a thing not actionable in tort is a very specific legal protection. It does not protect you for breach of contract or breach of statutory duty; it protects you from actions in tort, civil wrong other than breach of contract.
  So, Amendment No. 36 would provide some protection. It would not provide sufficient protection. It is the narrowest, smallest possible amendment that could do something to rectify the silences of the Bill. It

  GC 189
  would provide protection in industrial conflicts where at present protection is not provided for inducing a breach of contractual terms.
  Grouped with Amendment No. 36 is Amendment No. 43. That amendment would add a new subsection which states rather more firmly:
  "(6A) To the extent that this Act or an order made under it places any duty upon a fire brigade member, it shall take effect as an obligation implied into his contract of employment and not otherwise".
  That covers much the same ground as Amendment No. 36, but it goes on:
  "(6B) An act done by a member of a fire brigade in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not constitute a breach of contract by reason only that it is in breach or contravention of or in non-compliance with this Act or any order made under this Act",
  and it provides that "act" includes "deliberate omission".
  The reason for the extra bit is quite clear. It relates to the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord McCarthy when he addressed the Committee recently.
  In 1964 in the case of Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, which is etched upon my memory, the House of Lords Judicial Committee decided that not only inducing a breach of contract was unlawful means, but a breach of contract by itself—there, it was a breach of an employment contract—was equally unlawful means. So, to threaten a breach of contract, to engage in an agreement to break a contract, was a tort. Lawyers gave them the names of intimidation and conspiracy, but nothing turns on that. Therefore, what is done is that Amendment No. 39, as proposed new Section (6B), adds this: that that doctrine does not apply to make an actual breach of contract into unlawful means because, as it says, where it is,
  "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute"
  then by reason only that it is a breach or non-compliance with this Act it should not extend the unlawful means doctrine and make for a further illegality.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: Just to show that I am listening a little, the noble Lord referred to Amendment No. 39. Did he mean Amendment No. 43?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I meant Amendment No. 43. That was what I was reading. I am so sorry. It is my fault entirely. My notes were in a form where I got the matter wrong. I meant Amendment No. 43. The Committee will see that proposed new Sections (6A), (6B) and (6C), which are proposed in Amendment No. 43, are in the form that I have outlined.
  I hope that something will be said about Amendment No. 43. But central to this moment is to move Amendment No. 36. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I shall certainly speak—as my noble friend did—to Amendments Nos. 36 and 43.
  GC 190
  As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 36 inserts some additional words into the definition of "conditions of service". The intention appears to be to limit that definition, and, therefore, to limit the order-making power in Clause 1(1)(a) to contractual terms and conditions of employment. I am not clear what effect that would have since any terms imposed by order under the Bill will be contractual in any case. It is difficult to know whether the amendment adds or removes anything. In some ways I have just made an argument for accepting my noble friend's amendment but I shall certainly not do so as to do so would be fraught with difficulty and would constitute uncharted waters. As I say, the imposition of any terms by order under the Bill is contractual anyway and therefore limiting the definition would not have any effect overall. As I do not know whether the amendment adds or removes anything, I shall reject it for the time being. My noble friend is always free to explore the matter at a later stage.
  Amendment No. 43 makes any duties imposed by an order part of a fire-fighter's contract of employment. As I have just explained, any terms and conditions imposed by order under the Bill will be contractual anyway. Amendment No. 43 goes on to say that anything a fire-fighter does as part of an industrial dispute will not count as a breach of contract if the only thing he is doing is failing to comply with such an order.
  We have legislation to which I have already referred—I realise this gets up my noble friend's nose but I have to refer to this legislation—which provides certain protection for industrial action taken after a proper ballot. Industrial action such as a strike is a breach of contract—I do not think anyone denies that—but the protection offered under the 1992 legislation means that someone on strike cannot be dismissed because of it. There is protection to that extent.
  Amendment No. 43 would single out—as I follow its wording and my noble friend's speech—anything in an employment contract which derived from this Bill and would say that failing to do it was not even a breach of contract. I had a little trouble getting my head round that. It does not seem sensible law making to single out anything in an employment contract which derived from this Bill and to say that failing to do it was not a breach of contract. It would if it was in your contract. The order comes into effect immediately or on the date named. Generally speaking it comes into effect immediately. It would be part of the contract. There is no way of getting out of it. To do so would be a breach of contract. My noble friend seeks to include a measure in the Bill to say that if a measure in the employment contract is derived from this nasty Bill a special rule applies with the result that failing to do it is not counted as a breach of contract. That is not a serious point. It is not really about the finer points of contract law or employment law. It is certainly not relevant to the fire dispute or to the Bill. Clearly the

