Sitting of 15 July 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HEREFORD MARKETS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Tuesday 9 September.

Oral Answers to questions
  TRANSPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRANSPORT

    Airport Expansion
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What recent representations he has received about airport expansion. [125434]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The national consultation ended on 30 June. We estimate that at least 300,000 responses have been received from across the UK. We are analysing all these and, as I have said, we will set out our decisions in the air transport White Paper later this year.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Government granted permission for terminal 5, they said that they would strictly limit the growth of aircraft movements, which so badly affect my constituents in Chesham and Amersham? Do the announcement of the widening of the M25 and yesterday's announcement of permission for Crossrail to go ahead with consultation on the Heathrow route imply tacit approval for a third runway at Heathrow—and does that not make a mockery of the assurances that the Government gave my constituents?
    Mr. Darling: No, I do not think that it does. The Crossrail proposal, to which we shall return if we reach Question 6, has merit in its own right. It will provide links between east and west London, including Heathrow. If it gets the final go-ahead, it will bring the advantage of removing traffic from the roads because more people will be able to go to Heathrow by rail. I should have thought that that would be thoroughly
    132
    good for everyone who lives in west London. The hon. Lady will be aware that when my predecessor gave terminal 5 the go-ahead, he made it clear that he was aware that the Government were about to consult on the future capacity requirements of airports, including Heathrow, so I do not accept the premise of her question at all.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: When my right hon. Friend has a look at the 300,000 responses, will he bear in mind the fact that air transport in the UK alone benefits from some £7.5 billion of tax concessions each year? Will he consider the fact that if the concessions were phased out, that would reduce some of the pressure for airport expansion and provide additional financial resources for transport, of which I am sure he would make good use?
    Mr. Darling: As for the 300,000 responses, the House might be interested to know that half of them came from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
    Andrew Mackinlay: It has a bigger membership than the Labour and Tory parties put together.
    Mr. Darling: As my hon. Friend says, the RSPB enjoys a very high membership that must be the envy of all political parties—although I doubt whether we are likely to emulate that membership just yet.
    The Government have always made it clear that the aviation industry should be responsible for meeting its costs. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) will also be aware that the reason why air fares have reduced so dramatically is not so much because of taxation but because the no-frills carriers—the low-cost airlines—have stripped out much of the costs of selling their tickets. My hon. Friend might also be interested to know that unsurprisingly, people in London have the greatest propensity to fly, but those in Scotland are the second most likely to fly.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), replied at column 24W of yesterday's Hansard that the total cost of the consultation was £4.2 million? Will he explain why he has set a 30-year frame for airport consultation but only a 10-year transport plan for road and rail? Does he accept that he got his sums wrong on at least one aspect: the road and rail links to Stansted airport?
    Mr. Darling: Let me try to answer the hon. Lady and find out whether I understand her correctly. Naturally, the consultation documents on air travel that we have published examine the situation over a 20 to 30-year time horizon because of the time that would be taken to plan and build extra capacity. It is sensible to consider such things over a long period. The 10-year plan is essentially related to the Government's spending programme, and the hon. Lady will recall that annual programmes existed in the days of the Conservative Government. All spending Departments now have their spending fixed three years ahead so that they have

    133
    greater certainty, which allows for better planning. However, we have fixed transport spending on a 10-year time horizon. Fixing the spending of any Department on a 30-year time horizon would be problematic, because the figures would become less reliable as one went further on in time. I say in the nicest possible way to the hon. Lady that she is not comparing like with like.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strong case for expanding London Luton airport. He will also be aware that with very modest investment, passenger throughput could be quadrupled from 7 million to 28 million, and with a little more investment, it could be expanded to more than 60 million passengers a year. Will he consider giving Luton an early go-ahead before the more difficult options elsewhere are considered?
    Mr. Darling: I am well aware of the arguments that my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), have advanced on Luton airport. However, I have made it clear many times that I intend to make the decisions and the announcement on air travel at the same time, at the end of the year. No announcements will be made in advance in respect of a particular proposal or airport.
    Mr. John Randall: Perhaps I can return to the subject of birds. Given that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has given a licence to BAA to cull Canada geese in the vicinity of Heathrow, within, I think, a 15 km or perhaps a 15 mile radius, what representations has the Department had on bird strike at Heathrow, bearing in mind that a few years ago a flock of Canada geese hit a Boeing jet?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the fact that some years ago a Boeing 767 hit 20 or 30 Canada geese. The Department, the Civil Aviation Authority and the airport operators keep bird strike under close review. They are aware of the issues and receive a number of representations. Unfortunately, bird strike is a feature of most airports, for obvious reasons. The key is to manage the problem as best we can by controlling the number of birds around an airport. Most people would agree, however, that the matter is under control at British airports.

    Rail Franchises
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on the extent to which (a) performance and (b) customers' complaints will be a material consideration when future rail franchises are awarded. [125435]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Strategic Rail Authority must ensure that bids for franchises are evaluated on an objective and fair basis, and that the market is open to new entrants. The criteria therefore focus on compliance with the SRA's specification, bidders' ability to deliver and value for money. Improving performance is, of course, a fundamental objective for all franchises.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I thank the Minister for that response. However, passengers are frustrated by the
    134
    lack of a mechanism for their complaints to be heard, evaluated and determined in a consistent way. One of their complaints is often that they do not know how to complain. Complaints relate not merely to reliability, but to the inability to purchase a ticket, cleanliness, access to loos and so on. All franchises have the implied term or condition that there will be good services and a response to complaints, but people are frustrated. There is no passenger power, and there should be. I invite my right hon. Friend to address that matter, so that the SRA has to take into consideration the failure of train operators to respond reasonably to complaints and representations by the paying passengers. It is time he protected the passenger.
    Mr. Darling: At the moment there does not appear to be any difficulty with people making complaints, since there are rather more of them than one would like.
    Andrew Mackinlay: But they are not recorded.
    Mr. Darling: Complaints are received and recorded, not only from individuals but from the rail passenger councils that have been set up across the country. It is more productive, however, to address the fundamental problems that give rise to complaints. The first thing is to improve reliability, and the second is to do what the SRA is doing—to change the franchising policy so that, in future, issues such as reliability and cleanliness are essential parts of holding a franchise. If train companies do not meet their obligations they can be taken off the track altogether, which did not happen in the system that we inherited.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Given that my constituents' trains are more crowded and less punctual than they were when the right hon. Gentleman started in government six years ago, and as he keeps going on about the year of delivery, can he give me an idea when the year of delivery might be?
    Mr. Darling: Train services in the south-east and other parts of the country are slowly seeing reliability increase. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example of one of the difficulties that we face. The Government of whom he was a member failed to make provision to upgrade and replace the power supply for trains running south of the River Thames. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that trains ought to be better and more reliable, but we are making up for 18 years in which the Tory Government did not put enough money into trains.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern that the improvement is not as fast as it should be, but we are upgrading the power supply to get greater reliability of trains and replacing 40 per cent. of the rolling stock, nearly half of it on the London commuter services, which should improve reliability and quality of journey. The Conservatives neglected that, and did nothing about it in their rush to privatise the railways, with all the consequences that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and ours have to put up with.
    Mr. Graham Stringer: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the fact that as Network Rail lets shorter and shorter franchises,

    135
    it is taking more revenue risk than originally envisaged when the railways were privatised, the banks are learning that lesson, which is likely to make it more difficult to finance major infrastructure, both heavy rail and light schemes? What will he do about that?
    Mr. Darling: Of course, it is the SRA that lets the franchises. It is right to move to a system that has far greater specification of the requirements of reliability, cleanliness, safety, and so on. One disadvantage of the longer-term, 15-year franchises was that towards the end of them the figures were unrealistic and more and more train companies said that they could not deliver. That does not make any sense. My hon. Friend has a point, in that the costs of some railway projects and light rail schemes—there is an example in Manchester—appear to be going up, up and away in an unjustified way. That is partly to do with the attitude of those in the private sector who are financing the projects. I am extremely concerned about that because we cannot allow industry to come to believe that if it names a price. we will simply pay it. That is not the case. Despite what has been said in the House, certainly from the Opposition Benches, private investment in the railways continues to be substantial, and it is one reason why we are able to invest so much in total, which will improve the railways.
    Sir George Young: Further to the reply that the Secretary of State has just given, he will know that the SRA has just renewed the South West Trains franchise, but only for three years. In conjunction with the SRA, will he consider longer franchises, because the longer the franchise the greater the incentive for the train operator to invest in rolling stock, stations, car parks and other improvements?
    Mr. Darling: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman was around at the time when the railways were privatised. The idea then was that if a franchise were awarded for 15 or 20 years, train companies would come up with investment and eventually start paying money back into public funds, but that did not happen. Far too many train companies took the profits in the first two or three years and then came back to us and said, "Sorry, we can't deliver on our side of the bargain." We are moving to a far better system, whereby franchises will be let for seven years and will be renewable, but what companies are meant to produce in the way of reliability, comfort, safety and so on will be strictly specified.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, the South West Trains franchise was continued for the next three years to allow for the introduction of new rolling stock to replace the mark 1 slam-door trains. After that, the franchise will be put out to tender in the proper way under the new system. I say to the right hon. Gentleman. and to all Opposition Members who still believe that privatisation will somehow make an improvement, that, as with so many things that the Conservative party did. the promises were never delivered.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is that not precisely why the Secretary of State should encourage the Strategic Rail Authority to chop off a few heads in the train operating companies? Frankly, passengers are getting sick to the back teeth of
    136
    companies that could not run a jumble sale. Unless we make it very clear that the taxpayer will not go on funding incompetence as a career in very poor companies, everyone will suffer.
    Mr. Darling: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, the SRA made it clear last month in the case of Connex that it was not willing to carry on putting money into a company when it was not satisfied that there were adequate financial controls. That is a clear lesson to railway operators that high standards are rightly demanded, that the public expect them, and that the train companies must deliver. As I said earlier, the SRA will have the power under the new franchising system to get somebody off the tracks much more quickly and effectively if they do not deliver. That will make for a far better service.

    Utilities (Public Highways)
    Ian Lucas: If he will introduce legislation to provide for an improved system for utility companies to give notice to local authorities of works on the public highway. [125436]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): Since April 2001, highway authorities in England can charge utilities up to £2,000 a day every time any of their works overrun an agreed deadline. The National Assembly for Wales has that power but, I believe, has not utilised it yet. We are also operating pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough to test powers to charge utilities from the start of each work. Once parliamentary time permits, we intend to introduce a Bill containing measures to allow more effective management of utilities' works, to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum and end the nonsense of roads being dug up time and time again, with all the commensurate congestion.
    Ian Lucas: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, and am glad that legislation is on the horizon. In particular, will he ensure that the legislation includes strict compensation provisions so that businesses that are strongly and adversely affected when due notice is not given by utilities are given appropriate compensation? That will enable constituents such as Mr. and Mrs. Ruscoe of Tan-y-Dre in my constituency to receive proper recompense for the great damage that has been done to their business over far too long a period.
    Mr. McNulty: On balance, we decided to do things the other way round, and make sure that important measures are in place to deal with notice and tighten the existing legislative framework for utility works to reduce the disruptive effect on businesses such as the one cited by my hon. Friend, thus obviating the need for compensation. We do not believe that including rigid requirements on the payment of compensation in legislation is the best way forward. If we get the overall regime in place and working, that will obviate the need for compensation.
    David Taylor: Can the Minister tell the House whether there has been any early

    137
    feedback from the pilot schemes in Camden and Middlesbrough, and whether such an approach will improve the position, particularly in town centres, where work by utilities is inadequately communicated to commercial frontages, and the extent of closures in their part of the town is often not well understood? Will that position improve if the pilot scheme is extended?
    Mr. McNulty: The impact of constant roadworks is well known and deleterious for businesses that just want to go about their business. The Camden and Middlesbrough schemes have not been up and running for terribly long, and we are still awaiting feedback from them. When there is a full review of the pilots we will feed the results into legislation, and, I hope, resolve the problem throughout the country, including Leicestershire.
    Mr. John Bercow: According to what published criteria, and under whose auspices, is it determined that in certain cases such works shall take place at night?
    Mr. McNulty: Invariably, that is done in co-operation with the relevant highways authority.

    Hydrogen Fuel
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What progress has been made in the past three months with his work on hydrogen fuel-based transport. [125437]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The energy White Paper set out the steps that the Government are taking to explore the possible use of hydrogen in transport, industry and elsewhere. As part of this, we have begun a detailed assessment of the implications of transport hydrogen for our wider energy and transport policies.
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the case for co-operating with the billion-dollar American project on hydrogen in Idaho?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's enormous interest in these issues. We are aware of the research in the United States, and we are in dialogue with the Americans to make possible partnerships on hydrogen work. I think my hon. Friend would agree that international work on a matter of global significance is important. The United States is looking in particular at producing electricity from nuclear sources to produce hydrogen, but we may decide on a different approach. Nevertheless, the Government are addressing seriously the future prospects for hydrogen.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister will know that Department of Health statistics show that nearly 400 Londoners a year die from transport-related pollution. As hydrogen is much cleaner than petrol—it produces no CO2 emissions—will he give
    138
    increased impetus to research on hydrogen, as London seems to be well behind many other capital cities in Europe in advancing its use?
    Mr. Jamieson: The level of air pollution in many of our cities, particularly London, has improved vastly over the past 10 or 20 years, although that does not mean that the situation is ideal. We see hydrogen as the medium to long-term solution to the problem of pollution in our cities, but we must solve the problem of how the hydrogen is produced. It must be produced from electricity that is sustainable and does not produce CO2 and other emissions. In the meantime we have a complex programme to introduce cleaner vehicles and cleaner fuels, and to improve engine technology, including the catalysts. We are working closely with our colleagues in the European Union to address some of those issues. I am glad to say that improvements are being made, but the Government share the hon. Gentleman's impatience for us to move rapidly on these important matters.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the integrated gasification plant being built in my constituency by Coalpower is capable not only of producing electricity without any toxic emission, but of capturing enough hydrogen to power the local bus fleet? Does he agree that the development of hydrogen power is so crucial to the future of the environment that the Government should play a major role in developing that technology?
    Mr. Jamieson: I am aware of the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. It demonstrates why we are looking across a wide range of projects to get cleaner fuels. We do not think that there is one solution. There may be many and varied solutions and various technologies may be used, but in the meantime we will examine the fuel duty on hydrogen, and may give that encouragement. My hon. Friend is rubbing his fingers together as though money might he available, but that would be from a different Department, not mine. There are many other measures that we are introducing on vehicle excise duty, company car tax and, as I mentioned a moment ago, cleaner engines. I will consider the issue that my hon. Friend raises to see whether there is any way that we can further progress it. I am grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of the House.

    M6 (Traffic Congestion)
    Tony Wright: What assessment he has made of the extent to which the rail system can relieve traffic congestion on the M6 in the west midlands. [125438]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): Work by the Strategic Rail Authority shows that the £9 billion west coast main line upgrade will lead to transfers of both passengers and freight from road to rail and help to relieve congestion along the whole route from London to Glasgow, including the M6 in the west midlands.
    Tony Wright: My hon. Friend knows that for large parts of the day, the M6 in the west midlands does not

    139
    move at all. That is partly because of the local traffic that uses the motorway. If we are to get that traffic off the motorway and on to rail, we need a good local rail service, yet the Chase line which serves my constituency cannot afford to invest in more trains or longer platforms, so we have an overcrowded, unreliable service that drives people on to the roads and clogs up the M6. Does that not cry out for a bit of joined-up thinking?
    Dr. Howells: I acknowledge the problems that my hon. Friend has just listed, but there is a great deal of joined-up thinking on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just announced a billion-pound programme for the west midlands. We are looking for ideas from local authorities, and we are looking at their local transport plans. I am sure my hon. Friend knows that Birmingham Moor Street station is being extensively refurbished, the Kidderminster and Stourbridge service via Snow Hill has increased, and the cross-city line is providing a turn-up-and-go passenger service on the west midlands city line. There is a great deal of work going on and I am confident that it will address some of the problems. I hope that my hon. Friend is under no illusion that the vast amount of traffic currently on the M6 will all be relieved by improvements to the rail service. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last December, and more recently, a programme of road widening on some parts of the motorway system, including the M6. We are also considering traffic management measures for the M42. some of which are quite revolutionary in concept.
    Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is right to say that the upgrade of the west coast main line will assist. but does he agree that if we are going to get more people out of their cars on the M6 and on to the railways, we must improve reliability? Is it not appalling that in the past 12 months, delays on our railways have been caused riot only by the wrong type of snow and the wrong type of leaves, but by the right types of leaves in the wrong season, and that the latest cause of delay is the current fine weather, as it is too hot? Is he not embarrassed to preside over a railway system that is more sensitive to the weather than English cricket is?
    Dr. Howells: I have not been embarrassed since I saw England thrashed by Wales three times in a row.
    On my way to London on First Great Western yesterday, I was informed that we should be watching out, as the current extreme temperature means that the rails might expand and signalling could start tripping off, which would cause big problems. The work that we are doing, and the money that we are putting into railways, are intended precisely to address such situations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that some of the delays are somehow avoidable. He knows full well that they are not avoidable, and that it is sometimes necessary to blockade lines in order to carry out the essential maintenance and refurbishment that are needed if we are to improve the railways in the long run. I am sure that he agrees that a lot of work is involved because
    140
    there have been decades of under-investment in our railways, in which such maintenance was not carried out.
    Mr. Mike Hall rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the question was about the M6. I say to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) that when he seeks to come in on a question, his remarks should relate to that question. He asked about railways, but he should not have done so, and this will be the last time he gets away with it.
    Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend will be aware that since privatisation, Virgin Trains no longer has its west coast main line stop at Hartford station in my constituency. Cross Country has reduced the number of stops at Hartford, and we are also about lose the stop on the Liverpool to Birmingham run. One way of reducing congestion on the M6 would be to encourage train operators to make better use of Hartford station.
    Dr. Howells: I take my hon. Friend's point. We certainly have to look very hard at those local services and at the way in which we utilise lines in that area, but we also need to realise that if we are to make best use of the tracks, we must look carefully at the timetable and ensure that the slow trains are not slowing down trains that should be fast. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about that difficulty, but I shall take a look at the specific issue that he raises and try to get back to him.

    Crossrail
    Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on Crossrail. [125439]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I announced yesterday, I have now received from Cross London Rail Link its updated business case for Crossrail. The Government will need to evaluate the proposals thoroughly to ensure that they are feasible. At the same time, I have asked CLRL to press ahead with its development of detailed project proposals, including advising on updating the safeguarding of the route and undertaking a public consultation exercise on the route in the autumn.
    Mike Gapes: I have been pressing Ministers for Crossrail for 11 years, so I am pleased that the Government yesterday gave their support in principle. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that, but can he assure me, and millions of Londoners and visitors to this city, that there will be no further unnecessary delays in the project, that early legislation will be introduced in the hybrid Bill and that trains will be running from Shenfield through Ilford and Stratford, and from Paddington to Heathrow, on Crossrail within a decade?
    Mr. Darling: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, I believe that the Crossrail project is very important for the future of London. It is equally important, however, to ensure that we get it right. The last attempt to build Crossrail in the 1980s and 1990s foundered because not enough attention was given to the detail involved in the project. That is why it is

    141
    important that the public consultation, which will be carried out this autumn, should deal with the route and all the proposals in some detail to ensure that the business case stacks up.
    On any view, this is an extremely expensive project. It is very important now that all the people in London who said that they were willing in principle to pay for the project should realise that we are now at a stage where we need from them not only support, but cash. As the report recognised, the project must be a joint venture between the Government and the private sector, so it is time for people who say that they support it to reach for their wallets and come up with very firm proposals.
    Mr. Tim Collins: What does the Secretary of State expect the precise cost of the project to be, and are he and the Treasury absolutely committed to guaranteeing its delivery?
    Mr. Darling: That is a bit rich coming from someone who is committed to wholesale cuts in public expenditure. We did not get Crossrail under the last Tory Government and we will not get it under the next Tory Government. As the business case makes clear, the cost will be in excess of £10 billion. Clearly, the precise cost will depend on the route and the construction of the service. As I made clear in my statement yesterday, the Chancellor and I intend to consult London businesses and others to ensure that we secure the best and most effective way of funding the project. Before the hon. Gentleman next gets to his feet, I remind him that for as long as he is committed to 20 per cent. cuts in public spending, anything that he says about funding has to be taken with a pinch of salt.
    Mr. Collins: Yesterday, as a result of an exclusive interview with the Secretary of State, the Evening Standard ran, uncorrected by his Department, the headline: "Crossrail gets £10bn go-ahead". It now turns out that it might not be £10 billion and that it did not really get a go-ahead at all. Will the Secretary of State confirm that under his plans, trains will not be remotely punctual before 2010, most of the roads that he announced last week will not be completed before 2012, and Crossrail may still never happen? How much longer do the long-suffering travelling public have to wait before he and his colleagues get their act together?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman, all too typically, is shifting his ground away from the point that I made about Crossrail. The one thing that all transport, whether road or rail, has lacked in the past is high levels of sustained investment. I concede that the problem bedevilled successive Governments of both major parties, but the Conservatives, in the 10 years prior to their losing the 1997 general election, cut the amount of money going into road and rail. That lack of investment is one reason why the public are now suffering. We are putting that right by investing in the railways and roads. The Conservative party remains committed to a 20 per cent. reduction in public expenditure, much of which
    142
    will come out of spending on roads. If Conservative Members are worried about my saying that, they should just look at the results of what they did in office.
    Jane Griffiths: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's support in principle for Crossrail, for which I have pressed for several years on behalf of my constituents in Reading. I welcome the opportunity that it provides for better rail links to Heathrow, thus reducing congestion on the roads. Will he consider using the opportunity of Crossrail to ensure that there is a western rail link to Heathrow with its end at Reading?
    Mr. Darling: I am afraid that I must caution my hon. Friend and others that if Crossrail is to get the final go-ahead and be built, it is important to have a manageable project. One of the reasons why it sank under the Conservative Government was that not enough attention was paid to its detail, feasibility and deliverability. I am all in favour of improved links between Reading and Paddington—indeed, last week I referred to a proposal that will allow better links between the Thames valley and Heathrow airport, which will help my hon. Friend's constituents—but, in relation to Crossrail, let us concentrate on having a project that is manageable and deliverable. If that happens, there is every chance that London will actually get it, rather than its being the mere pipedream that it was under the Conservative Government.
    Adam Price: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as is the case with expenditure on the London underground, any proposed public spending on the London Crossrail initiative will result in consequential increases for the devolved Administrations, which will allow us to get on with the Glasgow and Aberdeen crossrail proposals and the proposal to rebuild the north-south rail link in Wales? Will he make such representations to himself as Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman had spent more time practising his question, it might have had better effect. We are spending money on the railways throughout the United Kingdom. That would not be possible were Wales ever to become a separate state, in which case it would not have that money. The fact is that money is being spent on the railways throughout the United Kingdom, which will benefit the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Clelland: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the report of the Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local Government, entitled "Reducing Regional Disparities in Prosperity"? Given his announcement last week on road improvements, out of which the north-east did very badly, his recent scepticism about policies such as expanding the Tyneside metro system and his apparent enthusiasm for Crossrail, does he believe that the Department is entering fully into the spirit of the Government's policies on reducing regional disparity?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, I do. If my hon. Friend examines identifiable public spending by region, he will realise that although a great deal of money is undoubtedly

    143
    spent in London for clear reasons, the north-east is the next most obvious beneficiary. A case can be made for spending more on transport and other matters in every area of the country. We are trying to ensure that our approach is fair for the whole country. I understand my hon. Friend's point about last week's announcement in Which I was able to give the go-ahead to some projects but not others, but if he examines the figures for identifiable public expenditure, he will find that the Government are spending substantial sums of money in the north-east, as they are entitled to do.