  GC 191
  amendment is intended to render at least some sorts of order under the Bill utterly useless. For that reason I must reject it.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I understand that my noble friend the Minister finds the matter difficult. There are problems in understanding the law in this area. But as he was speaking what came back to me vividly was the parallel clause that we put in in our Labour government in 1974–76 legislation stating that a breach of contract done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute should not be actionable in tort. The Tories took it out and got rid of it in 1980–82.
  I am not allowed to move amendments that are outside the compass of this Bill. If my noble friend wants me to find some other legislation to bring back our great section of 1974–76, I would be happy to oblige. But on this Bill I am trying to bring back what we did in 1974–76. This Bill continues the policy of making it a breach of contract to go on strike, which is totally contrary to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation and various other international instruments which we have ratified. It not only does that but it invents a whole new area of breaches of contract. My noble friend the Minister now treats them as breaches of contract. I am grateful for that.
  I am also very grateful for what my noble friend said about Amendment No. 36. I hope that further discussion can lead to the clarification of the Bill in that respect. I do not follow my noble friend's reasoning because he said that the amendment sought to limit the definition. There is no definition of "conditions of service" in the Bill. Clause 2(2) gives us an inclusion of things that conditions of service include. That is not a definition. That is an explanation that conditions of service include certain things. What I want to know is whether conditions of service apply— as regards an order in respect of conditions of service—in respect of a statutory duty to observe them or a contractual duty to observe them. That is all Amendment No. 36 is about. I very much hope that we can find a form of words for that which the Government will accept.
  I must add in order not to be misunderstood that I do not think that is enough, although it will be helpful and reassuring to the union and its members who are very concerned about this matter. The Minister seems to think that there is no worry about this in the trade union movement. There is a vast number of trade union officials who understand these sorts of points very well. I shall refer the Minister, if he wants, to the advisers who are advising them about the matter. That is not me. I know who they are. I would be surprised if he did not. There is enormous concern about this Bill imposing new forms of unlawful means by statutory duty. One of those concerns—only one—is the meaning of "conditions of service" and the meaning, therefore, of inducing a breach of any conditions of service, and whether that applies contractually or merely as a statutory obligation.
  GC 192
  Amendment No. 36 would help. It would not cure the problem but it would help. I am very happy to give my full co-operation to any further explanations that the Minister and his advisers want me to give. If we can reach an agreement on that by Report stage, no one will be happier than I. It is not my intention to do something to scupper the Bill. It is my intention to clarify the Bill and remove new threats of illegality in regard to trade union activity. I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 2, line 31, at end insert "but does not include conditions relating to termination or loss of employment by reason of redundancy or otherwise"
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 37 is a little different. It suggests adding something to whatever definition or explanation of "conditions of service" means in Clause 2. The worry is loss of jobs. The reorganisation of the Fire Service is already going on. It is already being discussed and the Government obviously wish to have power to initiae— it--in the period before they bring in their big Bill—under the orders for which they have powers under the Act.
  I remember very well that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister—I cannot quote the precise words—aid once that jobs would be lost through natural wastage. I believe that other Ministers have said the same. But whether or not that hope is wholly fulfilled—no one can predict precisely the future on that matter—our submission is that the terms relating to loss of employment which are not regulated by other statutes—this amendment has nothing to do with other statutory regulation; it is concerned with this Bill—should be a matter for negotiation. That includes any changes in redundancy arrangements other than those laid down by statute and statutory regulation elsewhere. I refer to any special arrangements on loss of employment matters. We do not see that the Secretary of State should have, or indeed needs, power to regulate employment situations concerning loss of job or loss of employment under the terms of an order in the terms of the arrangements in the Bill.
  With Amendment No. 37 I speak also to Amendment No. 39 which raises a similar but rather different point. We group them in order to have just one debate on these two matters. As I say, Amendment No. 39 raises a different point. It raises the point that there is a description—again, it is not a definition—in subsection (3) of Clause 2 which reads:
  "References in this Act to property or facilities belonging to a person include references to—

  (a) land occupied by that person; and

  (b) equipment or other assets or facilities the use of which is under the control of that person".

  Of course I understand that. It includes those things but property can include a great deal more. Any court faced with the word "property" which is not

  GC 193
  completely defined, would include within the word "property" what is normally included in the law within the word "property".
  Property belonging to a fire authority, for example, includes all of its bundles of contractual rights. That is part of its property. That employer holds contractual employment contracts. The rights and duties under those contracts are part of its property. It could be the case that the power of a Secretary of State by order to give directions as the Bill stands about use of property could give power to vary aspects of rights and duties which relate to the contract of employment. I am not saying that it is anyone's intention at the moment to make such an order, although I have to insist again— as I have done on previous occasions during Grand Committee—that future Secretaries of State may want to use the powers that they are given and not just rest with the intention pronounced by Ministers at the moment, which, as we have seen, the noble and learned Lords in the House of Lords' Appellate Committee have already said is not a good guide to the legal effect and intention of Parliament in a Bill.
  All that Amendment No. 39 asks for is that we clarify this small point that property includes all the things that are stated at Clause 2(3) at the moment, but does not include the bundle of contractual rights
  "arising from or under a contract of employment or a contract with any person who undertakes to do or perform any work or services".
  That is the normal form of words that is used relating to such contractual rights.
  I very much hope that the Government will express some willingness to look at the definition of "property" under Amendment No. 39, which is much more like a definition. I hope, too, that the Minister will say something about the extent to which he sees loss of job problems in the very broadest sense being dealt with by negotiation other than under orders. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: I hope that I can give my noble friend an acceptable explanation, particularly on Amendment No. 39. It deserves one, and I think that I have one to offer.
  As my noble friend said, Amendment No. 37 affects the definition of conditions of service. I use the term "definition" in its broad sense. I accept what my noble friend said about that. It excludes matters relating to the termination or loss of employment by redundancy. If we made the amendment, it would mean that an order made under the Bill could not improve redundancy terms. Because of the allegations about job losses, I want to get it on the record that the Deputy Prime Minister has said more than once that there should be no need for redundancies—the employers have said as much—in relation to the pay deal that has been agreed. The plans in the White Paper, which will lead, in time, to a smaller service, need not require redundancies either, so it is not on our agenda.
  GC 194
  One thing is certain: we have no plans to use the powers in the Bill to change redundancy arrangements. We do not see that redundancies are justified. I fully accept that nobody can rule out the possibility that such things might come up in the future. There has been a presumption in many of our debates that all the changes that would come about because of the orders would be for the worse. That presumption will not be validated in practice. Amendment No. 37 would prevent any order made under the Bill—as I said, orders will be made under the Bill only in extreme circumstances; we do not want to operate the Bill—from being made to improve redundancy arrangements. We do not want any limitation on those powers, and we do not want to use the powers in the Bill in the first place.
  Amendment No. 39 is slightly different, in attempting to provide that a direction under Clause 1(1)(b) cannot relate to rights arising under contracts of employment or contracts for the provision of work or services. I must make it clear—I think that I did so earlier—that directions to the fire authorities under Clause 1(1)(b) are not intended to be a direct or indirect way of affecting the employment contracts of fire brigade staff. I also gave the example that it could happen that a direction about the use of assets—the physical assets in a station—could have an impact on staff, but that is not the route by which we would seek to change the terms and conditions for staff. We have a power in Clause 1(1)(a) to do that directly, so there is no reason to use an indirect route.
  I can tell noble Lords that we have no plans to use any orders made under Clause 1(1)(b) to affect the rights arising from contracts for works or services. It might happen, purely as an incidental side-effect of a kind of order. We do not want to use the power, and the Bill is drafted widely enough to cope with any disputes. We cannot give all the examples. I gave examples originally of appliances remaining in stations when they could be used by somebody else. Clearly, the public did not understand what happened during the previous dispute, so we must overcome that. If it were difficult or impossible to use the powers in respect of, say, an appliance or some specialist piece of equipment—the example that I have here is an aerial platform—that was needed, we could not say to the public, "Well, we would have liked to have an order to make sure that we could use an aerial platform, but we could not because it would have affected some exclusion in the Bill about contracts". They would laugh us out of court. They would laugh us out of office, that is for sure. We shall not go down that road.
  The amendments would put arbitrary restrictions on the powers in the Bill and do nothing for public safety, which is why we need those powers. The only reason why Clause 1(1)(b) would be needed is to get our hands—the public's hands—on the public's assets in order to fight fires and save life.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations. He took Amendment No. 37 first and then Amendment No. 39.

  GC 195
  I do not quite understand. I share a lot of ground with the Minister, and, in a sense, I think that, when we read Hansard, we will find that our cases are not that divergent. I appreciate everything that the Minister said about redundancies, and 1 appreciate, as I said, that the Government intend or believe that any job losses can happen through natural wastage. We should not get into that in the technical sense of dismissal for redundancy. That is, as the Minister fairly said, an intention. It may or may not happen, and we hope that it does.
  We put t he specific phrase,
  "by reason of redundancy or otherwise",
  into the amendment because, wherever there is loss of employment, it should be negotiated. We do not think that it should be imposed by order. We have a disagreement with the Government there., perhaps, but we would prefer that it be stated—perhaps, in view of what the Minister said. in words different from that of our amendment—that the order should hot extend to the imposition of any changes in conditions that arise if there is a loss of employment.
  Of course, I understand when the Minister says that there may be a desire to improve conditions for fire brigade members. I take it that he and I would agree that there would be no difficulty in negotiating that. There would be no need for an order for an improvement. If he wants an amendment that refers to changes in conditions on loss of employment to the detriment of fire brigade members, I would be happy to draft one in that form. We should, perhaps, come back to the matter on Report, as with so many others that we have mentioned this afternoon.
  Our other amendment would add what the Minister called a restriction to the Bill, but it would establish in law what he, again, has given us as an intention—I think that that is what he said—on the part of Ministers. He said something along the lines that there were no plans to affect, by way of an order under Clause 1(1)(b), the conditions of service of members of the fire brigade directly or indirectly. He fairly accepted that there might be an order relating to appliances and special equipment that would impinge on conditions of service. There would be no difficulty about that; at the drop of a hat, draftsman could provide him with an order, on the one hand, saying that the appliances must be moved to wherever the Secretary of State says they must be moved to and, on the other hand, ordering a change in the conditions of service to accept that. There is no problem with that, as far as his power is concerned.
  The Bill should provide a remedy for anyone in the case—the unintended case, it seems—that an order made under Clause 1(1)(b) directly or indirectly has an impact on conditions of service, which should be dealt with only under Clause 1(1)(a). In the practical, commonsense terms that the Minister is always advancing—not in legal terms—that is a real prospect, if any error is made.
  One of the issues between us this afternoon has been whether the Government could possibly be wrong. Our arguments have been advanced on the basis that
  GC 196
  anyone can be wrong and that the Bill provides for a situation in which an error will have undesirable effects. The description in Clause 2(3) of what property means is an example of that. It should be stated clearly that property does not include contractual rights and duties. If it is not, a court will, whatever circumstances arise, necessarily have to accept that they are included in the term "property", as is the normal case.
  I had some authorities, but I dare not cite them because some members of the Committee do not like legal authorities.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down—
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: May I just finish the sentence? There is plenty of authority to show that possessions—in a number of cases—or property include contractual rights and duties. That is all that Amendment No. 39 says. We are clarifying. I hope that the Minister will consider it again before Report.
  The noble Lord wishes to ask a question. I am happy for him to do so.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Does he remember that I have already conceded—I forget how many days ago; it may have been at Second Reading—that a direction given to the fire authorities under Clause 1(1)(b) would inevitably, in certain circumstances, affect the terms and conditions of work. In order to comply with the requirement, such would be the position. So, there is nothing wrong in that concession. Is not that the correct approach?
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I take it that the noble Lord is speaking in favour of Amendment No. 39, which would exclude that possibility. I remember him making some such point in a different context, and 1 am grateful to him for his intervention and his support—if it was support.
  I submit that, even to the uninstructed eye, it would seem that, given the meaning of "property" in the Bill, orders made under Clause 1(1)(b) could, even mistakenly, affect conditions of service in the way that the Minister described. It might be better if we made it clear that it should not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
  "(3A) In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) after section 238A there is inserted—
  "238B UNFAIR DISMISSAL OF FIRE BRIGADE MEMBERS
  Section 238A shall apply to a member of a fire brigade where he commits an act or is induced to commit an act which by virtue of the Fire Services Act 2003 is not actionable in tort.""
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment comes at the issue of the right to strike from a slightly different angle. The Minister has already stated on several occasions that there is no intention to interfere with it, and, of course, I accept what he says. It is dealt with at some length in the White Paper, which refers explicitly to Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, as does the amendment.
  Section 238A gives protection against dismissal. An employee is regarded as unfairly dismissed if the reason or, if there are more than one, the principal reason is that he took protected—lawful—industrial action; in other words, action for which all the appropriate moves, including balloting and everything else, had been taken.
  The White Paper makes it clear that the Government have no plans to remove from employees in the fire and rescue service existing freedoms under the law to take industrial action, although they have said that they will keep the position under close review. As we indicated earlier and as I have said on previous occasions, this is not a popular measure. It has already occasioned a fair amount of disquiet among trade unionists, who wonder why it should have been thought necessary in the light of the recent agreement. I think it would, therefore, be useful if the amendment—or something like it, if the Government do not like its wording—were included in the Bill. It would be helpful to all concerned if the Government are anxious that the Bill should proceed as smoothly as possible, as I am sure that they are. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is a gremlin in the amendment, which is contained in the phrase,
  "by virtue of the Fire Services Act 2003 is not actionable in tort".
  That brings us right back to what we have been discussing for about three hours. Therein lies the gremlin. I would oppose the amendment on the grounds that it imports unmanageable complexity into a situation that at times will be an emergency situation.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I apprehend that the noble Lord is on the wrong amendment. The words, "actionable in tort" do not appear in Amendment No. 40. Amendment No. 4 says that Section 238—
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: We are on Amendment No. 40.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I wonder whether the Grand Committee wishes me to read out the words of the amendment, since I only said, "At the end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List". I perceive that the last sentence of the amendment says,
  "by virtue of the Fire Services Act 2003 is not actionable in tort".
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I accept entirely that the words, "actionable in tort" end the sentence. I meant to say that Amendment No. 40 deals with acts that,
  "by virtue of the Fire Services Act 2003 is not actionable in tort".
  In that respect, it incorporates the argument made on the previous amendment. I apologise if I was understood to say the opposite.
  Section 238A protects an employee who takes protected industrial action under the 1992 Act where the reason or—if more than one—the principal reason for his dismissal is that the employee took protected industrial action. It may be that the words of Amendment No. 40 should simply say that—that Section 238A applies here where the objection and reason given for dismissal is some illegality under this legislation. The Minister may want to consider that, rather than using the words on the list.
  As anyone will know who has had even remote contact with such a situation, the reason for a dismissal is very often disputed. The principal reason for a dismissal can be a matter of great argument, whether in grievance procedure, disciplinary procedure, employment tribunal or otherwise. Therefore, it would ease some of the concerns to which my noble friend referred in moving the amendment to have it restated—if it were to be drafted in such a way— that acts that are breaches of contract by reason of the Fire Services Bill plainly fall within Section 238A. Those concerns are real and worry a number of people who are involved and who will be affected under the Act.
  Lord Rooker: Concerns come from lack of clarity. I can spell out in non-legalistic terms that fire-fighters are covered by Section 238A of the 1992 legislation. I have had a few clashes with parliamentary counsel since I have been a Minister. However, I have been over to the counsel's HQ—the inner sanctum—with some of my colleagues to learn how it works, and came away as a real fan. People in that office always said to me that I should not allow anyone to persuade me to legislate for the same thing twice, because someone somewhere would take one part of what I had done in a way that I did not expect. They told me to legislate for things only on one occasion.
  This is a classic case of that issue. I can actually say that the amendment says that Section 238A shall apply to members of the fire brigade. We do not need Section 238B to tell us that the fire brigade is covered by Section 238A. We do not need that—the brigade is covered by the protection under Section 238A.
  If an order was made under Clause 1(1)(a) and union members decided that they did not like it, persuaded the union that they wanted industrial action and took a ballot for a protected dispute, they would be fully entitled to do that. Nothing in the Bill would stop them doing it, and we would not seek to stop them doing it, apart from by persuasion. Fire-fighters are covered by Section 238A, whether it is relevant to this Bill or any other Bill or Act. They are covered