    Speed Cameras
    Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): If he will make a statement on the impact of speed cameras on traffic safety. [125440]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): An independent report on the two-year trial of the cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras was published on 11 February 2003. It found, on average, a 35 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people, and a 4 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in the trial areas, equating to approximately 530 people.
    Mr. Mackay: Is not the truth that the Government's policy on speed cameras is a complete muddle and mess? It is despised by motorists, who perceive it as simply another stealth tax. Would it not be much better to tear down speed cameras on safe motorways and dual carriageways and instead concentrate on serious blackspots and on traffic lights to prevent people from jumping traffic lights and blocking junctions, thus causing congestion in our urban areas?
    Mr. Jamieson: If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework, he would have realised that the cameras in the netting-off scheme can be placed only at sites where there is a considerable amount of injuries. Perhaps he and colleagues should speak to some of the people in urban areas who have speed cameras in their locality that have greatly reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured. Conservative Members must reflect carefully on their policy of removing cameras because they will have to explain to the people in those areas the casualties and deaths resulting from their policies.
    Helen Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the huge public support for the Government's swift action in installing speed cameras on the dangerous section of the Stocksbridge bypass across the Pennines? People would be horrified at the idea that an incoming Government would simply remove speed cameras, which have so far prevented any further major accidents on that road.
    Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes my point. The cameras are usually popular with local people in the areas where they are installed. Indeed, there would be ructions in some places if the cameras were removed because people know that they reduce injuries,
    144
    especially to children and often to elderly people. Those two categories are the most vulnerable on our roads. I assure my hon. Friend that our policy of ensuring that cameras are located at the sites of the most casualties will continue. I ask the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and other Conservative Members to reflect on their policy.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Is not the Minister's argument based on a fallacy? He is not considering the overall impact on road casualties and deaths. If speed cameras are so effective, why were more people killed on our roads last year than in 1998?
    Mr. Jamieson: It is true that the number of people killed on our roads has remained steady at about 3,400 for several years. As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a recent debate, that is partly because of the increased amount of traffic on our roads and the increase in the number of miles that people are travelling. The number of people being seriously injured has, however, been reduced. The hon. Gentleman should look not just at the camera sites but at the areas in which they have been installed, because there has been a substantial reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured not only at the sites, but across the areas as well.

    Integrated Transport (Bridgend)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he will visit Bridgend to discuss his policies for developing integrated transport as they affect Bridgend. [125441]
    The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend will be aware that the responsibility for developing integrated transport, along with much of the funding in the relevant transport areas, has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. It will therefore be for the Assembly, working with Bridgend borough council, to develop suitable policies in this area.
    Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that that is the case, but there is nevertheless an important role for the Department of Transport—with its responsibility for
    railways—in terms of taking initiatives to enable the proper integration of the bus and railway stations in my constituency. Although they are only about 160 m apart, up a sharp hill, that is a disincentive for the people using them. I look to the Department to blaze a trail by offering incentives to bring bus and railway stations together. In fact, that would very much help the Minister's own constituency of Pontypridd.
    Dr. Howells: The lunatics who run my local authority, namely the Welsh nationalists, see no sense whatever in bringing together a bus station and a railway station that are 250 m apart. I have been trying to make this point to them for a very long time, and I hope that they will listen to it now. We are certainly interested in promoting the integration that my hon. Friend mentioned, wherever we can. The Welsh Assembly has a large tranche of money, which it sometimes uses very judiciously to try to promote the integration of traffic. I am glad that it is doing so and I hope that that work will continue.

    A556
    Mr. George Osborne: What plans he has to improve the A556 between the M6 and M56. [125442]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The Secretary of State recognises the importance of this route and has asked the Highways Agency to look for innovative ways of making best use of this road and to investigate methods of tackling congestion at the key junctions along the route. In response to this, the Highways Agency has recently appointed Hyder Consulting to produce a route management study for this important trunk road.
    Mr. Osborne: The A556 is a dangerous, polluted road that goes through a residential area, and is the main link between Manchester, Birmingham and London. Surely the Minister will accept that it is unsuitable for that purpose. Some people wanted a new motorway link in the area; others, including me, wanted junction 20 of the M6 improved. If nothing is done, the Government will find that this eight-lane M6 superhighway will come to a juddering halt at the two-lane A556. This route needs serious upgrading.
    Mr. Jamieson: The Government are not doing nothing, as I illustrated in my first answer. There will be a route management study. There will also be a meeting this Friday in the hon. Gentleman's constituency between the various interested parties who will consider the important issues relating to that road, and we have already announced a £1.2 million scheme at Bucklow Hill. We recognise that this is an important issue, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his friends in the area will be able to attend some of these meetings to consider the positive way in which we can make improvements.

    Road Charging
    Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): What studies he is making on future road charging policy; and if he will make a statement. [125444]
    Lawrie Quinn: Just in time!
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): A just-in-time question; it is good of the hon. Gentleman to join us. As I announced on 9 July and set out in the strategy paper published on that day, we shall be carrying out a feasibility study of road user charging.
    Michael Fabricant: I thank the Secretary of State for that not-so-charming reply. I have just been in the Select Committee on Culture. Media and Sport, which, under the new hours, meets at the same time as these proceedings in the Chamber, and in which we are currently interviewing representatives of the BBC.
    The Secretary of State knows that we shall have a toll road in 2004 when the M6 toll is introduced. What consideration is he giving to differential tolling to encourage local people to use such toll roads? Initially, promises were made that there would be a thorough investigation by the M6 toll group to see whether
    146
    discounts could be offered to local users, but it was decided not to offer such discounts. What is the Secretary of State's view on this?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the M6 toll road concession was granted in the early 1990s and that few conditions were attached to it. The concessionaire was allowed to build the road and then charge its tolls. I dare say that, if we were starting again now, we would probably take a rather different approach.
    On road user charging generally, we are currently at the stage of simply assessing what is feasible. Charging differential rates to encourage people to use the roads at less busy times is one policy under consideration. We could also consider area charging—in circumstances where main trunk roads are effectively being used as local roads—in order to deal with some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. A whole variety of measures could be adopted, which is why I am extremely disappointed that the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen will not accept the need to examine even the feasibility of various proposals. They simply rule them out, which I believe is selling short future generations, who will expect the Government to demonstrate some leadership and assess what might be possible with the use of new technology.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Civil Contingencies (North Yorkshire)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of contingency planning for emergencies in North Yorkshire. [125455]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): North Yorkshire has had recent experience of dealing with contingencies after the extensive flooding of previous years. Direct assessment of emergency planning at the local level is carried out through bodies such as the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary as part of their wider assessment work.
    Miss McIntosh: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that during the floods of autumn 2000 there was a breakdown of communications, particularly at silver command level, in the city of York? Are he and his Department convinced that every aspect of the new contingencies will be examined, including vital communications in the midst of a flood?
    Mr. Alexander: I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that flooding is one of the contingencies anticipated in the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. Communication between local respondents is obviously important, and we believe that the Bill's approach reflects the fact that

    147
    collaborative work with a wide range of local responders is often—as in the example that she provided—necessary.
    Hugh Bayley: Speaking as someone who sat in the silver command meetings during the crisis of the York floods—where I met people from the Army, the fire service, the police, the utilities and other agencies working together, as well as people such as councillors and Members of Parliament who were invited in—I should like to say that the system worked extremely well. Will the Minister join me in congratulating all the emergency services on their response to that crisis, and, indeed, to the Selby rail crash? Does he recognise that it is because more resources are going into those services that they are able to train for emergencies, and that the Conservative policies of cutting public expenditure would ruin—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Alexander.
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises several important points. First, the local respondents acted extremely effectively in those emergencies, and I would also like to pay tribute to the BBC, which, through its local radio service in Yorkshire, was able to communicate a range of important pieces of information to the community at a very difficult time.
    My hon. Friend also raises the important question of resources. It would benefit the House if I made it clear that during the last spending review, we allocated extra funds, bringing a real growth average of 8.6 per cent. a year in respect of flood warning and defences. That amounts to a total of £564 million by 2005–06. Of course it is important that local respondents work effectively, but they need resources to do the job, which is why we have committed those extra funds.
    Patrick Mercer: The Minister has been very interesting on flooding, but will he turn his attention to other disasters that might engulf North Yorkshire? He will be aware that the head of MI5 recently warned about radiological, biological and chemical attacks. He will also be aware that, in the event of such an attack on Sellafield being successful, more than 44 times the amount of radioactive material that came from Chernobyl would certainly engulf the whole of Yorkshire. Will the Minister tell us what specific contingency plans exist for North Yorkshire in the event of such a disaster?
    Mr. Alexander: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench in respect of Cabinet Office questions. I have a couple of points to make. First, Sellafield is not in North Yorkshire. Secondly, of course there is the potential for a real disaster for North Yorkshire—the re-election of a Conservative Government. However, it is important to recognise that a serious threat level remains. If specific intelligence and information come to the Government's attention about a specific threat, that information would be brought, without hesitation or delay, to the attention of the emergency services and the British
    148
    public. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill covers North Yorkshire and will specifically ensure that duties are laid on local authorities and other local respondents to build on the success already achieved in recent years in respect of developing resilience capability.

    Government Information Systems
    Ms Meg Munn: What steps have been taken to improve the security of Government information systems. [125456]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): All Government information systems are required to meet specified security standards, which are regularly reviewed in the light of the prevailing threats. To ensure that Government Departments' most critical information processes are adequately protected, Departments are adopting the international standard for information security management.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Many private-sector organisations are involved with the public sector in these information systems. What assurance can my hon. Friend give that the partnerships between the private and public sectors are strong and will be maintained in a way that will ensure the security of the information?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. In October 2002, the central sponsor for information assurance was established by the Government. The CSIA works with both the public and private sectors, and international counterparts, to help safeguard the nation's IT and telecommunications services. We need to be able to tap in effectively to the expertise that exists in the private sector, as well as to that in the public sector. This is, of course, a very serious issue.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Does the Minister agree that an ability to audit the source code of key software applications is an important element in securing Government information systems? Do the Government prefer to have accessible source code for their security systems?
    Mr. Alexander: The issue of source codes is being considered across Government at the moment, in terms of both open-source software and the more general point of security that has been raised. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he has raised today.

    Regulatory Reform Action Plan
    Mr. Andrew Love: What progress has been made in implementing the regulatory reform action plan. [125457]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): We are on course to deliver the commitments set out in the regulatory reform action plan published last year. This is a three-year programme and, as of April this year, 31 per cent. of the measures in the plan had been completed. We will be publishing a formal progress report at the half-way stage in the autumn of this year.
    Mr. Love: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware of the concerns about the regulatory burden, especially among small businesses. He will also know that the Select Committee on Regulatory Reform is willing and able to take up the cudgels in this area on the Government's behalf. What action does he intend to take to ensure that the action plan is implemented by the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Alexander: I hope that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. This is a matter of concern to me, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is one of the Government's priorities. The National Small Business Council has recently published an important report on this area of work, to which I shall give due consideration. It is worth noting the comments from the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In two recent reports, the OECD identified the strength of the better-regulation agenda in Britain, compared with that of our international counterparts.
    Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that the British Chambers of Commerce, no less, has said that red tape is growing like topsy, damaging jobs and our economy and destroying our international competitiveness? It is probably even more damaging than Labour's massive tax hikes, which businesses have had to suffer.
    Mr. Alexander: If the hon. Gentleman wants to trade quotes from business associations, we should look at
    150
    what Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry said in the Sunday Express on 12 January of this year. He said:
    "Britain is definitely the best place to do business, compared with the rest of Europe."
    Although we must of course continue to strengthen our work on regulation, Britain easily bears comparison with many international competitors.

    Civil Service Recruitment (Disabled People)
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of people with disabilities to the civil service. [125458]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are committed to employing disabled people and, as of October 2002, disabled staff accounted for 3.6 per cent. of the civil service. That is an increase from 2.8 per cent. in 1995.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend accept that 12.6 per cent. of the active UK population has a mobility problem and that those people are under-represented in the civil service? Will he give me an assurance that recruitment policies will be improved to widen access for people with disabilities to that major employer?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Of course, that is a matter on which we will continue to work. It might assist the House if I mention first the new recruitment guide that the Cabinet Office has published, which provides specific best practice instances of recruitment of disabled staff. Secondly, the Cabinet Office sponsors Ready, Willing, Able, an organisation that supports the recruitment of disabled staff. We are also introducing a summer placement scheme for disabled recruitment. In that regard, I take seriously the points that my hon. Friend has raised, but I hope that I have assured him that this is a matter that the Government are taking forward with some expedition.

Iraq
12.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the situation in Iraq before we rise for the summer recess.
When the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed just over three months ago, we made two key undertakings to the Iraqi people: first, that we would rally international support for their country's reconstruction; and secondly, that we would remain in Iraq only as long as it took to establish an elected, representative Iraqi Government, able themselves to maintain their internal security.
First, on Iraq's reconstruction, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1483 on 22 May. That resolution gave the UN a vital role in all aspects of Iraq's development, including the political process. Under that resolution, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed as his special representative Sergio Vieira de Mello, the highly respected United Nations high commissioner for human rights. Resolution 1483 freed Iraq from the UN sanctions regime, allowing oil revenues to be spent on humanitarian needs, economic reconstruction and other purposes benefiting the people of Iraq.
On Sunday, an important step was taken towards fulfilling the second undertaking—the establishment of a sovereign Iraqi Government. The convening of the Iraqi governing council is a significant development. The council is the principal body of the interim administration called for in resolution 1483. Mr. Vieira de Mello has described the formation of the council as a "defining moment" for Iraq,
"moving it back where it rightfully belongs: at peace with itself and as a full participant in the community of nations."
The governing council has 25 members: 13 are Shi'a, 11 are Sunni and one is Christian. The interim chairman is a Shi'a cleric, Mohammed Bahr al-Uloum. Twenty per cent. of the council is Kurdish, representing their share of the population. Fourteen members lived in Iraq throughout much of Saddam Hussein's rule. Three members are women—12 per cent. of the council.
The governing council will exercise significant powers. These should expand over time. I am placing in the Library a full list of members and the statement agreed between the governing council and the coalition provisional authority establishing the authorities of the council.
Let me summarise the main points for the benefit of the House. The council will be involved in all the decisions that the coalition provisional authority takes from now on. It will nominate new Ministers to lead Iraq's ministries, hold them to account and have the power of dismissal. Its members will be able to represent Iraq internationally. It will determine the national budget for next year.
The contrast with the Ba'athist regime could not be starker. Membership of the council itself emerged from an exhaustive process of consultation among representative groups, many of whose leaders I met in Baghdad two weeks ago. The council includes the
152
leaders of 14 Iraqi parties, with prominent figures from Islamist groups and the Communist party. It will govern by consent not terror. It is the first time in living memory that the Shi'as, who form a majority in Iraq, have had a majority in any national governing body there.
One of the council's first jobs will be to determine how a new constitution for Iraq should be prepared. Once adopted, that constitution will pave the way for the election of an Iraqi Government who will assume all the powers and responsibilities currently held by the coalition provisional authority. Sergio Vieira de Mello will brief the UN Security Council next Tuesday on those and other political developments and on the role of the governing council; the council has already announced that it will be sending a delegation to the Security Council for that meeting.
Whatever position hon. Members may have taken on the need for military action, these developments will, I am sure, be welcomed by the whole House, but the progress that has been made is opposed by groups loyal to Saddam Hussein who resent the loss of their powers and wish to disrupt progress to political reform. The main problems are in the area to the north and west of Baghdad, the so-called Sunni triangle, from where much of the republican guard was recruited. Although those individuals do not pose a serious challenge to Iraq's democratic future, they do threaten coalition forces and those Iraqis who are helping to build their country. Nine British soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the end of large-scale combat operations in mid-April, bringing to 43 the total number of deaths of British service personnel since the beginning of military action. I know that I speak for the whole House in underlining our condolences to the families and friends of those killed, and in saluting both their courage and that of those who have been injured.
When in Basra two weeks ago, I was able to speak to the close colleagues of the Royal Military Police officers who were killed at Majar-al-Kabir and to the paratroopers involved in the parallel engagements. The commitment and professionalism of those I met, and of all British forces, is something of which this country must be, and is, immensely proud. Of course, we pay equal tribute to the United States service personnel who have been killed or injured in Iraq.
On the whole, the Shi'a south has been calm and overwhelmingly supportive of Saddam's demise. In the UK area of operations, joint patrols by British troops and Iraqi police have been under way since mid-April. Major cities in the north with mixed populations, such as Mosul and Kirkuk, have generally been calm. The coalition provisional authority estimates that 100 courtrooms and eight prison facilities are now operational. One of the CPA's top priorities has been to restore the rule of law in the capital, Baghdad. That is slowly taking place, although the situation is not yet satisfactory. Thirty-four Iraqi police stations in Baghdad are open 24 hours a day, and 9,000 police officers have returned to duty in the capital.
There have also been improvements in the provision and delivery of essential services. The Iraqi national budget for the period July to December this year, announced by the CPA on 7 July, included increases for health care. The authority has also announced that all 240 hospitals in Iraq are now operational and that

153
98 per cent. of schools are open. When I was in Basra two weeks ago, the commander of the British forces told me that 17,000 students in the universities in their sector were taking their final examinations in the normal way.
Reconstruction would be moving ahead more quickly were it not for the attacks by remnants of the old regime on the electricity and oil pipeline infrastructure. As a result Baghdad is receiving only between 70 and 90 per cent. of pre-war water supply, but across the entire country, more Iraqis have access to electricity supplies than before the war. Delivery of food through Iraq's public distribution system is now reaching the entire country. Preliminary figures for June show that food rations were distributed to about 26 million Iraqis in a target population of 27 million. Food distribution is being extended to the Marsh Arabs, a people who I understand received no food rations at all under Saddam Hussein. As the security situation in Iraq stabilises, the World Food Programme is increasingly using the port of Umm Qasr for its deliveries, and the £150 million in funding for humanitarian projects already committed by our own Department for International Development is beginning to have an impact on the ground.
Reconstruction plainly requires a significant effort by the whole international community, however. A preliminary meeting of donors co-chaired by the CPA and the United Nations Development Programme was held in New York on 24 June; a full conference will be held in October. Countries are coming forward to join coalition forces. In addition to the 147,000 US and 11,000 UK service personnel in theatre, those forces include personnel from Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Norway, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Ukraine and Lithuania.
On 18 March, the House voted by a majority of 263 to approve military action, principally because of Iraq's palpable failure to comply unconditionally and immediately with the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441, by which the Security Council itself had said that Iraq's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, its long-range missile systems and its non-compliance with a string of Security Council resolutions, dating back to 1991, posed a threat to international peace and security. The evidence on which that decision was based was overwhelmingly from open sources and was laid before the House in a number of Command Papers, which included UNMOVIC's 173-page report, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes". I am in no doubt that the House's decision on 18 March is as justified today as it was when we took it.
Of course, given the magnitude of the decisions that the House took, it is entirely right that Parliament should conduct its own inquiries into the decision to go to war. I know that the whole House is grateful to the Foreign Affairs Committee for its inquiry and to Members of both Houses on the Intelligence and Security Committee who are conducting a related inquiry. The Government will, of course, respond in detail in the normal way to their reports. The House will also wish to know that the Iraq survey group is now deployed and will report at appropriate times. However,
154
the following may assist the House on the issue of yellowcake from Niger, which was also raised yesterday, among other things, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson).
As I have already explained to the Foreign Affairs Committee, we had no knowledge that the documents given to the International Atomic Energy Agency were forged until February 2003, and in a letter last Friday to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which I have placed in the Library, I set out the position relating to the report of Ambassador Joe Wilson. As I have made clear, we had, and have, other separate information available to us. Moreover, the 24 September dossier itself concluded that unless Iraq obtained fissile material—yellowcake is not fissile material—Iraq would need at least five years to be in a position to produce a nuclear weapon.
With the establishment of the governing council, the Iraqi people have embarked on the process of building their own future. More than 150 newspapers have been launched since the fall of Baghdad. Major cities and towns across Iraq now have municipal councils, where Iraqis are increasingly taking responsibility for local issues. Iraqis are speaking out and demonstrating with a vigour not seen for decades. At the launch of the governing council last Sunday, we saw many of the features of democracy. Yes, there was criticism, strong disagreement and compromise—all now possible in the new Iraq, all previously punishable by arrest or worse under Saddam Hussein.
Meanwhile, the scale of the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein's regime becomes more apparent by the day. Tens of thousands of bodies have so far been unearthed in mass graves. In its latest assessment, I am told that the RedCross estimates that 300,000 Iraqis are "missing"—the victims, in the Red Cross's terms, of "internal violence". I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for her tireless work as our special envoy on human rights. The leader of the British forensic team in Iraq, Professor Margaret Cox, has commented that Saddam's regime
"was propped up with the bones of the Iraqi people buried beneath its sands."
The dead and the missing are the most painful reminder of Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship. They should also become the greatest symbol of our determination to give Iraq the future that its people so richly deserve.
Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advanced sight of most of it—I think that there were one or two additional words.
It has been a matter of concern that this is the first time that the Foreign Secretary has come to the House of his own accord to report on the status of Iraq since 12 May. It is now clear that Government preparations for handling the problems of post-war Iraq were not all that they were cracked up to be. It may be that the Foreign Secretary decided to wait until he had something more positive to report. I agree that what he has reported today is positive, and I thank him for that. I also agree that we must never forget the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime and the atrocities that he visited on his people.
I, too, want to pay tribute to the tremendous work that our armed forces, and other British personnel, are carrying out in very difficult circumstances. We owe

155
them a great debt of gratitude. I also pay tribute to those who have died while selflessly working to help restore and maintain public order and the rule of law in Iraq. We can indeed be proud of them, and our thoughts are with their families. We warmly welcome the recent appointment of the national governing council. It is vital that authority over Iraq is restored to Iraqis as soon as possible. This is an important beginning, and we wish the council well.
What role did the British Government have in choosing the members of the governing council? Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied with the balance between formerly exiled Iraqis and those who have been living in Iraq throughout the last period? I note that, along with the real and important powers that he described, the council will also help draw up a constitution in preparation for elections. Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN's special envoy to Iraq has said that elections
"probably will be held in 2004".
That seems a very swift time scale for the council and the coalition to prepare a constitution and to prepare for elections. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that estimate of time scale?
In that context, what steps are being taken to communicate to the people of Iraq ideas on plans for the future government of Iraq? Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that without an effective communication system there will be a real risk of fuelling anxiety and hostility among the people of Iraq? I see that Ambassador Paul Bremer has a veto over the council. Can the Foreign Secretary outline the conditions under which Mr. Bremer can exercise that veto?
The Foreign Secretary rightly made clear that restoring security and order must remain the coalition's top priority. Does he believe that the coalition has enough peacekeeping forces on the ground to achieve that? There has been much speculation about the role that NATO might play in the longer-term stabilisation of Iraq. Can he explain why NATO's role is still so limited? Now that NATO is taking over the international security assistance force mandate in Kabul on 11 August, cannot NATO play a similar role in Iraq?
What is the Government's assessment of the threat to coalition forces in Iraq? Are the attacks on our soldiers just from remnants of the regime and other rogue elements, as the Foreign Secretary seemed to suggest in his statement, or are there signs of a more co-ordinated guerrilla campaign, with the objective of forcing the coalition on to the defensive and, eventually, to withdraw?
I have listened to what the Foreign Secretary has had to say about yellowcake from Niger. This is yet one more element of the web of confusion that the Government have managed to create over the status of intelligence material relating to weapons of mass destruction. We will be debating this whole area in the House tomorrow. For the moment, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the confusion, the charge and counter-charge, and the different voices within the Government on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, are entirely of the Government's making? It is damaging not only the reputation of the Foreign Secretary but the credibility of the Government and of the intelligence itself. It is also beginning to cloud the
156
important work that we need to continue carrying out in Iraq. The Government cannot allow this drift of credibility to continue.
When will the Prime Minister publish the new evidence of weapons of mass destruction that he promised us in St. Petersburg on 31 May? Surely the time has come to clear this mess up. Why will he not set up a full, independent, forensic, judicial inquiry, which can establish the truth and restore confidence in British intelligence, which is so vital to our national interest? It is time that the Government got a grip of the situation and stopped this messing about.
Mr. Straw: Let me deal in turn with the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. On statements to the House, I think that, generally speaking, Members believe that I make myself available for explanation very readily. There has been a debate, which was initiated by the Liberal Democrats. I am grateful to them, and the matter was well aired there. Iraq dominated Question Time last Tuesday. In addition, I certainly do not feel underexposed in terms of accountability, given the fact that I have given evidence in public and private session for five hours before the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is probably something of a record. The House needs to accept that one of the things that has changed in the past 20 years is that there is much greater involvement by Members in cross-examining Ministers, quite rightly—not only in the Chamber, but in Select Committees.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the Government's role in choosing the governing council. When I was in Iraq two weeks ago, one of the issues raised by those I was speaking to—some of the people now on the governing council—and publicly by Mr. Sistani, who is a cleric associated with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shi'a organisation, was whether the governing council would be, as it were, imposed by the UK-US coalition provisional authority or whether it would be able to derive its legitimacy—notwithstanding the fact that it had to be appointed rather than elected—in a more representative way.
Essentially, we were committed to doing the latter. Yes, the CPA made it clear that senior members of the Ba'athist regime would not be acceptable, but they would not have been acceptable to any other members of the governing council either. So we did not impose any individuals. It is my belief that, in the existing circumstances, this body has a high degree of consent from the Iraqis. Of course, it is only an interim council. We have to move from where we are to where we go next.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about Mr. Vieira de Mello talking about elections for 2004. That is a comment that he has made. We have not yet made a judgment about what would be appropriate. We will have to see. Above all, we have to get this process, which the governing council is embarked on, to draft a constitution. Through that process, we will see where we go next.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about a communication strategy. I entirely agree about the need for a more effective communication strategy from the governing council and also from the CPA. He asked

157
whether there are sufficient forces. So far as the US is concerned, that is obviously a matter for US commanders. As for the British forces there, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister have made it clear that we keep the level of British forces under constant review and we take account very strongly of the advice that we receive from the commanders on the ground as well as from the chief of the defence forces.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for my assessment of the attacks on US and UK forces, principally on US forces. The assessment varies very much from area to area. Sometimes we are dealing with very small areas. Overall, it looks as though remnants of the Ba'athist regime along with criminals—some serious and others petty, but all of whom were let out by Saddam just before the military action and as it took place—are involved. That is our best assessment. Attacks are no doubt organised in small areas, but there is less information about the degree to which they are organised across the country. We do not believe that they are. However, one message has been delivered very firmly and clearly by US and UK forces, which is that we are not going to allow this activity to get in the way of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq or of the facility by which the Iraqis can build—not rebuild—a democracy for themselves for the first time.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the issues of intelligence. Let me make this clear. One of the things that emerged during the discussion on the 2 February dossier, from the Foreign Affairs Committee report, was that while, yes, there were mistakes made in the provenance—the process—behind that document, which I have apologised for, the FAC described the contents of the document as important. At no stage has it challenged the veracity of its contents. Its provenance should, of course, have been made clear.
As to the 24 September dossier, that was based, as, again, all sides of the Select Committee acknowledged, on assessments made by the Joint Intelligence Committee. We stand by those. It is inevitable that, given that there was controversy about the decision to take military action, questions will be raised, which is perfectly legitimate, but we stand by the assessments made.
I also remind the House—this was the position of the Opposition as well as of our side as we took military action—that, overwhelmingly, the decision to take military action was not based on intelligence assessments. It was based on the fact that—[Interruption.] It was not based on intelligence. It was based on the fact that resolution 1441 emphatically laid on Saddam Hussein, in open terms, obligations for him at long last to fulfil disarmament obligations, which had been extant but unfulfilled by Iraq for 13 years over a stream of Security Council resolutions; that all of us knew that the Iraqi regime had had a nuclear programme; that it had used chemical weapons; that it had a wholly concealed and very large biological weapons programme; that it had thrown out the inspectors for fear of further discoveries at the end of 1998; and that even having been given what not we but the whole United Nations described as a final
158
opportunity to disarm, Saddam Hussein refused to comply unconditionally and completely with the requirements of resolution 1441.
For that reason, this House, by a very large majority, made the decision to take military action on 18 March—after an ultimatum had been given, which Saddam Hussein also refused. As I have said already, that decision, upholding the authority of the UN, was justified on 18 March and it is justified today.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for early sight of his statement. Like him, I agree that we should be unstinting in our support for UK forces, and unstinting indeed in our sympathy for those who have died or been wounded in Iraq. The whole House will welcome, as he rightly predicted, the progress in civil affairs that he was able to outline.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary a number of specific questions? What is the Government's view on the number of British forces that will be required to remain in Iraq, and for how long? Are UK forces in the same position as the forces of the US, whose tour of duty has today been extended indefinitely? How many of the dead and missing date from when the UK Government supported Saddam Hussein, who was by then already steeped in the blood of his own countrymen and countrywomen?
The Foreign Secretary will not be surprised if I return to the issue of an inquiry. I ask him to consider this: does not the absence of chemical and biological weapons, the embarrassing and apparently escalating dispute between Washington and London over Niger, the failure to find Scud missiles and the controversy over the February dossier make an irresistible case for an inquiry independent of Parliament and led by a senior judge? If the Government's position is as strong as he has set it out to be, both here today and elsewhere, what do they have to fear? Finally, might I ask him this question? If he was in opposition, would he not be expressing exactly the same view?
Mr. Straw: On the number of British forces, as I have told the House, there are 11,000 in theatre. The number is kept under review, as is the duration of their deployment, but we have already made it clear that the forces will be there as long as is necessary, but no longer, to secure a viable democratic, representative Government who in turn can secure their own security.
I am sorry, but I did not answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the role of NATO, which is being used in Afghanistan. All I say to him is that that is under discussion. As he will know, there are 18 members on NATO's military committee and 19 on the NATO Council itself. Decisions have to be made by unanimity, which he strongly supports in other contexts.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Qualified majority voting.
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is proposing QMV for NATO, let him come forward. It makes for swifter decisions but, in this field, it produces a certain amount of discontent.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: An acquis.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is muttering that we need an acquis.

159
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how many of those who have been found dead or declared missing by the Red Cross were killed or went missing many years ago. I do not know what the time lines are. We know that up until Saddam Hussein's demise in mid-April, he ruled the country by terror, not consent. His main methods were imprisonment, torture, the denial of the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and, when necessary, death. Many people were killed under that brutal regime.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about an inquiry. We have debated that before and we shall debate it tomorrow. I was not in the same position as him when I was in opposition. I supported the Falklands war at its beginning and end—I was right to do so. An inquiry on the Falklands that was separate from the House had to be established because the House did not have the mechanism to hold its own inquiries. I believe that the combination of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee is appropriate. The House accepted the establishment of the ISC without a vote. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider the members of the Committee, who are as eminent as those who served on the Franks committee, and to have some faith in the ability of such eminent Members from all parties in both Houses to reach independent judgments.
Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend has given a positive report on the progress of the reconstruction of both physical infrastructure, such as electricity and water supplies, and governance, with the establishment of the new council. Is he therefore worried that the picture that our media give the British public is one of looting, shooting and general mayhem in which the population wants the end of the coalition forces' presence? Returning British civil servants reject the gloomy doomsayers and paint a picture of a talented people who are getting back to work and want to make a success of their country after the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. Will my right hon. Friend try to strengthen the information side of the coalition provisional authority so that a rather more balanced picture may be conveyed to the British public?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend says. We accept the need to strengthen further the communication strategy of the coalition provisional authority and, as the shadow Foreign Secretary said, to ensure that the governing council—quite rightly that has more natural legitimacy with the Iraqi people—will be able to communicate. However, Ministers in a democracy are not responsible for how the media report, and nor should we be. I venture the opinion that it would take rather more than improved communications in Baghdad to get the focus of British newspapers away from where it is at present—no doubt they are pursing their own specific agendas—and for them instead to tell their readers about the situation on the ground. As my right hon. Friend said, that situation is rather different from that portrayed in several newspapers.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If the governing council or the Iraqi people decide that they would like Iraq to be divided into three autonomous or
160
semi-autonomous regions, notwithstanding likely Turkish objections, would the Government support the decision?
Mr. Straw: We would not support that. The United Nations made it clear in resolutions 1441 and 1483 that it would not support anything that would undermine the current territorial integrity of Iraq. Despite that, there are opportunities for various degrees of devolution to occur. I made the point to a group of Iraqi leaders two weeks ago that our experience shows that devolution need not occur on a symmetrical basis. Indeed, I believe the fact that we have developed asymmetrical systems is the reason why we have been better able to bind the Union. That is a lesson as the Iraqis develop their own constitution.
Mr. Ernie Ross: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. When our colleagues were alleging that they were concerned about the Iraqi people before voting against the only means of giving them their freedom, we made the point that when the people of Iraq were free, their ability to run their country would be demonstrated. That message is flowing through the middle east and people are finding out that we are living up to our words. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is having an impact on the middle east peace process by helping the Palestinians and Israelis to resolve that problem?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not resile from the fact that that was not the principal basis for the House's decision to go to war on 18 March, but it is worth bearing in mind that resolution 1441 deplored Saddam's appalling human rights record. The simple fact is that containment was not resolving the problem and that it was getting worse and worse. Irrespective of the arguments about whether military action was appropriate, if we had continued with a policy of containment, the atrocities perpetrated by Saddam Hussein would have continued—that is just reality.
On my hon. Friend's second point, it is true that we were told that if military action were taken in Iraq, there would be "conflagration" throughout the region. That has not happened. There was not a single Arab or Islamic leader who did not himself want to see the back of Saddam Hussein. There is no doubt in my mind that the removal of Saddam Hussein has made progress toward a peaceful solution for the Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians infinitely easier in practice.
Sir John Stanley: Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that UN resolution 1441 refers not only to weapons of mass destruction programmes but to the weapons themselves? Does he further agree that the basis on which the House voted for war in Iraq was to disarm not merely Saddam Hussein's programmes of weapons of mass destruction but the weapons themselves?
Mr. Straw: Yes. The resolution is quite clear. There were 15 members of the Security Council. Two members—the UK and the US—took part in the military action and 13 did not, as a matter of record. Those members reached separate conclusions about the

161
threat posed by Saddam Hussein and it was they who said that the proliferation of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and long-range missile systems and his defiance of the United Nations posed a threat to international peace and security.
Mr. George Mudie: I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary has noted the statement issued by the new Iraqi governing council that savaged the Arab media for romanticising the deposed dictator Saddam Hussein. It also attacked the BBC for
"not telling the truth about Iraq."
Does he share my concern that when faced with 300,000 missing people and mass graves and given that a vicious and murderous dictator has been removed and that freedom has been brought to a whole country for the first time in 20 years, it is strange that the BBC, and especially the "Today" programme, is obsessed with only bad-news stories about Iraq that damage the Government and the Prime Minister personally?
Mr. Straw: All I would say to my hon. Friend is that we have to accept the media as they are. It is no part of the duty of Governments in a democracy to interfere. However, I think it is the sentiment of the whole House, and certainly the sentiment in much of Iraq, that although the BBC should pursue particular agendas if it thinks that they are consistent with its charter, it should also ensure that there is a more balanced and comprehensive reporting of the reality on the ground in Iraq, which in respect of the rebuilding of Iraq is better news than it was.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): In his statement, the Foreign Secretary listed a number of countries, from Ukraine to New Zealand, which are apparently sending troops to Iraq. Significantly, he did not mention the numbers, which I suspect are very small. Is it not inevitable that we will soon need more troops from other countries because otherwise we will face overstretch? Is it correct that the French are blocking that in NATO?
Mr. Straw: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, a number of other countries have expressed reservations within NATO. The discussions will continue. As for the numbers, I am happy to write to him and put them before the House. In some cases, the number is small. For example, Lithuania had no armed forces before it was turned into an independent country following the collapse of the old Soviet empire, so its contribution is necessarily going to be small. In other cases, such as Poland, the contribution will be substantial.
I note that the number of British service personnel has reduced from 45,000 at its peak to around 11,000 in the whole theatre—some are in the Gulf rather than in Iraq itself. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff keep overall troop levels under careful review. I have received no representations from them that at this level, or levels around which the number might fluctuate, the services will be subject to overstretch.
Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if Iraq's oil is to he used for
162
the purpose of reconstruction, that decision—certainly the mortgaging of the oil future and oil revenues—can only be taken by those who really represent the Iraqi people? To do otherwise would simply lead to the suspicion that the decision to invade, at least on America's part, was based on oil and not for the reasons of which the US Administration are trying to persuade us. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the British Government will not be party to a mortgaging of Iraqi oil unless that is agreed to by proper representatives of the Iraqi people?
Mr. Straw: Let me satisfy my hon. Friend. Resolution 1483 lays down clearly the conditions under which all revenues, in particular oil revenues, can be used, and have to be used, for the benefit of the people of Iraq. The war was never about oil. Everyone knows that. In the initial stages, the financial responsibility rests on the coalition provisional authority, because it has to rest somewhere. As quickly as possible, it will move to the governing council. In any event, there are clear and substantial monitoring arrangements, supervised by a monitoring board established by 1483. There is also the ever-present figure of Vieira de Mello, the UN Secretary-General's special representative, who is required to make regular reports to the Security Council to ensure that 1483 is complied with.
Mr. Alex Salmond: If, as the Foreign Secretary now claims, the decision to go to war was not based on intelligence information, why did the Government keep providing it in the form of dossiers to the House and the UN before we made decisions? If the Prime Minister of Australia is prepared to apologise and the head of the CIA is prepared to take the rap for believing British intelligence, why does the Foreign Secretary stick doggedly to his story about the reality of the uranium imports from Niger to Iraq? If that story of the falsified and forged documents has caused so much embarrassment to the Government, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, what inquiries have been made to find out who falsified and forged those documents?
Mr. Straw: My point—it is a point that I have made often enough and is well illustrated by analysis of all the speeches made in our debates, especially since Christmas—is that the intelligence assessments that were provided formed part of the background, but they were not the heart of the argument and never were. They simply were not. The argument moved on.
The issue last September and October was whether the UN would be used to give what amounted to a final opportunity to Iraq. Everyone was pleased when we negotiated resolution 1441. Iraq was given a final opportunity and, as I explained, it failed to fulfil the clear undertakings required under 1441. The issue before the House in March. in shorthand, was whether containment was going to work, notwithstanding Iraq's defiance, or whether we had to give it a further very final ultimatum and, if necessary, take military action. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at what was said and the nature of the argument, not to rewrite history following one reference on the "Today" programme on 29 May. That was simply not part of the argument. No one in the House. for example, mentioned 45 minutes once during the debate on 18 March.