  GC 199
  following the rules set out for Section 238A to operate, so we do not need Amendment No. 40. It would be legislating for the same thing twice.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: The Minister has just made a proposition that was more relevant to the previous amendments than to this one. I wish to get clear what he said. I believe he said that if the union induced industrial action—of course, in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute—and there was a ballot, there would be complete protection. He is therefore saying that no unlawful means tort could possibly be committed. Is that the proposition? I wish to get it clear so that we can consider the position on Report.
  Lord Rooker: I have already said this twice today in response to other amendments. I gave not an example but a point that spells it out in no uncertain terms: if the Secretary of State were to make an order under Clause 1(1)(a) and the union decided to ballot its members on whether to take industrial action in protest at the order, the resulting industrial action would constitute a trade dispute and therefore attract the protection available under the 1992 Act. It cannot be any clearer. They may not like what is in the order. If they want to take action against it, they are protected so long as they follow the rules. I cannot make it any clearer.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps, briefly, I may say that I am not in favour of either side on this. I am against the Bill, as your Lordships know. But I understood the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in the sense that he has described. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, must have misunderstood the true intention of what the noble Lord was saying.
  Lord McCarthy: We are going back to an issue that we have been over and over. Perhaps it would help if we took that into account on Report. The fact is that the Minister has quite forcefully said, over and over again—I shall have to go through Hansard to see how many times—what the Government intend. We are not disputing what the Government intend over and over again. We are saying that, unfortunately, there are the courts. The courts might have a case where it was argued before them that the things that have happened were not covered by Section 238A. Because we do not know the circumstances, we do not know precisely what might be said. In this case, as we say in many other cases, for the avoidance of doubt it would be better if it were specifically stated on the face of the Act something that embodies what the Government intend but that does not necessarily always result in what the Government intend coming about in the courts.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I am obliged to the Minister for restating categorically the Government's position on the issues that we have raised today, particularly Amendment No. 40. However, I still have some concerns. I am worried about the overriding authority and the powers that accrue to the Secretary of State in the Bill. On account of that, I was anxious
  GC 200
  to have it spelt out in the Bill that protections for fire brigade members still exist—even though the Minister says that they are there anyway under existing legislation. We may return to something else, perhaps differently worded, on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 3, line 27, at end insert —
  "(5A) After section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) For the avoidance of doubt, subsection (2) applies to any case in which the dispute relates to matters which are the subject of an order made by the Secretary of State under the Fire Services Act 2003 affecting the working conditions of members of a fire brigade.""
  The noble Lord said: In our submission, there is a misunderstanding of the law as it stands. When he was talking on the previous amendment, the Minister posited a case, which we all hope does not happen, where there is an order that the fire-fighters and the union do not like, a strike is induced, there is a proper ballot and all the other proper procedures are followed; for example, the right notice is given and all the right things are referred to in the notices. The Minister said that, obviously, that would be a trade dispute. I would have thought so. However, I am afraid that in dozens of court actions, including the dock strike case and all sorts of others, it is argued that, in parallel situations, precisely where a Minister has exercised his functions—quite properly—under his statutory powers to deal with matters that are in dispute, the dispute is not between employers and workers but between the union and the Minister. That is such a common pleading that anyone who has ever seen anything of a parallel situation will know that it is very often one of the first things to which plaintiffs, solicitors and counsel turn.
  The definition of a trade dispute in Section 244 of the 1992 Act begins with very important words:
  "a 'trade dispute' means a dispute between workers and their employer which relates wholly or mainly to one or more of the following".
  What follows is not relevant, as it is about matters on which common ground would be involved. The definition refers to a dispute between workers and their employer. The allegation is often made in such cases that, in striking against the terms of an order, no matter which of the legal results an order would make—whether it impacts directly and immediately on conditions of service or whether it is a statutory obligation that does not enter the conditions of service—the argument does not go to content; it goes to parties. Unless you have the right parties—I have lost cases on this point—you do not establish your trade dispute and you are out, ballot or no ballot, notice or no notice, quite rightly, as that is what the statute says.