163
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the issue of who forged the documents is a subject of an inquiry, in particular by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to which the documents were submitted. We did not know that they were forged. We had no information about that until mid-February and no confirmation of that until the IAEA gave its report to the Security Council on 7 March. On the overall issue of assessments, I have explained—I gave this information in memorandum to the FAC, and the ISC will inquire further—that the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee stands by the assessments that he and his staff, not Ministers, made.
Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State put in the Library of the House in the next 24 hours the dates on which the security and intelligence services learned that the Niger documents were forged and the date on which Ministers were advised that they were forged?
Mr. Straw: I will do my best to comply, if not in 24 hours, then as quickly as possible.
Hugh Robertson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that military operations thrive on a simple clear aim. Given that we have 11,000 servicemen and women deployed, what is that aim?
Mr. Straw: The aim is to secure Iraq, to rid Iraq of the remains of the Saddam regime and to assist the Iraqi people, now through the governing council, to create conditions in which they are responsible for their internal security. I think all the forces are aware of that and they are meeting that challenge with their customary professionalism and very high standards.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Foreign Secretary has said again that it was not intelligence that led to the decision to go to war, but breaches of UN resolutions, although the rest of the Security Council did not feel able to support anything after 1441. Is it not the case that those of us who were sceptical and who opposed the case for war were told time and again that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, was still developing weapons of mass destruction and was ready to use them? If that did not come from intelligence sources, where did it come from?
Mr. Straw: Most of it came from documents that I placed before the House which were entirely open. No one can read the last report of UNSCOM made just after its delegation was thrown out of Iraq at the end of 1998 or the 173 pages of unanswered disarmament questions submitted to the Security Council after it had finished its meeting on 7 March without being absolutely clear about the capabilities of Iraq and its wilful failure to resolve the issues. If Iraq had nothing to fear, it would have dealt with those questions. It failed to do so. Of course the intelligence assessment informed the debate, but let us be clear that the issue before the House was whether the policy of containment had been laid out or whether we had reached a moment at which, in our judgment, it was right to take military action to enforce the will of the UN. The House voted in favour of that by a margin of 263.
Mr. David Ruffley: I hope that the Foreign Secretary will accept that the success of
164
Iraqi reconstruction will, to some degree, be affected by the trial of Guantanamo bay detainees captured in Afghanistan. In that context, do the British Government believe that President Bush is acting wholly within and in accordance with international law and US law in setting up military commissions to try those detainees?
Mr. Straw: I am not entirely sure what is the direct connection, but intensive discussions on the issue continue with the American Administration. That is the current position, and as soon as there is anything to tell the House, the House will be told.
David Winnick: Let us be fair to the BBC concerning at least one of its media outlets. Did my right hon. Friend see last night's "Newsnight" that broadcast films made by the Saddam regime which showed savage beatings, torture and places of execution? Does he not agree that there is a responsibility on every Member of this House who opposed the war to tell us how one of the most terrifying and brutal dictatorships could have been destroyed without the action taken at the time?
Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As I have said, those who supported containment—I understood and respected their view, but did not agree with it—have an equal responsibility to acknowledge the fact that their policy would have left Saddam Hussein in power. He would have been reinvigorated and re-empowered as the troops were pulled back from the Gulf, and over time he would have tried to secure by deception a clean bill of health from UNMOVIC. The reign of terror over his people would have become infinitely worse, as would his support for international rejectionist terrorists—not least those working in the occupied regions. That is one reason why I say with confidence that a consequence of the removal of Saddam Hussein has unquestionably been to help to create a more benign environment in which a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians is much more possible.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The Foreign Secretary has made it clear—twice, I think—in his statement and in reply to hon. Members that our reasons for taking military action were based very much on Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations. As somebody who absolutely supported the Government's action, I must say that the debate was undoubtedly influenced by reports based on intelligence not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that there was a clear and present danger of his using them.
I do not know whether weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq—I see that we have slipped into using the term "programmes", which is more vague. None the less, I am genuinely concerned that, if we do not find weapons of mass destruction or there is continuing debate about intelligence, should the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues face a clear and present danger in a year or two and ask the House for a

165
decision on immediate military action, the House will say, "Sorry, but we've heard that before and we don't agree with you."
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the interest in further evidence of the scale and extent of Saddam's programmes. Sometimes when I listen to these debates, I think that some of those who are now criticising the Government—not the hon. Gentleman—must be inhabiting a parallel universe in which, hey-presto, Saddam Hussein never had any nuclear capability, had never used chemical weapons against his own people or the Iranians and, despite evidence of concealment, had never denied that he had a biological weapons programme. He denied and denied that, and it was discovered only after his son-in-law had defected. Indeed, when the representatives of UNSCOM—the previous inspectors—went in, they discovered a much larger biological weapons programme than they had ever anticipated. This is not a matter of looking in the crystal; it was in the book.
Of course I understand and appreciate that some of the intelligence assessments formed a background to the argument, but I invite the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members to look at the terms of the motion passed by the House by a majority of 263 votes on 18 March. That was about the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply with the terms of resolution 1441.
Glenda Jackson: But surely my right hon. Friend cannot be unaware that the unwillingness, certainly of my constituents, to accept the rosy picture that he and other Ministers are painting of post-conflict Iraq is based on their total disbelief of the Government's reasons for us going to war in the first place. It is not possible for the Foreign Secretary to stand at that Dispatch Box and argue on the grounds of resolution 1441, which was based on the premise that Saddam Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction—a situation which the Prime Minister found still to be the case. Indeed, he discounted as absurd the thesis that those weapons had been unilaterally destroyed before the war began. Until the basic questions of precisely what was intelligence and how contemporaneous it was are answered, my constituents will remain exceedingly concerned about why British troops were sent to war.
Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. I say to my hon. Friend—
Glenda Jackson: Not me, my constituents.
Mr. Straw: I say to my hon. Friend, and through her to her constituents, that the judgment that Saddam Hussein had proliferated weapons of mass destruction, had long-range missiles and had defied the Security Council over 13 years was not just ours or that of the United States. It was the judgment of France, of Russia, of China and of the 10 elected members of the Security Council—also of Syria.
Glenda Jackson: Well, where are they?
Mr. Straw: A good deal of what was stated in the 24 September dossier in respect, for example, of the
166
concealment of missile systems has already been confirmed to be wholly accurate and proved. If my hon. Friend had had her way, we would never have discovered the 500-plus missile engines. [Interruption.] They were there. The Iraqi survey group is now conducting its work. [Interruption.]
Let me deal with the way in which Saddam concealed his weapons. Recently, CNN reported that an Iraqi scientist, Mahaddi Ubaydi, who I am told was head of the centrifuge uranium enrichment programme, had volunteered information to the United States about centrifuge parts and documents concealed in his garden—[Interruption.] Yes, the documents related—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the Foreign Secretary to answer.
Mr. Straw: I ask my hon. Friend to think about what she is saying. The documents related to 1991. She knows that it was possible to build nuclear weapons in 1991. The bigger question is why an Iraqi scientist was concealing those documents and centrifuge parts under a rose bush in his garden. He told CNN that he was ordered to hide them so as to be able to rebuild the bomb programme at some time in the future, which is exactly what we said.
Moreover, David Kay, a former United Nations arms inspector said:
"It begins to tell us how huge our job is. Remember, this material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden. There's no way that that would have been discovered by normal international inspections. I couldn't have done it. My successors couldn't have done it."
That kind of concealment shows the extent of the deception practised by Saddam Hussein and is further evidence of the threat. Yes, it will be difficult, precisely because of the circumstances of concealment, to find the material, but gradually it is being found and so is other evidence.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Foreign Secretary was clearly right in his statement to underline the growing importance of the United Nations, the international community and particularly the pivotal role of Mr. Vieira de Mello. Following the announcement earlier this week, is the right hon. Gentleman yet in a position to tell the House which countries will be sending members of the team of experts that will pave the way for elections in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: No, I am not, but if I have more information when I get back to the office, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to continue with matters relating to the statement, but the questions must be brief and there should be only one supplementary.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we return to the factual questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about when the

167
Government first knew that the documents were forged? The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked who forged the documents, on whose behalf and why.
Mr. Straw: February this year is the answer to the first part of the question and, in answer to the second, we do not know, but we would like to.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: What steps will be taken to ensure that the constitution drawn up by the unelected council is acceptable to the various peoples and regions in Iraq? The Foreign Secretary's statement was silent about the armed services—when and how will a reformed army, capable of supporting the civil power, be brought into being?
Mr. Straw: The governing council, which is necessarily unelected at the moment, but far more representative than anything under the Saddam regime, has the job not only of drafting the constitution but of consulting widely on it. Although I am merely speculating, it would have to be endorsed using some democratic method by the people of Iraq. That is a guarantee. Moreover, de Mello has a clear role in respect of that. As for the reform of the armed forces, the first stage has been to establish a reformed police service, and the next stage will be to establish a reformed security service, including an army.
Mike Gapes: If there are to be elections in 2004, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that UK political parties and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be involved in the preparations to assist the process of building pluralistic democracy in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: We will make available to the governing council the excellent facilities and advice of the Westminster Foundation. Whether it is used is a matter for it, not us.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Foreign Secretary still completely convinced that Saddam Hussein tried to source uranium in Niger? If that is the case, can he say more about the intelligence sources that pointed to that but were apparently denied to the Americans?
Mr. Straw: I am satisfied that the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee who made those assessments has told me today, and has repeatedly told me, that he stands by them. They came from sources other than those that were available in America. That is the position, and it was set out very clearly in the dossier that we published on 24 September.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will be interested to know that a senior member of the Iraqi Communist party came to see me this morning. He used to come here 20 years ago, bringing me names of dead, executed and disappeared people. He was against the war, but on Friday the Iraqi Communist party decided to join the governing body, which it regards as a momentous step forward in the history of Iraq. For the first time, the council will represent the diverse peoples
168
of Iraq—the Sunni, the Shi'a, the Arab, the Kurd, the Turkoman and the Assyrian. I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a marvellous opportunity which should not be forgotten.
Mr. Straw: I hope that the whole House takes note of that. The Iraqi Communist party, along with any Shi'a party and many others, simply could not operate under the Saddam regime. They had no rights, and were subject to the terror of Saddam.
Patrick Mercer: May I pay tribute to the valour of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who fought with such bravery at Majar-al-Kabir a couple of weeks ago? However, there is no doubt that that attack was not orchestrated. The incident last week in which a young officer of the King's Regiment was wounded was, serving officers tell me, of a wholly different order of orchestration and organisation. On top of that, this week we have had a broadcast from a voice claiming to be that of al-Qaeda in the Gulf, saying that that organisation is active. Despite the Foreign Secretary's claims about not using intelligence to launch us into war, what is his assessment, based on intelligence reports, of al-Qaeda and the threat that it poses to our troops?
Mr. Straw: I have nothing directly to add to the answer that I have given to the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. Obviously, the position has been carefully studied, and as I said to the House, it will vary from area to area. Of course, there are people both inside and outside Iraq who wish to make mischief, and whose vested interest is in ensuring or seeking to ensure that Iraq does not succeed. Our absolute determination, on the other hand, with the Iraqi governing council is to make sure that the new Iraq succeeds, and we shall win.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): May I make it crystal clear to the Foreign Secretary that I and, I suspect, many other Members did not vote for military action simply on the basis of weapons of mass destruction? We did it on the grounds of wider issues and the judgment, moral and political, that we needed to take action because of all the reasons in resolution 1441 and the underlying situation. Let us not fall into the terrible trap of focusing on one issue and rewriting history to try to pretend that there was not a major problem causing destabilisation in the middle east.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. People who take an alternative point of view—and they are entitled to do so—must recognise that their inaction would have had very serious consequences for the Iraqi people and the wider region.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Whatever the constituent parts of the assembly, total power in Iraq is still in the hands of the United States. The American people have been warned that this is something that may continue for years. Will we remain for as long as the American Administration considers it necessary, or is it possible that we will leave of our own accord?
Mr. Straw: As with the dispatch of troops, it is for the House to decide how long we remain there.
Mr. David Borrow: When I was in Basra in early June, it was clear that the electricity and

169
water supplies were in a better condition than before the war and that law and order were improving. However, I read newspaper reports this morning that seemed to suggest that there were serious problems with the electricity and water supplies, and focused on lawlessness in Basra. Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether the situation in Basra has got better or worse since early June and, if it has got worse, what action the Government will take to improve the situation?
Mr. Straw: There will of course be incidents in different parts of Iraq which will result in the situation varying from day to day, but the overall assessment, as recently as this morning, is that particularly in the south the situation is getting better in many respects. Electricity and water supplies, for example, in most, but not all, parts of the south are better than they were before the regime fell.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Foreign Secretary reminded us that the invasion was not cost free, when he asked us to remember the coalition dead. Can we also remember the 6,000 Iraqis who died and the 15,000 who were injured? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that this business of uranium from Africa is rapidly becoming a farce for the British Government? Despite the attempts of the US Administration to recoup the situation, President Bush and the Prime Minister are apparently no longer singing from the same hymn sheet. This is about trust between our Government and the British people, so will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the request for an independent inquiry, as I do not think that anything else will satisfy my constituents?
Mr. Straw: I have to say that many of us have constituents who might otherwise take a similar position, but on this they all have different views. I repeat to my hon. Friend that, when I was on the Opposition Benches, I called for the establishment of a parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. The Committee that was subsequently set up is composed of people who are at least as eminent and trustworthy as the very eminent and trustworthy members of the Franks committee 21 years ago, and we should show faith in the job that they are doing along with the job done by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us worked with representatives of the Iraqi Communist party to oppose the invasion? Since then, we have worked with them on reconstruction and development of democracy, and we do not think that there is anything inconsistent about our involvement in those two activities. Can my right hon. Friend tell us, from the material that he is placing in the Library about the make-up of the Iraqi governing council, how much detail will be provided? Will details of the profession, political party, trade union links, press links and connections, and background in Iraq and elsewhere in the world be supplied? That is important to many of us who are looking towards the future reconstruction of Iraq.
Mr. Straw: A lot of information is on the sheets that will go into the Library. If my hon. Friend wishes for more, he should get in touch with me.
Helen Jackson: How many prisoners are being held by coalition forces, and where? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the record of the United States is appalling in its disregard for international human rights in the way that it is treating 680 detainees at Guantanamo bay? Can he give us an absolute assurance that the highest levels of fair justice will be exercised when dealing with however many prisoners are being held in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: I assume my hon. Friend is speaking about prisoners held by the US and UK—
Helen Jackson: Coalition forces.
Mr. Straw: Yes, by coalition forces. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact number straight away. I will write to her and place the reply in the Library of the House. I accept entirely the clear obligations of the coalition provisional authority under international law and under resolution 1483. For whatever reason they are held, people must be treated with proper regard for their human rights.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Further to the question from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), when the Foreign Secretary says that we will remain in Iraq for as long as it takes to establish elected representative Iraqi government and internal security, given that we are by far the junior partner in the coalition, is he not saying, in effect, that we will remain in Iraq for as long as the Americans want us to? What capacity do we have for independent judgment about these issues?
Mr. Straw: It is the confidence that I have, which I am sorry my hon. Friend does not share, in the judgment of this House of Commons. It is we who decide whether or not troops should take up positions and how long they should stay there. Of course we are working with the Americans, but that is up to us. There are many situations in the world in which we do not join the Americans. In this case, we do. That is an independent decision by the House of Commons. My hon. Friend should have faith.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has any decision yet been made about the considerable financial debt of the previous Ba'athist regime?
Mr. Straw: No decisions have been made. The matter is covered to a degree by 1483. However, quite a lot of the debtors—sovereign states and others—have been in touch with the coalition provisional authority to ask for their money, and we are considering their claims.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Have any serious challenges been made to the credibility of reports from the UK forensic team that there are at least 50 mass graves and evidence of at least 300,000 murders

171
during Saddam's regime? How many more people would have died or been tortured if Saddam had been left in power?
Mr. Straw: I have seen no challenges to those figures, horrifying though they are. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that we grieve for anybody who has been killed or injured in whatever circumstances in Iraq. We do not know the exact number of people who were killed as a result of coalition action, but I grieve for them. I know for certain that within a year, far fewer people will have died as a result of coalition action and far more will have been free than ever would have occurred under the Saddam regime.
Paul Flynn: Members of two of the bereaved families have publicly asked the agonising question, "Did our loved ones die in vain?" For the first time in our history, it was we MPs who took the decision to send our soldiers to kill and be killed. Because of that, we cannot make independent judgments on our own decisions, whether we do it individually or collectively as Committees. Do we not need to give those bereaved families not just sincere condolences from every Member of the House, but an assurance that the reasons for the war will be exposed faithfully? Cannot that be done only by a fully independent inquiry?
Mr. Straw: No doubt we will discuss the matter further tomorrow, but I do not accept that. I shall develop the point tomorrow. My hon. Friend is right to this extent: it was not quite the first time that a substantive vote was taken, but it was the first time in the circumstances. I am proud to be a member of a Government who introduced that constitutional change, which will stand for all time. Of course, responsibilities go with it, but I do not accept that in a House of 651 Members, those whom we have chosen to serve on the Intelligence and Security Committee are not capable of independence of judgment in the circumstances. It must be acknowledged—this could not be examined by some independent judicial inquiry, as it is a political issue—that overwhelmingly, the basis on which we went to war was 1441. People talk about dossiers. I remind the House that those were the two dossiers that I submitted to the House in February and March, containing page after page of material, above all from UNMOVIC and the IAEA, revealing the extent of
172
Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the will of the United Nations. That was at the heart of the argument before the House on 18 March.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that both he and the Prime Minister, on numerous occasions and in numerous interviews, told the House and the public that the purpose of the war against Iraq was to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction? Does he accept that what he said today is an attempt at rewriting history, pretending that that was not the motive that was given, when it clearly was the motive that was given? In those circumstances, why does he not support an independent judicial inquiry that can make a judgment on the assertions that were made, the documents that were presented and the arguments that were put for war against Iraq, and the reality of what has happened since?
Mr. Straw: What I said is what I said. My hon. Friend needs to apply himself to the basis on which the House voted, after intense debate and a period of consideration going back for eight months. Yes, we did speak about the need to disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. So did the Security Council. It was not a hole-in-the-corner thing, as is sometimes implied, all depending on whether it took 45 minutes or 90 minutes for those weapons to be prepared. It was on the basis of the clearest possible evidence of two key sets of facts: in the words of the United Nations Security Council, Iraq's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fact that it had had such programmes and was plainly seeking to rebuild them, and above all its defiance of the will of the United Nations. I say to my hon. Friend and the House—and this underlines the nature of the argument back in March—that had Saddam Hussein complied completely, immediately and fully with the terms of 1441, and had the inspectors been able to say that, there would have been no basis for military action. It was Iraq's wilful failure to comply that was at the heart of the decision that the House rightly took on 18 March to take military action.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Americans have offered $25 million for information leading to the capture of Saddam Hussein, and since then there has been the tape allegedly portraying the dictator. Is there any evidence to suggest that Saddam Hussein is still alive and in Iraq?
Mr. Straw: There is neither proof of life, nor proof of death.

Point of Order
Mr. John Burnett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. On today's Order Paper, in the written ministerial statements there is listed at item 12 an apparently innocuous item entitled, "Publication of the Butterfield Review". Far from being innocuous, this is an extremely important review of a huge VAT scam. As a result of mismanagement and gross negligence, billions of pounds have been lost to the Exchequer and many prosecutions have failed. So immense were those series of frauds that they distorted the balance of payments figures, jeopardising the macro-economic management of the economy. In those circumstances, will you make it clear to Treasury Ministers that such a major report should have been introduced to the House by an oral statement followed by questions?
Mr. Speaker: These matters are for the judgment of Ministers, and the Minister concerned has obviously used his judgment.

National Minimum Wage (Tips)
1.50 pm
Mr. Michael Connarty: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Regulation 31 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 so that amounts paid by customers by way of service charge, tip, gratuity or cover charge whether paid to employees through the payroll or by any other method are excluded from payments taken into account as remunerations contributing to the National Minimum Wage.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for his invitation to have a meeting on this issue, and his predecessor, now the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, for continuing to encourage me to explore the problems that exist with regard to the national minimum wage and tips.
The question is: when a customer gives a tip, who is it for? Customers, and I think all hon. Members, believe that a tip is for the individual waiter or hotel staff member whom they give it to or leave it for or that it will be shared through a pooled tip system—we would call such a pool a kitty in Scotland, but it is officially called a tronc—to be shared among the staff. Customers believe that in the UK, where we have a national minimum wage by law—I think that, at £4.10, it is still too low, but it will be increased to £4.50 in October—the tip will make a small addition to that sum. It will not do so if it is paid on a credit card, in a cheque, through a pooled system or tronc and through, the payroll. Even if a customer gives cash, if the hotel or restaurant runs a tronc or pooled tip system divided up by a tronc master, who tends to be the head waiter—I was told this morning about a headwaiter who took 80 per cent. of all the tips before distributing the rest—it may still be used to pay towards the minimum wage.
I often hear people say "It wasn't meant to be like this"—I use the phrase myself sometimes when I look at Government policy—but it was. In the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999, regulation 31(1)(e) states that
"service charge, tips, gratuities or cover charge that is not paid through the payroll",
are excluded from payments towards the minimum wage, but that means that other tips are counted towards it. The consequences for 1.8 million people working in the service industry, 67 per cent of whom are women and 40 per cent. of whom are under 25, are significant: some 1.8 million people may not be getting what they think they should get.
The problem was highlighted in the case of Nerva and others v. RL&G Ltd., which involved two London restaurants—Paradiso e Inferno in the Strand and Trota Blu in Leicester square. The case was brought in 1995, before the national minimum wage was introduced, but was concluded only last year at the European Court of Human Rights. The High Court ruling said that
"ownership of tips through cheque and credit card first passes lo the employer".
as such payments will be made in the name of the establishment. That was incorporated into the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the 1999 regulations. The case of Nerva and others v. the UK was lost in 2002 at

175
the European Court of Human Rights because we had written that injustice into the law of this land. That is why it was thrown out.
An excellent article by Philip Inman in The Guardian on Saturday 24 November 2001 revealed that even cash tips are not going to staff. It said that, if the establishment in question operated a tronc or pooled tip system paid through the payroll, it did not go to the staff on top of their minimum wage. The article cited the example of the Sanderson, a well-known London hotel where rooms cost from £240 to £2,000 a night for the main suite. That hotel paid £2.50 an hour and topped up the amount to the minimum wage from tips through the payroll. Popular restaurant chains such as Caffe Uno and Garfunkels operate the same tronc system.
This Bill would ensure that all additional payments made by customers as tips, gratuities, service or cover charges have to be paid in addition to the minimum wage by excluding tips paid by any method from minimum wage calculations. It would also reduce the complexity of enforcement, because, as I told the former Minister, enforcement officers would not have to find out whether tips are paid towards the minimum wage. Everyone working in an establishment would receive the minimum wage. Tips above that would be a matter for them, the tax office and their employer.
The Bill would deliver the guaranteed national minimum wage for the 1.8 million people who are probably the most vulnerable workers in this nation, as was the Labour's Government's intention when they said that they would introduce the original Bill. It would ensure that, when tips are paid and by whatever method, they are for the staff as a little extra for themselves and not their employer.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Connarty, Jim Dobbin, John Robertson, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Vera Baird, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Parmjit Dhanda, Mr. Bill Tynan, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Bob Blizzard and Angela Eagle.

National Minimum Wage (Tips)

  NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE (Tips)
  Mr. Michael Connarty accordingly presented a Bill to amend Regulation 31 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 so that amounts paid by customers by way of service charge, tip, gratuity or cover charge whether paid to employees through the payroll or by any other method are excluded from payments taken into account as remunerations contributing to the National Minimum Wage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 November, and to be printed [Bill 150].
  1.56 pm
  Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the list of written ministerial statements to be made today, No. 29 will be in the name of the Home Secretary, which is why I refer to it now, while he is in his place. Its title is "Independent Review of the National Asylum Support Service". My understanding is that the independent review has not been published and that only a summary has been issued. My further understanding is that that is so because it is a critical report. May I ask you to reflect on whether it is appropriate that independent review reports are published only in summary form without hon. Members being able to see the full report, which is what was expected and what was implied in the statement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place when Mr. Speaker dealt with a similar point of order raised by one of his hon. Friends. What Mr. Speaker said I shall say again: this is entirely a matter for the Government, but the hon. Gentleman's concern can be pursued subsequently through question and debate.

Orders of the Day

  Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: Seventh and Twelfth Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002–03, on its continuing scrutiny of Bills, HC 547 and HC 765; and Fifth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on the Sexual Offences Bill, HC 639.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I thank not only my noble Friends in the Lords, but all those of all parties and none who contributed to the debate and the improvement of the Bill as it made its way through the upper Chamber. The Bill has been a long time in the making. Both actions against sex offenders and the law on sex offences are outdated and arcane, and are sometimes subject, I regret to say, to a great deal of silliness. That is why Governments of all persuasions have for so long been reluctant to act on some of these measures.
  Consultation on the paper "Setting the Boundaries" and the preparation for the Bill lasted two and a half years. The process was worth it in the sense that getting the balance right has been critical to winning over support and finding a consensus. I hope that this House will continue to address the issues rationally and with a view to finding an agreed solution to some of the more difficult problems. All those who have addressed the matter have found that one solution often leads to another difficulty. I therefore hope that we can continue that consensus this afternoon and in Committee. I offer to the Opposition parties the opportunity to continue in Committee that process of dialogue and improvement.
  I want to thank once again the members of the taskforce on child protection on the internet for their work. Important work remains to be done on getting the sentencing policy right.
  Andy Burnham: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. He is aware of the case of my constituent Shevaun Pennington, who went missing on Saturday and is believed to have travelled to France with a US citizen. That worrying case emphasises why the measures in clause 17 are so necessary, but her safe and immediate return to this country is of course our immediate concern. Would the Home Secretary today contact his French counterparts, not only to thank them for their help to date, but to ask them to do everything else within their power to facilitate that, including providing all necessary information to the Greater Manchester police to help them with their inquiries, publicising media photographs and ensuring that immigration staff at entry and exit points have all the necessary information? Would he further ask his officials to work with Interpol to ensure that information is spread as far and wide as possible to the authorities of neighbouring countries?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue; I will deal with it now. Clause 17 and clauses 121 to 127 strengthen the law substantially in that respect.
  178
  On behalf of the House, I send our deepest sympathy to the family of Shevaun. It must be a very trying time for them. No parent who knows and understands that their child will enter and use the internet does not sympathise with them greatly as regards what has happened and the way in which it happened. My office has been in touch with the office of Nicolas Sarkozy, the Minister for the Interior in France, and we have secured agreement from him that the French will take every possible step to assist in apprehending the couples who flew into Paris on Saturday evening. They will engage with our forces—two members of the Greater Manchester police are going out to Paris to assist with the investigation—and work with us through Europol and Interpol to ensure that we follow every possible lead.
  On 5 May, in Paris, we had a home affairs meeting of the G8 countries that was led by the French. They were concerned that we should discuss the whole issue of child pornography, grooming on the internet and the use of the internet for such crime. It was agreed then, two months ago, that we should step up joint international action. This case provides an opportunity for people to put into practice their words and intentions. The Foreign Secretary and I want to use every avenue that is available to us in relation to the incident, which reinforces why the measures in clause 17 and the clauses in part 2 relating to enforcement are long overdue and matter so greatly. Apart from fitting into the broader context of strengthening the law and sentencing, they underline the importance of working with the industry on the protections that the taskforce considered and of working together to protect young people from gross abuse.
  The signals that we send in today's debate and in Committee will make a difference in terms of the messages that young people receive, the measured way in which we deal with the wider issues of offending and offences, and the engagement of broader civil society in being part of the solution. It is important to take cognisance of the great difficulty of balancing protection against a free and open society. As with so many of the issues that Home Secretaries—as opposed to Guardian columnists—have to deal with, such balances must be kept in view all the time.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I place on record my appreciation of the work that my right hon. Friend has done in introducing this very important Bill, which is indeed long overdue.
  The Family Planning Association and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have expressed concern that the Bill could criminalise young people of 14 or 15 for consensual petting or kissing. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could clarify that, bearing in mind that the average age of first intercourse is now 16. Has he considered the possible implications?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I have. As recently as yesterday I thought about whether there was a formulation that would change the existing law in a way that addressed the practical issues. As the House of Lords found, and as the Committee in this House will find, it is extremely difficult to come up with a formulation that not only protects young people from those over the age of 16 or 18 engaging in activity preparatory to sexual behaviour

  179
  that would put them at risk and is considered in the Bill to be unacceptable, and therefore outside the law, but from those under 16—we have all had experience of this in terms of school exclusions—who have taken equally unacceptable actions against those of a similar age. Drawing the line between penetration—we are going to be dealing with these issues, I am afraid—and actions leading to penetration by those intent on doing so without consent has made it impossible to find another definition, given the well-known difficulty of ascertaining consent in relation to youngsters.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), will meet the head of the Family Planning Association tomorrow. I repeat what I said to several groups who raised civil liberties issues in relation to the recommendations of the taskforce. If the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has been speaking are of good will—as he certainly is—and believe that we have got it wrong, I ask only one thing of them: that they produce a formulation that overcomes the objections that have been raised. It is extremely difficult. I do not want the law to be an ass. No one will be prosecuted in the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend—they never have been, and they will not be—but to find a way out of a situation that relies on the common sense of the Crown Prosecution Service has proved impossible.
  It would be appropriate for me to take offenders first, so I shall deal with part 2, which starts with clauses 81 to 93. That part of the Bill concerns the registration of offenders and updates the existing law, including the Sex Offenders Act 1997. It is about informing the police of changes of circumstance; visits that are to be made by those who are placed on the register; the confirmation every year of the details and whereabouts of those individuals, instead of the present situation; the power regularly to take biometric information, such as fingerprints and photographs; new laws concerning overseas visits and the requirements of notification orders; and, as is described in clauses 95 to 101, getting a grip of those who go overseas to procure the services of young children and monitoring them to prevent them from doing so.
  Clauses 102 to 111 bring together sex offenders orders and restraining orders into the new prevention orders, which aim to prevent offenders from going near, or being around, areas such as playgrounds or schools or visiting particular localities. They also deal with the breach of orders and an extension to violent offenders who previously were not dealt with under the relevant provisions. We are also increasing the sentence for such breaches to five years. I am sure that that will send a much better signal.
  Clauses 112 to 120 again deal with foreign travel and the need to bring our laws into line. When I responded to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), I mentioned the way in which clause 17 interchanges with clauses 121 to 127, and risk assessment. The taskforce did an excellent job of considering the matter and dealing with chat rooms. That was one of the most difficult issues because it involves the modern phenomenon of using the internet and access to the internet in a way that it is hard for parents to monitor. We need to ensure that servers
  180
  provide some protection, but how can that be done in a free and open society? The difficulties are illustrated by the tragedy that has befallen Shevaun, who was taken away by someone who pretended to be a similar age.
  However, we are tightening the law to deal with people who endeavour to meet a child following sexual grooming and we therefore need a new offence. We are introducing such an offence today and providing for a penalty when such meetings are intended to lead to a sexual offence against the child at that or a subsequent meeting, and the perpetrator has communicated with the child at least twice to start the grooming process. The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years, but it needs to be linked with the other offences in the Bill that carry much more substantial sentences, including anything that may have happened as a result of the grooming.
  Simon Hughes: The Liberal Democrats support the Government's proposals on grooming and dealing with sex offenders and their registration and monitoring. Like the Government, we stop short of supporting the full implications of a "Sarah's law" approach. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that, when British people or those resident in Britain commit sex offences abroad, information about the conviction will be adequately transferred to the authorities on all occasions so that we are protected against those who have offended abroad but return to this country and are obviously at risk of offending here?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall answer the question carefully because my immediate instinct is to say yes, but much depends on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place and its ability to deal with such matters through its criminal justice system. Whenever such actions are identified, I expect the relevant countries to be required to ensure that they inform us properly, just as we would want to do the same when offenders commit crimes in this country. I am happy to explore in Committee whether we might take further measures to ensure that the process is watertight.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I, too, welcome the provisions on sexual grooming. As the Home Secretary knows, the Conservative party said some time ago that the matter required attention. Is he satisfied that there is enough flexibility in the proposed maximum sentence to deal with cases in which nothing else happens, but the evidence is clear and unequivocal about the intent of a person, who may have previous convictions for serious sex offences against children?
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes. Earlier, I said that we must be able to judge the sentencing provisions that are available to the judiciary in the light of the variation in offences. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have done that with respect to variation in age of the offender. The Bill now provides for that, as does the Criminal Justice Bill. My hon. Friend Baroness Scotland will raise the matter in the House of Lords when it considers the Criminal Justice Bill. She is prepared to listen to the comments of hon. Members here and in another place about other forms of offence and the shadow Home Secretary's

  181
  request for a sliding scale for youngsters. However, I am satisfied that we can get tough enough with individuals to the extent of imposing life sentences for some actions.
  Stephen Hesford: I understood the point of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to be that grooming offences do not carry the same maximum penalty, even against children under 13. A person could therefore get a life sentence for committing an offence against a child under 13, but not for grooming such a child. That is an important matter.
  Mr. Blunkett: A person cannot get a life sentence for grooming but the actions that arise out of grooming can mean such a sentence. We are criminalising grooming; we are making it an offence with a penalty of five years. For the first time, other actions against children under 13 that arise out of grooming mean a life sentence and 14 years when committed against those who are older than 13. We are trying to make sense of things so that, for the first time, there is an offence that leads to another offence, should that tragically happen.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge now—it was acknowledged in the previous Session—that the Bill is proactive not reactive? The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) was therefore right. We should strike hard proactively rather than reactively to save a child.
  Mr. Blunkett: First, I thank the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for the enormous amount of work that he has undertaken as a member of the taskforce and beyond that. We must send the right signals, but hon. Members often draw attention, sometimes when criticising my actions, to the need for penalties to be incremental and to deal with the offence. Our criminal justice system must deal with the offence that has been committed. I should be happy to listen to further thoughts from the hon. Gentleman on the way to get the matter right and on whether I misinterpreted him.
  Before I deal in detail with the substance of part 1, I want to lighten the mood by showing the reasons for the reluctance of Governments of all persuasions to deal with such issues and the difficulty of tackling them in practice. I draw on the debate in the House of Lords for examples.
  Simon Hughes: It is hilarious.
  Mr. Blunkett: I need to lighten my mood because going through some of the cases is harrowing.
  Some of the comments that were made could have come from "Round the Horne" and "Beyond Our Ken". Let us take Lady Saltoun—or Opposition Members can take her. Between her more offensive comments, she came out with some gems. Her statements are almost priceless. She suggested that oral penetration could he considered less serious on the ground that it could be prevented because:
  "Clenched teeth can provide quite a good defence. Indeed, not only can they provide a good line of defence, they can be an aggressive form of defence because teeth can also bite."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1054.]
  182
  How could one disagree with such a gem? Lady Noakes also came out with a real classic when she described as a "probing amendment" a proposal to
  "leave out 'genitals' and insert 'penis'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 555.]
  The good news is that she withdrew it. I hope that the Committee will restrain itself when it reaches these parts of the Bill, but these examples demonstrate the pitfalls that we can all encounter. These are deeply difficult areas, and it is a tribute to the way in which the Bill has been handled that we have got this far. I hope that the Committee will be able to continue that process.
  Mr. David Cameron: On the lighter points of the Bill, the Home Secretary might not have read all the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve. One of the highlights was when the head of the naturists pointed out that all naturists had to carry a naturist passport, which led many members of the Committee to wonder where they would keep it.
  Mr. Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move quickly on from contemplating that thought—sufficient unto the day.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Where would they keep their identity cards?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) makes me smile by asking that question. Perhaps the biometric data could be placed on the person.
  Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 provide for clarity and greater strength in dealing with the law on consent. The definition of consent has been a difficult and problematic issue. In the House of Lords, we managed, through agreement and compromise, to ensure that consent had to be freely given, and that the test of reasonableness was accepted in terms of the genuine belief that consent existed. I am glad that we reached such a compromise because it was important that we were able to move forward in that way. In the Lords, we discussed the question of a list of offences involving a presumption, and we shall return to that in Committee. This involves circumstances in which the lack of consent is self-evident, including those in which someone was asleep or had been drugged or rendered unconscious. Clearly, it would be self-evident that they could not have given their consent in such circumstances. We will be happy to hear from Members on both sides of the House regarding how we can build on the progress that has been made and move forward in those areas. Honest and reasonable belief in relation to consent seems to be a sensible agreed solution.
  Clause 2 deals with the difficult issue of anonymity, and a new clause relating to the definition of this was narrowly carried in the House of Lords. As drafted, It applies only post-charge, but as we all know, the difficult with anonymity often arises when there is speculation about what has happened and about the nature of an individual's activities, long before charges are brought. I have said before that we are not convinced that we can separate anonymity in such circumstances from anonymity in relation to other very serious offences, but we remain willing to listen to the

  183
  views put forward in Committee. It is our intention at the moment to ask the Committee to reverse that amendment.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on this rather difficult issue, and I hope that the Committee will have time to consider it in more detail. Clearly there is a problem when, for example, a professional person such as a doctor has been accused of inappropriate behaviour and the matter goes to court. Once that person has been charged, his name will be besmirched by all sorts of newspapers—scurrilous and otherwise—which will do irreparable damage to his reputation, even if he is subsequently found innocent. Will my right hon. Friend consider those difficult situations in which a professional person who is accused of something that he is subsequently found not to have done, nevertheless has significant damage done to his reputation by the reporting of the case in the newspapers?
  Mr. Blunkett: This is precisely the area in which we have to be very cautious. We are talking to the Association of Chief Police Officers and to the newspaper industry about strengthening the existing guidelines to protect individuals. We would need anonymity not only all the way through the criminal process but all the way through the professional process. In the instance that my hon. Friend has given, that would obviously involve hearings before the General Medical Council, because there would be professional concerns involved, and a judgment would have to made in relation to the knowledge of patients in those circumstances.
  Mr. Grieve: I recognise that this is an area of considerable difficulty for the Home Secretary. I note that he highlighted the differences between anonymity pre-charge and during the trial process. I also noted his view that there might be an argument for tightening up the rules on pre-charge publicity and anonymity. One problem is that, all too often, there is evidence that the police collude with the media to reveal information on those who are under investigation, when there is no justification whatever for them to do so.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not going to enter into the vigorous debate that took place in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport a couple of months ago. Historically, however, people have believed that information has rapidly been passed to newspapers by those who should know better. There is no point in trying to duck that issue. In consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, representatives of the newspaper industry and others, we need to examine how we can get some sense in this context, because it is ail affront to the rights of an individual if they are named and their reputation is sullied in circumstances in which there is no evidence against them.
  Vera Baird: Is not the anonymity issue one for the criminal justice system as a whole, across many offences? I doubt that it would be worse for someone to be named in connection with an allegation of a sexual offence than with an allegation that they had robbed an old lady of 80 and seriously injured her, or an allegation
  184
  that they were a murderer. I doubt that there is any gravity that requires special protection in relation to sexual offences.
  Before my right hon. Friend rises to respond, may I make one more point? Clause 2, as drafted, states:
  "The defendant in rape etc. cases shall enjoy the same right to anonymity as is enjoyed by the complainant."
  As I recall, the right to anonymity of a complainant is lifelong. This provision would therefore mean that a defendant would be entitled to anonymity even after conviction.
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention to the flawed drafting of the clause, which needs to be considered very carefully. I agree with her first point, which is that a whole range of offences that do not have anonymity attached to them cause grave concern to individuals, not just those with public standing or a professional reputation, but people in general who find themselves in such circumstances. That is why there is a need for a great deal more care to be taken when reporting takes place in this context, as well as a need to address this specific issue.
  Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 deal with the age below which there should be no question of a child being presumed to have consented to sex. This measure is long overdue, and I am glad that we have been able to reach agreement on it. It will ensure that those aged 12 and under cannot give and should not ever be presumed to give consent. I am pleased that we have been able to make common sense out of this.
  Clauses 10 to 16 cover both direct physical activity and the kind of action that was highlighted last year that leads youngsters to be brought into a situation in which, although they are not being physically abused, they are being encouraged to take off their clothes and engage in other activities that are totally unacceptable. We obviously have to ensure that youngsters are protected from such activities, and I am glad that we have reached agreement there. As mentioned a few moments ago, differential penalties also apply in these clauses in respect of different ages.
  Vera Baird: Am I right in understanding that, for an offence under clause 10, which outlaws sexual activity with someone under 16, no defence of consent applies? If, however, someone under 16 is raped under clause 1, does the defence of consent still apply? I assume that it does, so I do not follow the line of logic that separates the two.
  Mr. Blunkett: I will happily come back to my hon. and learned Friend if I inadvertently misled her or the House, but it is not our intention that that should be the case, and if the drafting is inadequate, we will certainly put it right in Committee.
  Clause 17 was referred to earlier, together with clauses 121 and 127, in the context of grooming. Clauses 18 to 26 are about the re-enactment and extension of the law covering 16 and 17-year-olds. In other words, 16 and 17-year-olds are brought under the provisions on trust, where professionals hold positions of trust in a range of circumstances and we need to ensure that young people

  185
  are protected. Children's guardians and those responsible for discharging care or supervision orders would fall under those provisions.
  Clauses 27 to 31 deal with abuse within the family, replacing the current law on incest with children. Again, the issue is about dealing with those who have and gain the trust of young people, and relevant provisions are extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
  Clauses 32 to 46 deal with the difficult area of offences against adults with learning disabilities or with mental health disorders. That is an area of substantial abuse and it again includes people in a position of authority. It is estimated that those with learning disabilities are three times as likely to have been abused than other members of the population. We face grave difficulties in securing credible evidence from the individuals affected. Many people within and outside the House are deeply concerned, and we are very happy to be able to move forward on that front.
  Mr. Grieve: I agree with everything that the Home Secretary has just said. It was brought to my attention and probably to his, and it may need to be dealt with carefully in Committee—by care workers who deal with learning disabilities, that certain areas of sex education pose peculiar problems for them. They are afraid of being exposed to prosecution on account of the way in which they deliver such education. I hope that the Home Secretary will be open-minded about that when we come to deal with this extremely difficult area in Committee.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes. In fact, clauses 47 and 48 deal with some of the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies in replicating photographs. That fits into a similar category, where we do not wish to prevent professionals from doing their job of providing advice, support and help. The police obviously need to use certain material in order to obtain a conviction. On either front, I am happy for us to debate how best to ensure that people can get on with their jobs free from the fear of unwarranted prosecution—or even allegations, which would probably be more relevant, because the Crown Prosecution Service, as we mentioned at the start of the debate, is likely to use common sense in these matters.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I would like to probe the Home Secretary further on the question of the marriage exemption, particularly in respect of the abuse of trust. An exemption for marriage exists for relationships between people who are 16 and 17 and older people. Being married obviously provides a defence. However, does that not create a difficulty in being discriminatory, since marriage is available as a defence only in heterosexual relationships? Parental consent is required in that case, so is there not an argument for exploring whether obtaining parental consent for relationships in those narrowly defined areas could be a way of ensuring that homosexual relationships of the same depth and strength as married heterosexual relationships are available to provide the
  186
  same protection? I realise that it is a difficult area, but would be grateful if the Home Secretary would at least allow that issue to be explored.
  Mr. Blunkett: It is probably the first time in six years of being in the Government that I have said it, but I do wish the hon. Gentleman had given me notice of that question. The sensible thing would be for me to write to him. I would also be happy for the hon. Gentleman to meet the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) to discuss the matter. I have not dealt with it so far in my discussions on the Bill over recent months, but I shall certainly take what the hon. Gentleman said seriously.
  Clauses 49 to 61 deal with commercial exploitation for sexual purposes. The provisions are long overdue and in common with subsequent clauses complement our work on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which dealt with trafficking across the world. The clauses deal with the difficult issues surrounding prostitution. I spoke, together with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has responsibility for drugs and organised crime, at a recent conference in Leeds, at which parents of children who had been inveigled into prostitution appealed to us to move rapidly and extensively to prevent that massive exploitation. The difficulties of prosecution have been made worse by the need to protect children and the fact that the provision will now include 16 and 17-year-olds. It was rightly pointed out that some youngsters drawn into this activity at 14 and 15 had somehow been left to their own devices at 16 and 17, which is a travesty. We should extend the law, whether on pornography or prostitution, to make it easier to take decisive action to protect people against exploitation for commercial gain.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I commend him for introducing this important legislation. Can he confirm that we have now reached the moment when it is possible to say that children who have been involved in prostitution or pornography are removed from any criminal liability whatever?
  Mr. Blunkett: Children are, and the intent behind the clauses is to get round the difficulty that in the past A had to be proved that the person exploiting the child did so for material gain. That was much more difficult to prove than the suspicion itself. We are now removing that difficulty and we are also for the first time criminalising the payer for sex with a child. Amazingly, that was not in itself a criminal offence. As I made clear earlier, the penalty where children under 13 are concerned will be life, and it will be 14 years for similar offences with older children. That sends out a clear signal.
  Mr. George Osborne: The clauses on trafficking are welcome, but they are the only clauses in the Bill where no distinction is made in recognition of the fact that the victim could be a child. UNICEF raised the issue with me and, no doubt, other hon. Members. What is the Home Secretary's logic for failing to make