  GC 201
  Parliament knew that this was a problem. The Labour government passed a section that survived the destruction of so much in the 1980s. It is now the section to which the amendment refers. Since the section has not been explained, I think I should read it. Section 244(2) of the 1992 Act states:
  "A dispute between a Minister of the Crown and any workers shall, notwithstanding that he is not the employer of those workers, be treated as a dispute between those workers and their employer if the dispute relates to matters which—

  (a) have been referred for consideration by a joint body on which, by virtue of provision made by or under any enactment, he is represented, or

  (b) cannot be settled without him exercising a power conferred on him by or under an enactment".

  I have discussed that section with a number of colleagues. It was generally agreed that it is not wholly clear that a dispute of the kind that the Minister and I are talking about—where the union sees the order, does not like it and supports a strike—would fall within Section 244(2). That is the reason that we have moved the amendment. I do not know whether the provision should have begun with the words,
  "for the avoidance of doubt",
  but it does. I do not like that phrase. It states that, for the avoidance of doubt, subsection (2) applies in any case in which a dispute relates to matters which are the subject of an order made by the Secretary of State affecting the working conditions of members of the fire brigade.
  The reason for the doubt is whether such a dispute would fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of Section 244(2). At the very minimum, there is very serious doubt at the moment as to whether a court would hold that it did. I join with the Minister in saying that such circumstances should be regarded as giving rise to a trade dispute. The reason for the amendment is to make that absolutely clear. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Very briefly, it does not seem to me that it is really applicable or apposite to use this short Bill, which has a single purpose and is for a short duration, and is applicable in a state of terrorist attack, other emergency or generally and then to say that in the context of the application of this Bill, which is a very unusual type of Bill, we should amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which is of general application, quite outside the concepts of a specific single-purpose Bill.
  I listened as best I could to the reasons given for the amendment but I am unable to understand them. That may be my fault, but even if I could understand them, it does not seem to me to be appropriate.
  Lord McCarthy: We have been asked repeatedly, since I have been a Member of this House, in the course of passing a particular Bill to amend another Bill. I shall not say that it always happens, but if the Bill is of any substance it does happen. It is just not an argument to come along and say that one Bill is amending another Bill. It happens all the time and this
  GC 202
  is the simplest way in which to do this. This is very mild, and I would suppose that the Government would say—I certainly hope they will—that once again they intend that this shall be the case, and because they intend it to be the case, it will be the case.
  Therefore, this is another example of something we shall have to think about carefully when we come back on Report as to how we can somehow merge the Government's intentions into actualities. My noble friend says that he does not like,
  "For the avoidance of doubt".
  I do. It seems to me that it is very clear that that is what we are trying to do. We are saying that we cannot forecast the future but on the forecast that we can make, we do not want this to happen. I do not see why we cannot accept it now.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is a debate. I wonder what the noble Lord would say. This is not on this occasion a question of the intention of Government on an assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. It is a matter of plain construction of the terms of the Bill. As a matter of construction generally, subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b) apply to all the situations to which I referred: a terrorist attack, other emergency and generally. One of the reasons that I oppose it is because it applies to all three. But it is a matter of construction. It is not a question of the intention of the noble Lord. Lord Rooker.
  Lord McCarthy: If it is not a matter of intention of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I do not know what his defence is. I do not see what it has to do with terrorism and the way in which it is applied. We are saying—I think we are right; we shall see when I sit down—that this is what the Government want to happen, so let us ensure that it does.
  Lord Rooker: I suppose that the nub of this, in a way, is the question of whether an argument between the Minister and employees is a trade dispute. That is the nub of the argument. First, I shall show that it is, and secondly, for my clincher, I will even quote a case. But, this is a fair point to raise in the circumstances.
  Trade dispute, as defined by Section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, is a dispute between workers and employers as to terms and conditions. Obviously, in this case the Secretary of State is not the employer of the fire-fighters. That is generally held to be the case. Section 244(2)(b) provides that the term includes a dispute with a Minister of the Crown notwithstanding that the workers are not employed by him where the dispute cannot be settled without him exercising a power under an enactment, because obviously in that case he must become a party to the dispute.
  In this case, if the Secretary of State has set a certain level of pay under an order under this Bill, which is then the subject of a dispute, it is arguable that only he can settle the dispute by revoking or changing the order. The employers could reach an alternative pay agreement. Do not forget that they failed to do that.