  187
  a distinction for where the victim is a child? Surely the seriousness of cases involving children should be reflected in the Bill.
  Mr. Blunkett: As I argued earlier, it is possible for someone to be charged with more than one offence. The penalties levied would be commensurate with the combined offence. I am sure that my hon. Friends would be happy to consider in Committee whether, when trafficking offences that apply to adults as well as children are combined with offences involving children—to which certain penalties would apply independently—the penalties are sufficient to reflect the heinousness of the offence of trafficking in young people. In other words, if we determine that combining the offences is not enough. we need to decide whether the aggravation of the offence should carry additional penalties. My ministerial colleagues will take a look at that matter in Standing Committee.
  In fact, the Standing Committee process will ensure that an improved Bill comes back to the House. The Government will listen and respond, as we do not pretend to have the handle on everything or to be the fount of all wisdom. We do on some occasions, but not on this matter. For the information of the House, and of Hansard, that last remark was an example of irony.
  Clauses 62 to 64 deal with drug rape. I think that the House agrees on this matter. The Bill raises the penalty to 10 years. It is an outrage that people should be abused in that way.
  Clauses 65 and 66 are about adult incest, which is another very difficult area.
  Clauses 67 to 72 are about sex in public. Now, I want to make it clear that the coverage that has been given to this issue would be impossible to make up. The then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, now the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn), gave a perfectly reasonable explanation at a press briefing of what was intended. An interesting debate was initiated, which led people to believe that the Bill would reduce rather than strengthen the law in relation to matters such as sex in toilets.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that sex in toilets is illegal. It will remain so. The offence will be enforceable under existing public order legislation, but there will be additional protection as well. Given the confusion, I do not intend to remove the amendment passed in the House of Lords. Instead, I shall seek to ensure that it is operable and that it makes sense. I invite Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members to ensure that we get the matter right, as no one wants any form of sex to be taking place around them in a toilet, whether in or out of a cubicle. That goes for petting as much as for more unacceptable forms of behaviour. I doubt whether any hon. Member would disagree with that.
  Mr. Grieve: What the Home Secretary has just said is extremely welcome. There are a number of ways in which to tackle the problem. The right hon. Gentleman has plainly taken on board the concerns expressed in another place and I am sure that we can arrive at a satisfactory formula on which we can all agree.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That indicates that common sense will be applied in common cause.
  Simon Hughes: I have spoken to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about this matter. Like Conservative Members, the Liberal Democrats are very keen to sort this matter out once and for all. The wording of clause 67 is not right yet, so will the Home Secretary look at the proposal from the Home Affairs Committee that the public order legislation should be amended and clarified? I am very tempted by the idea of making the activity a public order offence. I share the Home Secretary's objective absolutely, but there may be a way to achieve it by means of the Criminal Justice Bill rather than this Bill.
  Mr. Blunkett: The point about the interplay between the Criminal Justice Bill and this Bill is important. I have spoken in strong terms about the potential for incorporating the common law in statute law. I am very happy to continue to explore that. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has spent more hours than he cares to reveal looking for a way forward on this matter to which hon. Members of all parties can agree. We all want a lasting rather than a temporary solution.
  The Bill contains a number of clauses dealing with bestiality. I do not intend to go into them this afternoon. The House of Lords did so at considerable depth, so I shall spare hon. Members details of the activities involved.
  Before concluding, I want to say that the spirit in which the proposals have been received shows that every hon. Member wants there to be lasting legislation in this area. Over the past century, securing change in respect of some matters has taken a long time. We want the legislation to last, but we also know that the law is not sufficient. Changing the law is important, as are the penalties set down and the signals given out, but we must also change the way people live their lives. We are dealing with matters such as how young people are brought up, how they are educated in schools, and how they come to understand what is acceptable and what is not.
  It is also a matter of trying to spot mental health problems at an early age. Some of the activities covered by the Bill can only be carried out by people who are severely mentally ill. They need help at an early stage in their lives, and I hope that we will be able to set the law and carry out those other functions.
  Dr. Evan Harris: During debates on the Bill that became the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, I raised the question of offences that had been decriminalised but in respect of which people were still subject to sex offenders registration and orders. My proposal was rejected at the time by Ministers, but Lord Falconer said in the House of Lords that he was confident that the Government might be able to table an amendment during the Commons stages of this Bill to ensure that work could be done to identify people subject to the sex offenders regime in respect of acts that

  189
  had effectively been decriminalised by the 2000 Act. Those acts included gross indecency offences and age-of-consent offences. Will the Home Secretary give the House an update on his thinking on whether such an amendment will be forthcoming as this Bill goes through the House?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are minded to introduce such an amendment, as long as we can find a way around the difficulties associated with consensual sex in terms of the position in which people find themselves historically. That is the really difficult challenge, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his work on this matter. We have to trawl back and ensure that an act was consensual. We have given an undertaking to those who have approached us that we will try and find a way forward on this matter. The change in the law means that it would be quite wrong for people to be registered as guilty for an act that is no longer a crime.
  The cross-party and no-party task force to which I referred earlier has been very helpful. We intend to set up a new, cross-Government ministerial committee to monitor the implementation of the legislation and associated measures. It will also look at prevention, early intervention and support, so that we can get the matter right across the piece. That would apply to issues to do with rape, for instance. We intend to set up a rape helpline as quickly as possible, as we promised in an earlier debate.
  Given the discussion this afternoon, and the content of the Bill, I hope that we can all go forward—
  Mr. Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: My goodness! I will give way, but only because my hon. Friend has a privileged position on the all-party committee.
  Mr. Dawson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I welcome the new ministerial group on sexual offending. Will he confirm that it will look at the treatment of sex offenders? Well-developed models now exist for addressing the dangerous and abusive offending behaviour of adults. If we provide the means for people to be treated, we can protect children.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it is precisely because we need to take non-legislative measures for prevention and early intervention that the group will be looking at the matters that my hon. Friend has set out. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties will join me in appealing to the press to understand that it is better, and safer for the public, to treat someone than to leave that person untreated and unsupported on a register. Such a person is in danger of committing sexual offences again. Treatment has to be the right approach, although it is always difficult to find locations that will not offend local residents, or make them feel threatened. We all understand that because we are all constituency MPs, which is a great strength of this House.
  Before anyone else intervenes, I commend the Bill to the House.
  2.50 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I welcome the way in which the Home Secretary opened the debate and presented this matter to the House. I disagreed with his position only when he provided his own analysis of the pitfalls that may have beset those in another place, including my hon. Friends and the Baroness Noakes, in particular, when they presented the various matters to the Lords. There may be a tendency to squeamishness in this place. No one is more capable of robust humour than my noble Friend. In those circumstances, to think of her comments as an unintended pitfall may do her less than justice. As I found in my days as a law student, one need only go to the law reports to the case of R. v. Collins, which fell open at the page describing what constituted an effective and substantial entry for the purposes of committing burglary with intent to rape because of the number of times that it had been read, and which caused general hilarity because the facts of the case were so bizarre. On what is a sombre matter, the Home Secretary should forgive my noble Friend for introducing a note of hilarity to the proceedings, which we sometimes badly need.
  One of the key features of the Bill is the extent to which it has been improved in the other place. When it was first published, the key definitions in clauses 1, 76 and 77 of what constitutes rape and how it should be proved gave me serious cause for concern. I feared that there would be a substantial issue of principle between both sides of the House and perhaps between individuals as the Bill proceeded. I feared that changing the presumptions and changing the test for consent from an objective to a subjective test would cause us real problems. I am happy to be able to say that those problems have evaporated. The way the Lords approached the matter and applied their expertise to a particularly difficult problem, as well as the fact that we have maintained the presumptions but made them evidential and not probative, have made a substantial difference to preserving proper civil rights and fairness in trials while bringing about changes that were long overdue.
  I have never understood the subjective test in rape. Indeed, I suspect that few jurors understood it either. I do not know whether the changes will make a significant difference, but I am content that they will provide art objective test of whether consent has been provided.
  Mr. Cameron: Does my hon. Friend have any concerns about the fact that while the other place has done a great tidying-up job, in particular with clauses 75 and 76 on consent, those provisions are still complex and will still require the judge to lead the jury through complicated legal hoops when what really should be at issue is putting the facts before the open court?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of judges have told me that they remain concerned about how they will sum up a case properly to the jury on the new tests. The old tests had the merit of considerable simplicity. That said, that task is not necessarily impossible. My field of practice, which was far removed from this area of the law, although I did deal with it, was health and safety at work, where there are precise reversals of the burden of proof in certain areas. I have not normally seen it as a great difficulty for

  191
  the judge to explain that to members of the jury in a way that is fair to the defendant and enables the jury to understand. I certainly undertake that we will not allow this key matter to pass through the Committee without further consideration.
  Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman referred to clause 76, which seems to have been simplified considerably in the other place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the reverse presumptions coming into play if a person had been drugged. The only situation that is almost akin to that in clause 76 is that those presumptions come into play when a complainant is asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the sex act. Some rape drugs do not make a person unconscious; they paralyse or stupefy them. Given that the offence of administering such a rape drug is included in the Bill in clause 62, does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea to say that the presumptions in clause 76 should apply where such a drug has been administered?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. and learned Lady makes an important point. The short answer is that that is precisely the sort of matter we must consider in some detail in Committee. It would be foolish of me to attempt to go into such detail in a Second Reading debate. I accept that there are areas in which the legislation could be improved. We should not say that we are satisfied until the Bill has cleared all its stages in this House. I will be happy to look into that aspect of it.
  I do not wish to survey the Bill in its entirety as the Home Secretary did—it is not necessary and would take up too much time—but I shall highlight one or two areas that still need some attention. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned naturists and their concerns about the exposure offences and the offence of voyeurism in clause 69. Although the other place seems to have dealt satisfactorily with exposure, naturists' concerns about what might constitute voyeurism, which might interfere with their legitimate activities, bears some consideration owing to the odd use of the word "structure" in that clause. If naturists decide to go into a garden behind a high wall where they are invisible from any surrounding buildings or any person and someone puts a ladder against the wall and climbs it to photograph them, are the naturists protected by the definition of "structure"? That may be an area in which we can improve the legislation. It seems to me that the term "structure" might protect them only if it refers to a building.
  The Home Secretary mentioned sex in public lavatories and I do not need to say any more about that in view of his helpful comments. However, on the principle behind this, which I think he accepts, the concern expressed in the other place was not homophobic. From experience at the Bar, I know of a number of cases involving heterosexual activities in public lavatories that are as antisocial and unpleasant in every way as any other form of activity. I put that on the record because concern has been expressed that the provision was an expression of a return to homophobic fears; it is not.
  The Home Secretary rightly highlighted recent worrying events in relation to sexual grooming. I join him in expressing sympathy to Shevaun's family and I hope that she may soon be reunited with them. The Home Secretary may have slightly misunderstood the
  192
  point that I was trying to make. I apologise, as I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I think that a seven-year sentence is provided for in the Bill, not five as the Home Secretary said. Whether it is seven years or five, the point at issue is that, in a sexual grooming case, the person arrested may not have had the opportunity to commit any of the other offences set out in the measure. In those circumstances, if the intervention was rapid enough, people would breath a sigh of relief.
  If there is no more to the matter than that, I accept that the seven-year sentence might be appropriate, but if someone is arrested and the evidence of intent for sexual grooming is overwhelming—for example, if he is found in possession of material that is clearly linked to committing a serious sexual offence and he has a past record of having committed such offences—is there sufficient upward flexibility to allow the judge to protect the public from further offences? That is the point that I was trying to make.
  Mr. Blunkett: First, the hon. Gentleman is correct to note that the sentence is seven years. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to my mistake.
  The hon. Gentleman's second point is valid. I had slightly misinterpreted his remarks. If there is a definable further act that would warrant a much more substantial sentence, the Crown Prosecution Service should bring that charge. I take his point, however: we may need a cumulative way of reflecting the severity of what has been done, in the light of previous convictions for similar offences. I think that is the point that he was making and I have a great deal of sympathy with it.
  Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary. That, too, is a matter that we can look at constructively in Committee to see whether we can provide some improvements.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend might reflect on the recent case of an individual who had no record but arrived at a meeting expecting to buy a 10-year-old girl for sex; he was armed with wire cutters, tape, condoms and all the works. Fortunately, he met a six-foot-something burly Metropolitan policeman, but the crime that he intended to commit could have been taken into account in the sentence.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which we shall have to consider carefully. At the same time, it is also right that we should not sentence to huge terms of imprisonment people with no track record of having committed an offence, even though some evidence of preparatory intent has been found. The dividing line is difficult to draw. Public protection is important, and I am sure that in Committee, with the help of my hon. Friend, we can make some progress on such issues.
  The proposed risk of sexual harm orders are a cause of concern not only to me but to some outside organisations. Although I entirely accept the principle, one must also bear in mind that they could be imposed on people who had never been convicted of any offence whatever, even though that might be unlikely to occur in practice. In those circumstances, the prescribed five-year period seems somewhat draconian. There may be

  193
  greater scope for flexibility in the other direction while still allowing for a maximum period. We hope to be able to look into that matter, especially as there is also a provision for interim orders, which can be obtained quickly.
  The Home Secretary has an unenviable task: balancing the need to protect the public with the need to protect the liberties of the individual. I certainly do not criticise him for the way in which the Bill has been put together in respect of those matters. I hope, however, that we can provide further scrutiny of that aspect.
  The Home Secretary rightly said that the issue of anonymity goes much further than sexual offences. People's lives can be ruined through having their identity revealed at the time of an investigation, while they can be equally damaged by the trial process. I have noted that commentators have said that there is no equivalence between the alleged victim, who is giving evidence, and the person on trial, but I take a slightly different view.
  In this country, the general principle has been that allegations are made openly and that, as a general rule, people stand by them in the sense that they are willing to accept the publicity attendant on making them. Equally, those against whom the allegations are made must suffer the consequences of the trial process, however unpleasant that may be and however difficult if they are subsequently acquitted. We have rightly provided anonymity for victims; if we had not done so, we should be doing a grave disservice to the interests of justice in such cases. The exception that we made for such victims was correct. However, there is another side of the anonymity coin, which relates to the accused, both in the period before a charge is made and thereafter.
  The Home Secretary made some interesting comments this afternoon. He seemed to indicate that the Government might be minded to look more generally at the issue pre-charge, across the whole spectrum of offences. That might be one approach, but we should not simply allow an issue that was considered soberly and at great length in the other place to disappear. There is overwhelming evidence that individuals tried for alleged sexual offences frequently suffer disproportionate publicity and, if acquitted, there are serious consequences when they try to rebuild their lives.
  For a period of 12 years, we provided for the anonymity of such people. When I was first called to the Bar, that principle still operated and I cannot remember anyone saying that the administration of justice was seriously inconvenienced or handicapped as a result. Mindful as I am of the comments that have been made—that there may be circumstances in which the lack of publicity means that other victims may not come forward—there is an established track record to show that the principle has operated, or appears to have operated, reasonably well in the past. There might be circumstances in which an exception could be made, such as a submission by the prosecutor that the offences were serial and thus that further publicity was required.
  Vera Baird: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has noted that if there were to be any such provision, there would have to be exceptions. I was reading an article in
  194
  a 1986 copy of The Times recently, when there was anonymity for rape defendants. One of the problems in a number of cases then was that if such a defendant absconded before he came to trial, no publicity could be used to try to apprehend him.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that contribution. I hope that she understands that I accepted that there was an issue, although not one that is necessarily insurmountable. A measure of protection might still be provided.
  In relation to the provisions on under-18-year-olds, the Home Secretary pointed out, in some of the final comments in his speech, that some of the problems were related to mental health. The Home Secretary has read the briefing available to other Members and to those who take an interest in the subject. The evidence is pretty overwhelming; in many cases, paedophile behaviour starts in adolescence, in those under the age of 18. If it could be tackled at that age, it could be dealt with successfully, whereas the evidence shows that although it is possible to achieve cures in adulthood, through treatment and rehabilitation, it is much harder.
  I am sympathetic to the principle that has led the Home Secretary to place a lot of emphasis on under-age sexual behaviour, including that which may take place between two people who are both under age or very close in age; but the consequences are bizarre in places.
  Although the Home Secretary is right to highlight the fact that substantial change to the principle of the law has not been proposed, things appear in a pretty stark light when we end up with five-year penalties for those who go behind the bicycle sheds to engage in some French kissing—that is what it really boils down to even with two 15-year-olds. That is a very odd state of affairs.
  Speaking as a Conservative, I have an inherent anxiety about administrative discretion. I accept that administrative discretion may be the only remedy in cases where the CPS will not charge. Nevertheless, when such matters are put on to the statute book in such stark terms, I always fear that, at some point, something will not work properly and that we will end up with prosecutions that cause serious problems. I admit to the Secretary of State that I am not sure that I know the answers, and I suspect that, if he had known the answers, he would have already put them on the statute book.
  It is an odd state of affairs—the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) also highlighted the oddity of the situation in an earlier intervention that it is possible for someone under the age of 16 to consent to rape, thereby reducing it to the alternative offence, which is a sexual act to which no consent can be given. I think that that is how I read the Bill. So if one has sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old, it may be possible to escape the full penalty of the law, but there is no possibility of that 14-year-old consenting to much lesser behaviour, even though she may consent to the more serious one. That is a curious state of affairs, and all I can say to the Home Secretary is that I shall do my best, as will my hon. Friends, to try to improve on matters, but I am by no means certain that we will be able to do so.
  Mr. Blunkett: I make this generous offer: I will buy a flagon of champagne for anyone who comes up with a satisfactory answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "A flagon?"] Not a flagon—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): A magnum.
  Mr. Blunkett: Well, those who come from the north of England need civilising, don't they? We will settle for a magnum of champagne. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: it is an ass, but we have to deal with the ass by providing a carrot, rather than a stick.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the offer. I think that a flagon would have suited me very well, but I fear that I may not obtain it. However, he has certainly fired me into finding out whether I can provide any improvement.
  I wish to deal with the abuse of positions of trust, about which I have to tell the Home Secretary that there is something rather strange. A schoolmaster who has fallen in love with a 17-year-old pupil is constrained from having sexual relations with her. I have no problem with that whatsoever. People who are in positions of trust must not abuse the trust, otherwise the whole system collapses. Parents are entitled to know that their children will not be abused at school. However, I find it strange that the word "regularly" has been introduced, not so much in relation to the abuse, I hasten to tell the Home Secretary, but in relation to the person's status in an educational establishment.
  I find it rather difficult to understand why, if a supply teacher is at a school for only a week, the responsibilities and duties that fall upon him should be any different from those for someone who is there permanently; nor do I understand the downside problem, although it might be necessary to tinker slightly with other words in the relevant clause to ensure that, when that person ceases to teach, the constraints placed on him having a sexual relationship with the 17-year-old are rapidly removed. That is something that we can achieve, and I am not very happy with the way things stand at present.
  I mentioned to the Home Secretary the question of those with learning disabilities, and I do not want to go into that further now. We will consider those issues later.
  Finally, I wish to refer to a completely separate matter, which does not appear in the Bill, but to which the Government are giving some thought. There is a great deal of evidence that, as well as photographs being taken of children, paedophile pornography consists of other images that may not be of victims, but which are nevertheless very pernicious in their dissemination. The Bill makes no mention of those images, but I understand from correspondence that I have seen that the Home Secretary is alive to that issue and has indicated that he would be minded to consider that matter, while the Bill is considered in the Commons.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will my hon. Friend also consider including in that list the written word because paedophile pornography in the form of the written word is also circulated among those of that inclination?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend raises another very big issue—which, in turn, raises some very big issues in
  196
  relation to censorship. What is unusual about paedophile pornography is the clear linkage that appears to have been established between the consumption of the pornography and individuals subsequently committing offences. The stirring of the imagination by either works of literature—if that is the right title—or, for that matter, by images is such that it can lead, on a fairly identifiable path, to the commission of offences against children. That is the point, not the suppression of the ordinary exchange of information. That raises a difficult issue.
  If the Government wish to consider the written word, we will certainly do so as well, but given that the Home Secretary seems to have given an undertaking to consider the visual image—I suspect from everything that I have seen that it appears to be one of the worst forms of such pornography, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) may know much more about such things—we will certainly be sympathetic to that and we will give it close scrutiny in Committee. However, I very much hope that we will have an opportunity to consider it in Committee, rather than at a later stage.
  Mr. George Osborne: On the point about the written word, may I caution my hon. Friend that it is a quagmire? In previous generations, people have been dragged into debates about works of literature, such as "Lolita", or works that do not quite qualify as literature, such as those by the Marquis de Sade, and Parliament should not be drawn down that avenue again.
  Mr. Grieve: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's remarks, and I hope that he noted from my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley that I saw the issue as a possible quagmire, which is why the Home Secretary was not preparing to venture into it. I would probably be happy if he were simply to venture into what is already a bit of a quagmire: the visual image, which already goes much further than taking photographs of under-age children. In fact, it involves images of children who do not exist and are simply the concoction of the imagination. If the Home Secretary thinks that that is a real issue because of the information and evidence that he has been given by experts in the field, the House will have to consider it, and we will provide such assistance as we can in doing so.
  I am sure that other parts of the Bill will need to be considered carefully. I have never been involved with a Bill that has attracted more flyers from nongovernmental bodies and other organisations on a host of issues, some of which are very interesting, but probably rather peripheral to the matters under consideration, although they may be very worthy. I will certainly try to take up those that appear to be relevant during the consideration of the Bill.
  The Home Secretary is to be commended greatly for taking on a difficult task that has certainly been ducked previously. I very much hope that, given the huge measure of agreement on both sides of the House, we can ensure that the Bill leaves the House in very good order.
  3.19 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am very grateful to have the chance to speak in the debate on this very important Bill, which deals with some very sensitive

  197
  issues that bridge the generation gap and involve changing attitudes to sex and personal relations, which is perhaps partly why the Bill also runs into some difficulties. The Bill includes some welcome and important safeguards for some of the most vulnerable people and updates legislation to deal with new criminal activities, particularly in relation to internet crime, which will surely become increasingly important in the coming years. Some formidable measures are needed to tackle that.
  I also welcome very much the range of measures to provide further safeguards for children. Jason Swift, who was one of the unfortunate victims of a notorious paedophile ring some years ago, originally came from my constituency. His family have campaigned vigorously over the years for improvements to the protection of children and had some contact with the Home Office in the preparation of some of this legislation. I very much welcome, too, the changes to honest belief as a defence for rape and the need for this belief to be reasonable, for which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) has also campaigned strongly, both outside and inside Parliament.
  My comments will be focused, however, on clauses 61 to 63 on trafficking, and on the clauses on child pornography and prostitution. Trafficking issues get less attention in the Bill, but from my experience as a constituency MP, and from looking at some of the international development issues, it is a problem that is considerably more extensive than we often assume. That also means that we must consider more protections for the victims of trafficking, particularly children, and perhaps some tighter legal safeguards to protect children from trafficking than are included in this legislation.
  In my constituency, there has been a trafficking problem in relation to both women and children. At one of my first advice surgeries after I was elected, people came to complain to me about a couple of massage parlours—they put it more bluntly, and said that they were brothels. Among their complaints was that the Thai women working there had been brought over specifically for the purpose of working in the sex trade, and that they were being kept against their will, and so it turned out when the police finally took action and found that the brothels were at the centre of a big international network in trafficking women for the sex trade.
  Since then, I have also had to deal with a number of children who have been brought into the country on a financial basis—whether it is people smuggling or trafficking depends partly on the definition, and is probably debatable. Some of the children have been exceptionally vulnerable, and I have had great fears about the level of protection provided for them and what has subsequently happened to them. One of them was almost certainly trafficked for domestic work, and that is one of the areas in which this legislation needs tightening up. Others have told me some information about how they came here—brought in by agents, with documents shown at passport control, being handed over to other agents and then brought up to Northampton. Because the children are with adults—albeit not their parents—they are not taken into social
  198
  service care, nor given what I would regard as adequate protection. What will happen to them I do not know, but I would have thought that at the very least they are vulnerable to being used or abused, or if circumstances change, of finding themselves in a worse position.
  To give an idea of the numbers, over the past year I have dealt with about 10 children who fall into this category, from southern and east Africa. South Asia is also a major area of concern in relation to trafficking and child pornography. The legislation will certainly help with some of those areas of concern. When I was in Cambodia earlier this year, I had the opportunity to speak to people who were trying to combat the growth of trafficking in children for prostitution and pornography, especially for internet porn, and some of the information was horrific. Children were being sold—and, sometimes, rescued, returned to their parents and resold by them—for as little as $20 into paedophile rings that included men from Europe and the UK, with the children being used to produce internet porn.
  To make matters worse, efforts to counter the trade were often undermined by official corruption. I want to pay tribute to the heroic work being undertaken in Cambodia by the non-governmental organisations and by our UK ambassador to strengthen the resolve of the Cambodian Government to deal with the problems, as well as to provide practical help and support for the victims. I am sure that this legislation will also be of great support and use to them in their work.
  Researchers into the subject of child trafficking find it very hard to determine precise numbers. Staff at the high commission in Lagos have estimated that they have detected more than 200 cases of possible child trafficking, and there are estimates of up to 10,000 unaccompanied minors in the UK. Home Office research found that in 1998 up to 1,400 women were trafficked for sexual exploitation. Some recent research done by ECPAT—the organisation that campaigns to end child prostitution and trafficking—found that trafficking had moved outside the big cities and the south-east where the authorities are more aware of the problem. My experiences as a constituency MP would certainly support that, and I completely agree with their conclusions about the need for more active support for the victims throughout the country.
  That brings me to my second point, which is about support services for the victims, to support the excellent provisions of this Bill, and to make sure that those are made a reality for some of these very vulnerable children. I am sure that some of my colleagues will want to talk about the need for the safe house in West Sussex. I also feel, however, that there is a real need for protection and support throughout the country. That means ensuring that there is a legal framework for the provision. Many of the children—and, I suspect, the women—who are trafficked do not have proper immigration status here. My experience has been that while existing legislation can be used to provide support, even for those without status, it is incredibly difficult to get local authorities to recognise the needs of these children and their responsibilities for providing for them. There is also the problem that the children are treated as asylum cases, rather than child protection cases, which makes a difference to the way they are treated. They are sometimes joined to the asylum

  199
  applications of adults, which means that they are not assessed in their own right and on the basis of their own needs.
  Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that clear cases exist in which asylum legislation and the threat of removal under that legislation can empower the trafficker and give them a greater hold over the adult or child whom they have trafficked?
  Ms Keeble: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I was going to deal with that point later in my remarks.
  The system is perhaps not intended to work in that way, but it often does at the practical level. In preparing for the implementation of this legislation, will Ministers give some very careful consideration to the support for victims? I see that the Home Office, as is mentioned in the background documentation for today's debate, has a working party on unaccompanied children, and perhaps this matter, including trying to capture information and scope the size of the problem, can be dealt with by that group, as the problems of unaccompanied and trafficked children blur at the edges.
  It would also be helpful if clear guidelines were sent to local authorities, so that they knew what to do. At present, the only realistic way to get access to the support that should be provided under the Children Act 1989 is to go to court. However, the victims are the least likely to do that, so in many cases nothing happens.
  I also want to deal with areas in which the Bill's provisions, excellent though they are, could be improved. One is the provision of a statutory reflection period, which is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). It was also raised in the other place. If we are seriously to deal with trafficking, we need to be able to prosecute the traffickers. That is difficult, not least because of the vulnerability of the victims and their unwillingness immediately to give information. Indeed, there are sometimes difficulties in trying to get information from them, given differences of language and culture.
  In the example of the Thai massage parlours in my constituency, Northamptonshire police did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances, as there were problems with getting evidence once the women had been dispersed, or in some cases deported. These rings are often enormously sophisticated, and the resources that we are able to pit against them are quite small in terms of numbers. Also, I cannot think of how it would be possible to get information from children who are trafficked without providing good time to build their confidence and to win their trust.
  I see that a reflection period forms part of a Home Office pilot project, and verbal assurances have been given on deportations in cases of trafficking. That needs to be clearly set out in the legal framework or there could be inconsistency in practice. That could set back the efforts to deal with this pernicious problem.
  The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) took up the point that there should be differentiation between the trafficking of adults and of children. I have seen the record from the other place, where the argument against that involved the penalty. To pick up the hon.
  200
  Gentleman's point and considering the other offences dealt with in the Bill, there are differences between offences committed against adults and those against children. There will be an inconsistency if the same distinctions are not drawn in relation to trafficking. I would argue that the age or youth of the person trafficked should be an aggravating factor, and it should influence how the offence is regarded and the offender treated. I hope that the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already given will make it possible to deal with that issue. I urge the Government to draw differences between the trafficking of children and of adults.
  Also, I see that trafficking is confined to that for sexual exploitation. I realise, of course, that the Bill relates to sexual offences, but it appears that some trafficking is for other purposes, in particular domestic work or, to be more honest, slavery. Some trafficking involves financial exploitation in the form of charges and benefits. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider some of those other purposes and whether it might be possible to provide protection for people, especially children, who are the victims of such trafficking?
  Whatever shape the Bill ends up in, it will be a huge improvement on the situation now. It will strengthen the arm of those who seek to end the trafficking and exploitation of some vulnerable people, and it represents a huge step forward in protecting some extremely vulnerable children from sexual crimes that have shocked us all over past decades. I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.
  3.33 pm
  Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I hope she will allow me to call her my hon. Friend, given our previous lives when she was leader of Southwark council. We always co-operated strongly, in spite of our party differences. She is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that we are dealing, for the first time in sexual offences legislation, not only with the domestic position and domestic law, but with the terrible abuse and exploitation that can happen internationally. Those can be dealt with quite effectively by domestic legislation, as long as there is collaboration across boundaries.
  There is a blunt truth: people who 50 years ago would have made their money from armed robbery, 30 years ago would have made their money from pornography in its early days, and 10 or 20 years ago would have made their money from drugs, have decided that there is money to be made from exploiting people. They are completely ruthless and reckless in the harm that they can cause. It is important that we address that issue in this context, and the debate has given us a welcome opportunity to do so.
  The Minister will have the task of steering this somewhat complex legislation through consideration in Committee. Mercifully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said to me, he will do so without some of the heat that, apparently, was generated in the House of Lords over many a long day and night.
  I say to the Minister that we pay tribute to the fact that before the last election, when the present Foreign Secretary was the Home Secretary, the Labour

  201
  Government grasped a nettle that needed to be grasped by saying that the sexual offences laws of this country needed to be reformed. The laws had been effectively untouched by a full review since the 1950s and some pieces of legislation dated back to earlier than that. A thorough reform was needed, although it was always thought that that would be difficult and controversial.
  Vera Baird: Should not the Government also be commended on their earlier step in 1999 to abolish the admissibility of previous sexual history to show consent during rape trials?
  Simon Hughes: Yes. The Government faced up to the need to take the files off the shelf in the Home Office and established the "Setting the Boundaries" review in 1999. They appointed good people to the review body, and the report, which formed the basis of the Bill, was completed after substantial work. The wide-ranging report tried to suggest up-to-date law that would be much clearer than before and non-discriminatory. This country had never before recognised that much of the existing law had been based on prejudices and assumptions that dated back to Victorian ages when, for example, the monarch did not believe that women could have same-sex relationships, so such relationships were never referred to. It was decided that the law needed to be brought up to date, and we should all be grateful for that.
  I pay tribute to Members of the House of Lords who laboured long and hard on the Bill, especially our colleagues Lord Thomas of Gresford and Baroness Walmsley. The Home Secretary said that the Bill was a long time in the making—it was certainly a long time in the Lords. After hearing and reading several of the debates, one discovered that people such as Lady Saltoun of Abernethy appeared to have an unusual interest in such legislation—far be it for me to comment on whether she also has unusual expertise. The Bill seemed to preoccupy Members of the House of Lords, but they grasped several difficult nettles and managed to tease out answers that have led to a greater consensus. There is much more consensus on the Bill now than there was when it started its passage. The Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have added sensible recommendations.
  The Bill deals with four types of protection in particular: the protection of children; the protection of vulnerable adults, especially those with mental disorders or learning difficulties; the protection of all individuals who might be the target of unwarranted sexual approaches; and the protection of the public. I hope that we all share the view of the public at large that those who abuse children, young people and the vulnerable are, in colloquial terms, sad and sick individuals whose violence and perversion is revolting to society. We must protect the vulnerable against such people's activities. They are often in need of help and treatment, but none the less their actions must be minimised and people must be protected against them at all costs.
  It has not yet been said that sexual abuse happens most often in the broader family context. It is next most likely to happen among people who know each other. Sexual abuse is least frequent among people who have
  202
  never previously had contact. Unless we understand that fact, we fail to grasp the difficulty of dealing with the problem. Most such activity occurs between people who know each other all too well, not between people who have never met.
  The Home Affairs Committee identified the controversial issues of how rape should be defined, what protection should be given to a defendant and how consent should be defined. There is a question of what we should do about the controversial issue of exposure, including activities that should be permitted and when people should be allowed to walk around without clothes on. Thankfully, we have got rid of the nonsense of convicting people of an offence because someone under 16 has seen them walking around at home with no clothes on. Mercifully, that has been sorted out.
  Protecting children involves orders and registers, and we must ensure that offenders abroad are registered here. There is general agreement that the issue of the day—grooming for sexual purposes—should be an offence. That is welcome. There is, however, the caveat that we should not imply the commission of a further offence just because of a grooming prelude.
  The final general issue is that of anonymity, which is the most difficult general problem that we still face. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) alluded to that.
  I shall go into detail on only one aspect of the second tier of issues. We have to try to win the Home Secretary's magnum or flagon of champagne—I expected it to be bitter. It is nonsense that we criminalise young people between 13 and 16 for what may be minimal sexual activity that is not of a predatory nature—when it is effectively consensual—and is part of the natural process of an adolescent growing up. We all have to sort that out. There are enough crimes on the statute book and enough people criminalised without adding to it. Let us not be prudish and old fashioned. Throughout the history of the world, teenagers have explored themselves and each other, and that will continue. There is all the difference in the world between that and ensuring that activity with under-13s is unacceptable. That is what the Bill says, which is a good thing. There is no defence or excuse for interfering with under-13s. We should be clear that that is understood outside this place. That is why the event reported today, if it is true, of an adult running away with a child who is under 13 is serious and needs to be brought to a quick and satisfactory conclusion.
  Liberal Democrats share the view that we are right to be clear about the need to deal with abuses of positions of trust. That has never been clear before. It does not matter who abuses that trust—whether it is the sports coach and a person in the team, the teacher and a person in the class, the priest and a person in the church, or the voluntary sector leader and a person in the group. That abuse is wrong and the relationship must not be taken beyond what is acceptable. We welcome the fact that the Bill picks up on that and tries to extend the principle to the abuse of people through prostitution and pornography.
  I pay tribute to those who do the unglamorous work of tracking down people who commit such offences. In my previous life, I was involved in prosecutions on behalf of the police of people involved in those offences.

  203
  It is a gruesome, unpleasant and sordid business. Police officers will often only do it for a couple of years before going on to other work because they cannot stand the grotesque horror of it. However, it is important that it is done. The charities and the voluntary sector that help with it are extremely valuable.
  On another point, I have a friend who has an adult daughter with learning difficulties. The mere fact of a child having learning difficulties does not mean that he or she should not have physical relationships with other people, although there used to be that presumption. I remember my friend telling me that when she was looking at a residential centre for her daughter, the person who ran it said, "Don't worry, Mrs. So-and-So, we'll make sure that your daughter doesn't get up to any hanky-panky", to which she said, "In that case, she's not coming, because I want her to live a full and fulfilled life Like everyone else." It is important not to say that people with a mental disorder or learning difficulties should be precluded from normal sexual activity. The Bill is about riot exploiting people; it is not about forbidding them from having a natural and normal life.
  I told the Home Secretary that we needed to ensure that information is shared across continents and borders so that those who abuse in one country cannot get away with moving somewhere else.
  It is important to get the rape issue right, not just because it is the most serious offence and the conviction rate is inadequate, but because it goes before a jury. I hope that that way of trying someone will be supported and upheld by the House of Lords when it considers the Criminal Justice Bill today. We must not change the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial just because of the sort of offence. That is why people laboured so hard to get the definition right, and I pay tribute to them. It may not be perfect, but the combination of clause 1 and clauses 76 and 77 is much clearer and will allow juries to receive much clearer guidance.
  The best way in which to deal with a high level of acquittals is to try to grasp the nettle of anonymity. There should not be party views on the issue. The argument for the anonymity of the defendant, the complainant or the witness is that it is less damaging if identity is not revealed. Even though a defendant may be acquitted, the reputation gained does not go away. We can all think without much prompting of television personalities and people in the arts, sports or public life who, as a result of an unproven allegation, have not escaped from under a black cloud for many years. Alternatively, there is the argument that, as a result of a trial and those participating being in the public eye, other people come forward having realised that they ought to say something too and that others should be convicted.
  The biggest danger is the press abusing its position. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I have been to see Ministers to say that we must prevent the publication of stories about prospective defendants—such stories are often leaked by the police—that take over the tabloids in particular and mean that there can be no fair trial. There have been some crude examples of that over the past year. I therefore hope that we can agree on provisions that offer
  204
  protection from such exploitation. The issue goes wider than sex offences, although such cases are often the most vulnerable in that respect.
  My preference is that we adopt the proposal of the Home Affairs Committee: from the moment of arrest at the latest to the moment of charge, anonymity rules should apply for all parties. After that, they should not, but the courts should be able to receive applications in either direction. A court should be able to agree to a request for the continuing anonymity of a defendant, witness or complainant, or it could decide, on receiving an application setting out why it is not in the public interest to apply the anonymity rule, that there is a good case for not doing so.
  In the light of much constituency experience, I know that it is equally important that witnesses—not necessarily the complainant—receive the same protection, as they will often not come forward when they could substantiate a case because of the public embarrassment of doing so. The case might relate to a professional colleague or someone in the same family. We must bring everyone within such a remit.
  I repeat that convicting for grooming for sexual purposes is fine, but we must not presume that that means that people have committed the intended offence. The intended offence must be separately proved; presumption is not enough.
  I want to say a word about naturists. I do not know how many there are, but they have been making a lot of noise over recent months. Some of us accept that for many people nudity is not beautiful, although for others it is—all power to them and long may they celebrate it. I hope that we have struck the right balance in allowing people who want to walk around with nothing on to do so without prosecution while respecting that on some occasions that causes some people difficulty.
  That brings me to the protection of the public. I hope that we have reached a common-sense solution. If one goes behind the sixth hillock with somebody on a warm, summer afternoon, it is not the job of the state to send people in blue to find them and prosecute. If one goes behind the 28th sand dune on the left on the east English coast on a rare warm, summer day, that is not the business of the state either. However, places such as public conveniences, which are meant to be used by the public, should not be no-go areas for the citizens of this country when they need to use them for the purpose for which they were intended. That is not a sexist, homophobic or anti-gay point—public conveniences are meant to be safe places, but often they are taken over and have become thoroughly unpleasant places. When the Bill has completed its passage, there should be a sign on each one saying that they are to be used for the purposes for which they were intended, and other activity will be dealt with. I hope that we proceed by the means of public order legislation, which would be a better way of tackling the problem than sexual offences legislation.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Romsey have volunteered to serve as Liberal Democrat members of the Committee considering this difficult Bill. In Committee, they will not be able to secure the provision of better treatment for people whose mental and psychological problems lead to sex offences, so that is a

  205
  battle that we must continue to fight elsewhere. Providing centres to treat people with such disorientations is just about the least popular cause in the country, but it has to be addressed. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friends will try to make sure, along with me and all our colleagues in the House, that we end up with a Bill that is modern, non-discriminatory, clear, enforceable and effective. I think that that is within our grasp, and it is a prize well worth attaining.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I find myself in the unusual position of welcoming a Home Office Bill—I have not been too happy with the last two or three Home Office Bills that I have spoken about. The Bill deals with some difficult areas but, as we have already seen in our debate, there is a lot of general agreement about its direction. It is now a question of looking at the detail and getting it right.
  I want to say something about the provisions on trafficking but, before I do so, I will comment on what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said about the difficult argument about anonymity in rape cases. I do not think that anyone is now arguing that there should not be anonymity for the complainant. The need for such anonymity has been generally accepted for some time, as it encourages reporting. We know about failure rates in the system and the low rate of conviction, but should the defendant have the right to anonymity? I believe that the Bill as it stands goes too far—we ought to look at what happens before a charge is made, not after. What the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said about publicity is the key to the problem. It is often the police who pass information on. The News of the World discovers that a particular individual is being taken to a particular police station on a particular day because it has been told by someone in the police force, who has probably done it for a fairly small amount of money. Money often changes hands when such information is passed on, and we have to look at ways of dealing with that through the police service and the press, rather than start to extend anonymity provisions, as the amendment in the Lords has done.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman may be gratified to hear that most of the senior policemen I have talked to would back what he is saying, as they have had many a case destroyed by publicity. If they could catch the individuals who have released that information to the papers they would be gratified and there would be heavy repercussions.
  Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that is right. There can be nothing more frustrating for a senior policeman who has been investigating a case than to have it damaged or destroyed by someone leaking what is happening.
  The question of trafficking was addressed my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), and I shall try not to repeat what she said. I have been interested in the subject for some time, as there are links with the smuggling that goes on in immigration and asylum cases, which are one of my major areas of interest. Two or three years ago, like a
  206
  number of other hon. Members, I took part in the parliamentary police scheme, and spent a little time with the Chinese unit and the vice unit in the Metropolitan police. It was interesting to hear what police officers, particularly those in the Chinese unit, had to say about the amount of smuggling and trafficking of people that was going on.
  There is a distinction between smuggling and trafficking, as the Government now recognise. If someone who is trying to get into the country for immigration purposes or to work illegally pays someone to bring them here, it is almost a commercial transaction. They pay to be brought in and that is the end of the business, whereas trafficking is quite different and ends up with people being exploited when they get into the country. It is a modern form of slavery, involving debt bondage—debts that they can never pay off, and perhaps with a family back in the country of origin still paying off a debt.
  As the Bill deals with sexual offences, I understand why it refers to trafficking for sexual exploitation, but I hope we will not lose sight of the fact that a considerable amount of trafficking goes on for labour purposes. That involves not only children, but adults, and it is not just for domestic service. There are other areas, especially in some service industries, where a significant amount of trafficking for labour purposes goes on. That is just as bad as trafficking of the sort addressed by the Bill.
  Many of the people—certainly, many of the adults—who have been trafficked may well come to the UK thinking that they are going to work in a legitimate job. They may even come knowing full well that they are going to work in the sex business. People are told that they can earn good money working in a club, in a strip club or as a prostitute, but they may not understand what is really going to happen to them when they get here.
  Some poor countries—for example, Thailand—have an indigenous sex industry. I recently saw it suggested that because of the extent of the sex industry in Bangkok, the amount of money sent back to poor families in the rural areas of Thailand by women working in the sex industry in Bangkok exceeds any Government aid to those areas. Working in the sex trade is almost an accepted way of getting some money to the family, so we can understand how somebody might think, "If I could go to London, I could make a lot of money", but when they get here, they find that they are not making any money at all and are virtual slaves.
  It is probably as profitable a criminal activity internationally to traffick people as to deal in drugs. There is not a huge amount of hard evidence about what is happening in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North mentioned the ECPAT study and the study that was reported in the police research paper published in 2000. Those papers suggested that there might be 1,500 women a year being trafficked into the UK to work in prostitution. The police research paper reported on a check carried out by police on 50 flats in Soho. In those 50 flats, the majority of the women were migrants—125 of the 148 women were from the Balkans, mostly from Albania. There is clearly organisation there. Very few English women now work in the flats in Soho. The work has been taken over.