  GC 203
  Everyone ignores that. The mere fact of an order under the Bill means that the employers and the unions have failed, otherwise we would not be operating the Bill in the first place. To get to this stage, they have completely failed and mucked it up. So, in that case, arbitration is available to them in those circumstances. It is only when all that has failed and we have a dispute that this Bill comes into force. That is why we do not want it as a backstop, as I have said repeatedly.
  In this case, you could argue that because only he, the Secretary of State, can settle the dispute by revoking or changing the order, if the employers tried to do it, of course in those circumstances they would be going against the order. So, in our view any dispute regarding the terms and conditions imposed by the order under this Bill clearly would be a trade dispute and would fall within the provisions of the 1992 legislation; that is, a dispute between the workers and employees and the Secretary of State, because only he can be involved in changing the order again.
  Furthermore, the section would be likely to be given a positive interpretation by the courts. There is certainly one case, The London Borough of Wandsworth v National Association of Schoolmasters [1993] IRLR 344 CA, in which a dispute by workers as to the alleged excessive workloads brought about by orders made under the Education Reform Act 1988, which provided for the national curriculum, was held to be a trade dispute protected by the 1992 Act. So there is a parallel, if you like. Teachers are not employed by the Secretary of State for a start; they are employed by local education authorities, or in most cases, technically, by school governing bodies. But quite clearly the Secretary of State was involved in that and it was held to be a trade dispute. In similar circumstances our view is based on what we understand to be the law plus at least one case. It would be held to be a trade dispute and therefore it is not necessary to accept the amendment.
  If we did accept the amendment, it would, frankly, frustrate the purpose of the orders under the Bill. We are not in business to have the Bill frustrated.
  Lord McCarthy: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am trying to be clear about what he said. ] shall read it in Hansard tomorrow. I thought he said that the order under the Bill would be invoked only if the parties disagreed. It therefore follows that once the parties agree—I thought I had an amendment down on this and the Government would not accept it, but never mind—the Secretary of State says, "I shall not use my powers. As long as they have agreed, that is all right". That seemed to me to be what the Minister was saying. Did I get it right?
  Lord Rooker: I am not going back to read the Hansard of two or three Sittings ago. But at our first Sitting in Grand Committee and, indeed, at Second Reading, we made it abundantly clear that the Bill is a backstop. It is time limited for two years. We do not want to use it. All the relevant arrangements are available in the existing agreement between the Fire Brigades Union and the employers. If there is any
  GC 204
  dispute in the intervening period, they can use their existing arrangements which include third party arbitration. I remember saying when responding to an amendment that if there was an agreement, generally speaking the Secretary of State would be reluctant to intervene.
  The point I am making is that the Bill would be activated only if a disaster arose of another dispute occurring with no sign of being settled in which case the Secretary of State—he has made this absolutely clear and we make no apology for it so there is no surprise in that regard—would impose a settlement as a way of drawing a line under the dispute. He would do so simply because we have learnt lessons from the events of the past 12 months. As I say, the Bill is time limited and will not extend beyond two years. Hopefully, we shall not have to use the legislation but if we did do so, it would he activated only because the existing system had failed.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect, I hope that I may ask the noble Lord a question. He said the Bill would be used only if the parties disagreed. That is not quite what he means. He said it but I do not think that he meant it. What he meant was, if the parties agree with what we want them to do, we shall not use the Bill. But if they do not—
  Lord Rooker: Yes, sure.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: But if the parties do not agree with what we want them to do, we shall impose the Bill.
  Lord Rooker: That is entirely the case. The noble Lord expressed the matter perfectly. The two parties could have a sweetheart arrangement—it is not unknown between employers and trade unions to have a sweetheart arrangement—and say to the Secretary of State, "By the way, we have agreed; here is the bill".
  We would say, "Sorry, we are not paying the—We do not have a blank cheque.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Ah!
  Lord Rooker: My noble friend says "Ah"! There is nothing new in what I am saying. We have discussed the matter before. The parties can reach an agreement. But, as I say, that could be a sweetheart agreement with a bigger bill than we are prepared to pay for. We would not operate the Bill just because they reached an agreement in that sense. That is not what I meant. It is what I said but not what I meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said. I am not changing the words. But by and large if the parties have an agreement, we would not intervene. However, if they reached an agreement which was absolutely contrary to the financial settlement for the department and went against what had been agreed previously, we would say, "Hang on a minute". As I say, the Bill is intended for use in an emergency situation. I can honestly say that we do not want to operate the Bill. That would mean the present system had failed to settle any disputes or arrangements or the processing of the current agreement.

  GC 205
  As I have already said, it would take several months to process the current agreement so that it becomes fully operable. Therefore, we need this as a backstop. I am not saying that there are any blank cheques here. It is not an agreement just because two parties agree that we pay the bill; that is a conspiracy against the public. To that extent, we would not actually foot the bill.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking on the amendment and to the Minister. The amendment has raised all kinds of issues that I had not expected.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, says he cannot understand the amendment but that even if he could he would be against it. There are precedents for that in our relationship. He has often said that he could not understand me but that he would be against me even if he could.
  I take my stand on Section 244(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act and the problem it poses in deciding whether or not this is a trade dispute. On the facts we have posited, which seem to be common ground, the Minister says it would clearly be a trade dispute. I say it would not clearly be a trade dispute. I have not yet talked to a lawyer who knows Section 244(2) who says that it would be clear that it was. I have talked to those who think it may be more likely than I think. The reason they do not think it is clear is that that section of the 1992 Act applies where the Minister is not the employer, but is using a statutory power in an order which the workers and their union do not like, on matters which,
  "have been referred for consideration by a joint body",
  and so on. It seems to be agreed that that would not apply here, or matters which,
  "cannot be settled without him exercising a power conferred on him by or under an enactment".
  That does not refer to Government policy—whether, if there has been a settlement, they like the agreement made. A settlement may be on terms regarded by the Government as a conspiracy. The Minister said so. But whether the Government think that it is a good or a bad settlement or a conspiracy is not what Section 244(2) is dealing with.
  Obviously, the dispute could be settled. Indeed, on the hypothesis discussed in the past few minutes, it is settled by the parties, but the Government do not like it. Normally, they would hope not to make an order where there has been a settlement, but for reasons I and my noble friend Lord McCarthy could not really understand at the time, they would not accept Amendment No. 9A. I, too, have not read Hansard, but I remember it so clearly because I was astonished by their total rejection of Amendment No. 9A. It said that where there was no dispute or disagreement between the members of the National Joint Council—that is the union and the employers—whether or not they agreed with the proposals of the Secretary of State
  GC 206
  in his proposals for an order, the Secretary of State should withdraw his proposals and engage in new consultations.
  If the Minister says that the Bill applies only in such a crisis situation that there would not be time for new consultations, then we shall return on Report and table amendments that restrict the Bill to those conditions. There is plenty of discussion around at the moment. Why is it that in the Committee we have not heard a word about the draft Civil Contingencies Bill? It has two new definitions of emergencies. I believe that I am right in saying that the Minister was in the department that was primarily concerned with the matter. We have this Bill coming to us, which will scrap the old 1920 Emergency Powers Act, and which will re-legislate on civil defence on all the matters where emergencies are relevant.
  The Minister is amused by my reference to the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. Noble Lords are being asked to consult on it before the end of September, while they are on holiday shooting grouse or whatever they do on holiday. After that, it will be put before them. I suspect that noble Lords have not heard of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. If it is to apply only in emergencies, we shall draw on that debate on Report with gratitude to noble Lords and others who have taken part, and return with amendments to restrict the Bill to the circumstances in which the Minister has suggested it should only apply.
  That is all relevant to this issue of trade dispute. It is not obvious within Section 244(2) that a dispute cannot be settled without the Minister exercising his powers. The Minister will want to impose what he wants to be done; that is the whole point of the powers. I am not objecting to that; I am saying that a court would not necessarily accept the argument that this was a dispute between employers and workers within the special meaning of Section 244(2). Until we hear some more pressing reason why that should obviously be so, we shall want to consider what has been said and return to the matter undoubtedly on Report.
  I ask the Minister seriously to consider once again a matter which those who are competent to do so have been raising with trade union colleagues in regard to trade disputes on this matter. I ask him to look again very seriously at this aspect and the other aspects of what will remain lawful in trade disputes in common parlance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 44:
  Line 2, after "brigades" insert "as a means of last resort to avoid disruption of such services by collective action"
  The noble Lord said: I move this amendment to the Long Title which is consequential on Amendment No. 1 on our first day, and, adverting to the extraordinary circumstances in which it is moved, seek leave to

  GC 207
  withdraw it so that the same substance of this amendment may be moved on Report consequential on amendments to Clause 1 to be tabled to reflect the substance of Amendment No. 1 in Grand Committee.
  As far as I am aware, and I speak subject to correction, never in time of peace or war has primary legislation of short-term effect been introduced to enable a government to introduce ad hoc measures against members of a single trade union to enable a government to impose by decree conditions of service to resolve a dispute on their own terms. The exercise of the powers or the threat of the exercise of these powers other than in a state of emergency is wholly unacceptable and the Bill is unworthy of any government.
  The exercise of these powers is a matter of construction of the Bill. It is in no way dependent upon the statement of intention as to the circumstances in which they will be used unless such intentions are embodied in the Bill. This is a serious point which has been taken by three Members of the Committee already. It is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gives his assurances in good faith, which we accept in good faith. His integrity and good faith are not in question. What is in question is whether those assurances are beside the point on due scrutiny in either House of Parliament. What one has to do is look at the Bill and see what powers it confers. Unless such intentions are embodied in the Bill, they are of no consequence.
  Why then, when there is no state of emergency, take this power to exercise such threat and subvert the traditional process of collective bargaining? Why when there is the urgent need to devise some long-term union strategy to avoid disruption of our public services take a sledgehammer to discriminate against members of the fire brigades? Why engender confrontation with the trade union movement upon the support of which our economy is largely dependent?
  This amendment has been accepted by the Table as not extending the Long Title, but as affording means of last resort to avoid disruption of these essential services: the retention of collective bargaining and the setting up of a mandatory arbitral tribunal independent of government for the resolution of the fire brigades dispute as the conditions of service as defined by Clause 2 of the Bill. Amendments to that effect are to be tabled on Report.
  If the amendments to which I have spoken should not commend themselves to your Lordships on Report, I shall support the Motion of my noble friend Lady Hanham to leave out Clause 1, which could well be supported by noble Lords from all sides of the House and from both sides of the Grand Committee. If however it should be considered, and it could well be so, that comity as between the Houses could require that an opportunity be given to another place for consideration of these amendments to Clause 1 and other amendments, then so be it. These amendments to Clause 1 will to some extent already reflect the sense of another place on the Statement of 20th March which
  GC 208
  heralded the introduction of the Bill; also the sense of your Lordships' House at Second Reading and, in this context, in Grand Committee.
  So in any event, in the event of a terrorist attack or other state of emergency. we can count on every man in the fire brigades to do his duty by the country. On recall of Parliament, there should be appropriate measures that will be taken by statutory instrument on Order in Council.
  I hope that that clarifies the position as to my approach to the Bill that will be taken on Report. If my amendments fail, I shall support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Hanham. However, that involves some consideration as to whether comity between the Houses might induce the House to prefer to consider my amendments. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: There is no answer to that. The noble Lord said that he would not move Amendment No. 44 as it was not needed because Amendment No. 1 had been withdrawn, or the other way round. He has moved Amendment No. 44, but it is not needed because it is consequential on an amendment that was withdrawn several days ago.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is not right. I had to withdraw the amendment because we are in Grand Committee.
  Lord Rooker: No.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: That is why I had to withdraw it.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Let us return to the point. A Division has been called in the House.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House, from 6.15 to 6.25 p.m.]
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I apologise to the Grand Committee; my head got rather cooked in an oven. I got to the stage that I was not able to deal with the merits of the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am not quite sure what it was. If I may. I should like to explain myself so that I may ask for leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Those at the Table explained to me that the effect of my amendment to Clause 1(1)(a) meant that I ought to extend the Title. In the ordinary way, I could well have divided on my Amendment No. 1. However, I could not do so in Grand Committee. I therefore sought leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1. So now I am left with Charlie, so to speak, which is the Long Title, at the end of the road. I cannot divide the Grand Committee on it. So may I please have leave to withdraw the amendment so that we can deal with it on Report?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 45:
  Line 2, at end insert "and for connected purposes"
  The noble Lord said: On tabling Amendment No. 33—which deals with the operation of the 2003 agreement, and which the Minister has accepted—I was informed by the Public Bill Office that it was necessary to table this amendment as a consequential amendment. I had to do so because my Amendment No. 33 was not related to the Title regarding the powers of the Secretary of State and so on but was separate from the powers of the Secretary of State. That is why it was tabled as a new clause.
  As the Minister has accepted Amendment No. 33, I was intending simply formally to move Amendment No. 45. However, I should like to know whether parliamentary counsel have advised differently and the amendment is unnecessary. As I said, the Public Bill Office informed me that it was necessary. However, I
  GC 210
  am very happy to hear advice to the contrary and that there is no possibility that the legislation including Amendment No. 33 could fall short because of any inadequacy in the Long Title. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I am advised that there is no need to alter the Bill's Long Title to allow for Amendment No. 33 to be included in the Bill. My noble friend's contribution to this Bill has been enormous. Omitting to alter the Long Title will not put Amendment No. 33 at risk.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I am very glad to have that assurance on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past six o'clock.

  Fire Service College Task Group
  Fire Service College Task Group
  Disabled Facilities Grant: Gypsy Sites
  Disabled Facilities Grant: Gypsy Sites
  Northern Ireland: Morning-after Pill
  Northern Ireland: Morning-after Pill
  Alastair Campbell: Accountability
  Alastair Campbell: Accountability
  Ministerial Responsibilities: Publication of Changes
  Ministerial Responsibilities: Publication of Changes
  British Overseas Territories
  British Overseas Territories
  Montserrat: CARICOM and OECS
  Montserrat: CARICOM and OECS
  Burma
  Burma
  Jamil Bassam and Ibrahim Khodebandeh
  Jamil Bassam and Ibrahim Khodebandeh
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Congo
  Congo
  Guantanamo Bay: UK Nationals
  Guantanamo Bay: UK Nationals
  Sexual Offences Legislation: Sado masochistic Activity
  Sexual Offences Legislation: Sado masochistic Activity
  Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
  Trespassers
  Trespassers
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships
  Homicide
  Homicide
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 2000: Prosecutions under Section 14
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 2000: Prosecutions under Section 14
  Biometric identification
  Biometric identification
  United States: Extradition Treaty
  United States: Extradition Treaty
  Immigration Detention Centres: Religious Affairs
  Immigration Detention Centres: Religious Affairs
  Criminal Records Bureau: Review
  Criminal Records Bureau: Review
  Riot (Damages) Act 1886: Review
  Riot (Damages) Act 1886: Review
  Shipman Inquiry: Second and Third Reports
  Shipman Inquiry: Second and Third Reports
  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Meat Hygiene Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Wanless Review on Prevention and the Wider Determinants of Health
  Wanless Review on Prevention and the Wider Determinants of Health
  Pensions Protection Fund
  Pensions Protection Fund
  Microchips
  Microchips
  Iraq: Oil and Petroleum
  Iraq: Oil and Petroleum
  Broadband
  Broadband
  E-commerce
  E-commerce
  Competition Commission (Penalties) Order 2003
  Competition Commission (Penalties) Order 2003
  CAP Reform: Single Payment Scheme
  CAP Reform: Single Payment Scheme