  207
  Although some of those women may not have been trafficked, there is little doubt that a significant number would have been.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is right—the key to dealing with the problem is not just introducing legislation that imposes penalties, but making that legislation work. We will make it work only if the people who have been trafficked are genuinely regarded as victims and are given the support that they need to be prepared to give evidence. The pilot scheme is under way and it has Home Office funding. I think that it has 11 places for women who have been trafficked. That is a small number, but it is a beginning. West Sussex social services have been running a safe house specifically for child victims. We have got to get the links with our policies on removal and asylum right. If the message that goes out to victims is, "If the police find you, you will be deported," it is highly unlikely that many of them will be willing to risk giving evidence. Deporting somebody may mean that they go back to the people who trafficked them in the first place and fall back into risk.
  I know that some work has been done, particularly through the Metropolitan police, to look at ways of getting more evidence for prosecutions through intelligence gathering. We need to encourage such work and put more effort in so that cases do not depend so much on individuals being prepared to act as witnesses. There are other information sources, but there is no question but that a lot of police forces do not give much attention to them. They do not have much knowledge and experience in such things and assume that they do not happen in their area. Northampton is a good example; it is clear that not only London is affected and that such activities could be happening anywhere in the country.
  Furthermore, if we are going to make the legislation work, we will undoubtedly need prevention campaigns in countries of origin. In many cases, countries of origin are poor and countries of reception, such as the UK, are rich. The reason why trafficking operates in that direction is obvious. The movement is not always from poor to rich, but that is very often the case.
  I am pleased that we have made progress. It was back in 2000 that we signed the European Union protocol stating that we would introduce legislation on trafficking. We have got to make the arrangements work and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how we can extend them into the areas that the Bill does not cover.
  I wish to raise two other issues of concern. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred to people who are on the sex offenders register in respect of acts that are no longer an offence. For example, a gay man who was convicted for involvement in sexual activity with a 17-year-old will have ended up on the register. I understand the difficulties that are involved in dealing with this issue. At the time of conviction, there may not have been much questioning a s to whether an act was consensual if it was an offence anyway. The Home Office may have reservations about taking people off the sex offenders register when the act was not consensual—a matter that might not be easy to distinguish. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) follows my point. If the offence was involvement in sexual activity with someone under
  208
  18, the court may not have concerned itself with the issue of consent. Nevertheless, even if we cannot agree to an amendment that wipes people off the register, I hope that we can consider mechanisms enabling people to apply for removal and put forward the facts of their case.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, not least because I have not been present in the Chamber for most of the debate, although I have seen it on television. He is making a very important point. Does he share the belief of many people that taking some of the names off the register will make it a more reliable source of information in the hands of the police and local communities?
  Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. I understand the logic of the argument that we cannot retrospectively remove an offence. If somebody committed an act that was illegal, the conviction cannot be wiped off the slate. However, it is clear that if somebody is not a danger, it is pointless to include them on a register that will be used to check whether a person is a danger.
  The other point about the sex offenders register that concerns me somewhat is that it is possible that somebody's name could be put on the register when they have merely been cautioned for an offence. If the police did not regard what was happening as serious enough to merit a charge, there is a question mark over whether that person should appear on the register.
  Ms Debra Shipley: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I was unable to attend earlier. As he knows, because he took part in that debate, I was responsible for the Protection of Children Act 1999. So-called soft information was to be put on to the register because otherwise young people would be at risk and because it gave the opportunity to check for more information. The reason for keeping somebody who has been a convicted offender on the register for ever is that if they had made a serious sexual attack on a child, say, 20 years ago, they may well offend again, and the law should not permit them to do so.
  Mr. Gerrard: I have no difference of view about somebody who has attacked a child—that person is on the register and should stay there. Rather, I am concerned about a relatively small number of cases involving particularly people who, as a result of the change in the age of consent, would not now be regarded as having committed an offence.
  Clauses 121 to 127, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), could have wide implications. The police can apply for a risk of sexual harm order on the grounds that the defendant has, on at least two occasions, committed one of a number of acts. One of those acts is to give a child anything that relates to sexual activity, which, as the notes to the Bill state, could include a condom. We should remember that a child is defined in this context as someone who is under 16. I can imagine that in a number of situations a person might feel that it was in the best interests of a child of that age to give them a condom. This part of the Bill allows orders to be issued against someone who has not been convicted of anything. When it becomes known that a person has had a risk of sexual harm order placed

  209
  on them, they will find it almost as bad as having had a conviction, because they will still be seen as a paedophile. One of the arguments about anonymity in rape cases is that people say that there is no smoke without fire—that if a person has been charged, there must be something to it. That argument applies at least equally strongly in this case.
  It might be argued that the police and courts will not apply for orders on trivial grounds—although I can think of one or two ex-chief constables whom I would not have trusted not to do so—but we should not afford them that opportunity. I hope that when we reach this part of the Bill in Committee we can debate an amendment or, at the very least, ensure that the guidance that goes to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service makes it absolutely clear what sorts of cases the provision should be used for. It has the potential to catch a very wide range of activities, at least some of which most people would not regard as problematic.
  Overall, the Bill makes considerable progress. It reforms the law on some difficult subjects in a way that receives broad consent. That is an achievement and I hope that we can sort out the problems in Committee and end with a measure that will work.
  4.10 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). If he serves on the Committee, I hope that he will accept an offer that I have already extended from Detective Chief Inspector Sarti of the paedophile unit at Scotland Yard to attend a brief teach-in. I have spoken to a Home Office Minister about the subject and she believes that it is a good idea.
  The hon. Member for Walthamstow is right that there are problems, but we need to know where the taskforce came from to understand how it reached its current position, so that if the Committee wants to improve on its suggestions, it does not lose sight of the objective.
  The Bill is unusual for several reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, most people who examine the measure—including some of my constituents who knew that I aimed to speak about it—become squeamish and are horrified. The attendance in the Chamber suggests that everybody supports the Bill and wants something to be done, but no one wants to read about it in the newspapers or get too close to the issues.
  The second rarity is the considerable co-operation between members of all parties who show an interest in the Bill. When the White Paper was announced, the Home Secretary asked for co-operation, and I asked for it to be two-way. To a great extent, that has happened in the other place and I hope that that continues in Committee and on Report here.
  We have a rare opportunity that we must not miss. It has taken a long time to introduce such a Bill and I suspect that there will be no similar measure for a long time. We have an opportunity to take pre-emptive action in the Bill. The police have been considering some of the changes, especially those in IT, for a long time. Whatever we think of paedophiles, they are not thick. I
  210
  watched an interview of a paedophile under treatment who was a rocket scientist. His understanding of IT and opportunities to use it to confound the police were considerable.
  I shall restrict my comments to the provisions that deal with sexual offences against children and with those commonly known as paedophiles. Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow, I did the police parliamentary course in 1999–2000. I was lucky enough to do it with the Metropolitan Police Authority, which covered everything, such as fast cars, guns, criminal intelligence, kidnapping and police dogs. That was all immensely instructive. However, I was scarred by the day I visited the paedophile unit. I did not know that individuals with such incredible desires existed. I did not have the benefit—if that is the right word—of being a barrister and of having practised in the courts. I am surrounded by members of the legal profession again today. I was stunned by the information on the internet, the links through it and paedophiles' use of it to stimulate their activities. I was shocked that the paedophile information exchange used it to stimulate other activities and that members of such organisations frequently required "fresh", as they put it, photographs. That meant the abuse of yet another child or children to produce them. I could barely imagine the harm that was done to children. Some photographs and films are of children who are young enough to wear nappies.
  The police's conservative estimate is that there are approximately 230,000 active paedophiles in the country—one for every street. They also estimate that one in nine are female. Rose West and Myra Hindley are the best known examples. Public interest was stimulated by three brave programmes that BBC 2 broadcast. Those who cared to watch or could stand watching them found that the practice had gone on for many years. I remember some of the interviewees saying that, as children—they were now grandparents—they could remember seeing men with cameras at the swimming pool photographing the kids. This has been going on for years. The first two programmes focused on one particular group of paedophiles who had been grooming—engaging in "the hobby", as they put it—since 1957. That gives us an idea of how many children those four or five men must have damaged.
  The other thing that stood out in the programmes was the fact that many paedophiles need to record their activities. They do so—for their own use—using the written word, photographs, tape recordings, videos, computers, CD-ROMs and, latterly, DVDs. Of course, what they are recording is the abuse of children, and if anyone has any doubt about that, they should watch the third programme that the BBC put out, which was quite startling and really thumped home what these people were recording. I will not go into details, because there is no watershed here and we must remember that there are people in the Strangers Gallery.
  My reaction was to ask the police why, if they knew about all these individuals, more of them were not put away. They said that they needed changes in the law, and that they had been told that such changes were coming. I decided, along with an American researcher, Michael Hansen, who is now a law student in the US, to get stuck into seeing what was being done here and in the

  211
  rest of the world. We used the internet and talked to people in a large number of places including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
  Under the aegis of the Conservative Front Bench, I then introduced a number of new clauses when the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill was being considered on Report. I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who was then a Minister of State at the Home Office, was very positive about my proposals. That was not really a surprise, as he is a family man and a Methodist. I thought that his reaction was quite normal. Some of the proposals that were put forward in another place were accepted, but there was also an acceptance that these matters would be looked at in this Bill. Many of them have been. It is vitally important—we need to remember this in Committee—that it was recognised that we should be proactive rather than reactive in these matters, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention. If we are reactive, a child—if not more than one—has already been damaged.
  I also had the pleasure of being put on the taskforce, on which some really imaginative proactive thinking took place. The core legal changes on internet grooming are down to that group, which contained everyone across the range including the police, the NSPCC and many other organisations that are deeply concerned with freedoms and rights. What came out of those deliberations was an amalgam, and we need to remember that when we consider the Bill in Committee.
  I have been talking recently to some Americans who were over here for a case led by Valeria Spencer, an assistant attorney at the United States Department of Justice. They are watching what we are doing in the Bill with considerable interest. This morning, the "Today" programme took a shot—as is its wont—at the Bill, suggesting that it is all very well us doing this here, but that the internet is international. I was sorry that I could not ring up and intervene. The Bill is being considered right across the world, and many other countries that are looking into these matters are watching to see what happens here. If this legislation works—and I think it will—they will adopt such measures themselves. Equally, there are one or two things being done in other countries that we ought to seize the opportunity to consider in Committee.
  I say that because I believe that this is a one-off chance. In Committee and on Report, we shall discuss a number of difficulties that my hon. Friends and Labour Members have already touched on. For a change, that will be done in the right atmosphere. Our deliberations will not be aggressive, and they will provide an opportunity to make a real change, bearing in mind that it will be our last chance to do so for a number of years.
  The issue that I really want to touch on in Committee is encryption. The taskforce and the Home Secretary know that I have an interest in this. Technology is moving very fast, and the paedophile internet exchange group had a ringleader who dodged prosecution because the police could not break the encryption on his disk. It was a fairly simple form of encryption bought for about $50 in the United States, but it could not be broken by the police or the security forces. An approach was made in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to change that. Unfortunately, that aspect of the legislation was not implemented and it would be
  212
  inappropriate, sadly, to apply it to paedophiles or abuses against children. I hope that we can now start to examine the problem further.
  In the United States a considerable amount of child porn is sold encrypted on DVDs and CD-ROMs. Much of it comes from Russia, but the police cannot break into it. If it is bought by individuals and put on their computer files—the material may appear from the outside to be about Robin Hood and his merry men—until the encryption code is obtained, access to it cannot be gained. Paedophiles previously recorded their activities on video, but they now use DVDs and CD-ROMs in encrypted form. Often the opportunity for the police to nail individuals for some absolutely horrendous crimes—they could do it before, because videos could not be encrypted—is no longer there. We will find it very difficult indeed to deal with that obstacle.
  The Home Secretary said that much could be done beyond the Bill, and he is absolutely right. Much has already been done—by the Home Office taskforce, organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and by the Metropolitan police, in conjunction with Crimestoppers. An effective interactive programme has been developed to take into schools for the appropriate age groups, and it will be polished up and developed. It engages the children in internet activities, explains their importance, but also brings in warnings. The children are brought into what they believe is a chat room, but next door there is really a large and ugly policeman who is typing in the name of Alice or some other name. The children react to it; they give their telephone numbers and addresses; a meet is arranged. The children all fall into that, but of course the mobile telephone of one of the children in the room then rings, the door opens, and the biggest, ugliest, tallest, largest Metropolitan policeman who can be found enters the room declaring that he is Alice. It brings the message home to the children.
  We will have to follow this matter up and reflect further on it, but what often happens is that the children start to talk to their teachers or the police about their experiences. Many children have already had them, though their parents do not know it and the children have often not told anyone else. If this form of education can continue and develop, we can move on through Crimestoppers to the police, who can then take action. I suspect that the public and perhaps even the police are unaware of the extent to which such internet grooming goes on.
  I welcome the Bill; I welcome the fact that it is nonpartisan, and I hope that we can keep it that way. I also hope that we do not do what The Economist did in a recent article on child porn—forget that for every single photograph of a child, a child has been abused. I hope that the author of that article thinks a little further. How would he have felt if a photograph of him or his mother, son or daughter had been put on the internet for ever? I welcome the fact that the Bill will be dealt with in Committee with an open mind. I hope that we make the most of our limited opportunity, and that we are proactive and think forward—particularly in respect of the internet and information technology.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is good to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate, particularly to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who made such an effective and serious contribution. We have all been informed, instructed—and, indeed, shocked—by what he had to say.
  I do not think that the Bill's importance can be overstated. I am sure that all of us acknowledge that sexual abuse can have the most devastating consequences, and that it can undermine and destroy people's lives.
  The Bill is important in another way. It covers areas of law and policy that are complex and sensitive, and which test a difficult area—the shifting balance between private lives and the proper concerns of Government. The problems are especially acute for young people at different ages and levels of maturity, who are bound to test the boundaries set for them by concerned parents and by Governments.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), in recent years I have sometimes criticised the Government and the Home Office for legislating in haste, but it is clear that the care, thought, discussion and listening that have gone into the Home Office review of sexual offences and the White Paper were carried on in the debate in another place. On the evidence of today, that process will continue in this House. The rewards of that excellent consultative and participatory approach will be evident in legislation that will be thorough and well balanced.
  I commend the Government on the Bill, and look forward to its further improvement. I commend them too on their determination to protect the public from dangerous offenders, and on their courage and humanity in their approach to modernising and equalising the law on sexual offences.
  I could go on for some time about those matters, but I will confine my remarks mostly to the Bill's impact on children. I am extremely grateful to Lisa Payne and Alison Lindsay of the National Children's Bureau for their production of a child impact statement on behalf of the all-party children group.
  It is important that the Bill carries a statement by the Home Secretary to the effect that he considers its provisions to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. I look forward to the day when Governments place statements on all Bills asserting that they are compatible with the UN convention on children's rights. Legislation will be much better and more effective if we make a close assessment of the impact of proposals on the lives of children.
  I welcome the Bill's emphasis on certain issues, including the age of consent at 16. The Government have brought about the equalisation of the age of consent at 16, and I consider that to be very important. For a host of reasons connected to child protection, it is very important that we give out consistent messages about the age of consent and that we reaffirm the significance of the age of 16. I welcome the proposal to increase to life imprisonment, in certain circumstances, the sentence for people convicted of the sexual abuse of
  214
  a child. The new offence of sexual activity with a child under 16 is important, and I very much welcome the new offence of sexual grooming.
  We have seen some real progress on child prostitution. We can only estimate the scale of that problem, but I have no doubt that it is considerable. For the first time, we have a specific set of offences to deal with the commercial sexual exploitation of children, again with the most severe penalties for people who abuse children through prostitution. I also welcome the extension of legislation to children of 16 and 17. The more we recognise and reaffirm that children are children until the age of 18, the better our legislation will be.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary affirm that children who are abused through prostitution will not be liable to prosecution for any criminal offence. That is an essential child protection measure. I hope that the impact of the provision will be reviewed throughout government. I am worried that the guidance that still prevails in some parts of government reflects old legislation and the old status, when children were criminalised when they should have been protected.
  We have already heard some effective speeches on trafficking. This Bill is an opportunity for the Government to get to grips with that horrendous problem. I welcome the new offence. With other hon. Members I question the fact that no separation is being put in place between adults and children. That means that someone could be convicted of trafficking a child to this country, abusing the child and enabling others to do so, and could end up with a sentence of six months' imprisonment. That is inappropriate and needs to be tackled.
  An even bigger issue is the fact that we simply do not know the scale of trafficking in this country. In West Sussex, where much work has been done around the safe house project and with immigration authorities at Gatwick airport, we know that hundreds of children are coming through the airport, largely from west Africa, on their way here or to other European countries to be sexually abused. There is no reason to suppose that any port in the country is free from the problem. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) it crops up in places that do not have ports or airports.
  The Government need to face up to that problem. It needs to be taken out of the arena of asylum and immigration legislation and located within child protection. We need some thorough research to find out the extent of the problem; some good work on ways to deal with children who are trafficked to this country; and some effective models of good practice.
  We need to ensure that such children are not sent straight back into the hands of traffickers. When they come to the attention of the authorities in this country, they must not be simply returned to their country of origin, back into abusive situations where they might be killed. We need to ensure that they are protected in this country. That should be one of the Government's first duties.
  Although the safe house project is not the perfect model for dealing with children in such circumstances, it has done good work, yet it is under threat of closure.

  215
  There are examples of local authorities elsewhere in the country taking similar initiatives, but because they are under pressure from lack of resources and heavy work loads, they have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. The Government need to take a lead in dealing with the problem by identifying good models of practice and resourcing them effectively. Trafficking needs further consideration.
  Other Members have referred to the new offence of sexual touching and the problems that could arise in relation to mutually agreed behaviour among peers. When I attended debates on another Bill, bottles of wine were offered as a challenge to people to pronounce the names of Welsh constituencies but, so far, I have not been offered large quantities of champagne by a Secretary of State for a contribution to a Bill. It cannot be beyond the wit of the House to come up with an amendment along the lines that nothing in the Bill should criminalise behaviour that, in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person, would constitute normal adolescent experience. In reaffirming the significance of 16 as the age of consent, it behoves us all us to find a sensible way of dealing with the ordinary experiences of adolescence and mutually agreed behaviour among peers.
  The strong prohibition against any activity involving children aged under 13 is of enormous significance. In legislating for children, we face a dichotomy: they are seen as either victims or villains. If we set such store by the age of 13, we should also consider raising the age of criminal responsibility to that age, as the implication of the proposals is that we would still be criminalising the disturbed behaviour of under-l3-year-olds who abuse other children.
  We should not ignore the estimate that about a quarter of all rape victims are children, and that about a quarter of the offences against them are committed by other children. We need to address the issue thoroughly, and to deal with it therapeutically rather than by criminalising the disturbed behaviour of children who commit such offences. As has been said already, if we can deal with that behaviour at a very young age, we might be able to stop young people developing into serious offenders when they become adults.
  Using the sex offenders register for young children is not appropriate; we need to develop a range of assessment and treatment services for them. It is important that we adopt a strategic approach to children who display sexually harmful behaviour, and I very much welcome the Home Secretary's reference to establishing a ministerial committee on sex offending, which will give us the opportunity to take an holistic approach to prevention, protection and support in this very disturbing area of social policy.
  As I have said, the Bill raises issues apart from the age of consent vis-à-vis the age of criminal responsibility and children's legislation vis-à-vis asylum legislation, and we also need to adopt an holistic approach to the treatment of adult offenders. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have had the opportunity to visit a treatment centre for men who have sexually abused children. Some of them have been convicted of very serious offences against children. Some of them have recognised that their behaviour was extremely worrying and possibly extremely damaging. I found it a challenging experience to meet those people and to hear
  216
  about some of the things that they had done. I was incredibly impressed by the work done to encourage and challenge those men and to make them face up to the reality of the abuse that they had carried out.
  The Government have faced a very difficult issue, very bravely. As a society, we simply have to face up to the fact that there are a lot of sex offenders out there and that there are effective ways to deal with their behaviour, but this is a real, big issue for all hon. Members and for all those who represent communities. We need a really good network of treatment centres for people who sexually abuse others, particularly children. Until we have those centres, we will not have an holistic approach that takes in legislation and the development of a range of policies. Until we treat those people and deal with their extremely aberrant, dangerous and horrific behaviour, we cannot say that we are protecting children. I welcome the Bill; it has some way to go, but, on the whole, it is extremely positive.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: This has been one of the most constructive and interesting debates in which I have been fortunate enough to take part during the two years that I have been a Member of Parliament. That constructiveness was exemplified not only by the contribution that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but particularly by the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who obviously spoke with enormous experience and passion on the subject.
  I also commend the Home Secretary, first, for his willingness to accept most of the improvements that were introduced in the House of Lords and, secondly, for saying that he will consider some of the proposals not only from my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, but from Back Benchers. I want to restrict my remarks to the issue that I raised in an intervention during the Home Secretary's speech: child trafficking and clauses 59 to 61.
  Of course, the trafficking of human beings has gone on since the dawn of time, and has involved unimaginable human misery and suffering. These days, it usually, although not exclusively, involves women and children and a highly sophisticated and lucrative network and business that affects every country in the world. I want to pay tribute to the work of UNICEF in bringing this issue to our attention, and to its campaign and publication, "End Child Exploitation: Faces of Exploitation", which I hold up to show Members—not something that I have done before, but there is always a first time. I pay tribute in particular to Jenny Willott and her team for bringing these issues to the attention of Members of Parliament.
  As a number of Members have said, it is difficult to estimate the number of victims of trafficking, because, almost by definition, it is a clandestine activity. In 1997, the US State Department made a stab at estimating how many people were involved, and suggested 700,000. The United Nations now thinks that the figure is closer to 1.2 million, and I am delighted that UNICEF is doing more work in this area and hopes at the end of this month to

  217
  come forward with more research giving us a better idea of the scale of the problem that we face. We do not need that research to tell us, however, that it is a very serious problem. For every single victim involved, it is a human tragedy, especially when children are affected.
  As the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said in her speech—of course, she speaks with some authority on these issues—much of the trafficking about which we are talking takes place within certain regions of the world, such as west Africa, in relation to trafficking for forced labour and forced domestic service, and south-east Asia, in relation to trafficking of children and women for sexual exploitation.
  What I want to focus on—as we are most likely to have a direct impact on it—is those who are trafficked into the UK, either as an end destination or when passing through. One of the aspects of the Bill that I welcome particularly is that its scope is broad enough to catch people who are involved at all stages of the supply chain: those responsible for the feeding of people, the provision of transport and so on. That is all spelled out in the explanatory notes, which is very welcome.
  As I said, it is difficult to know how many people are involved, but there are many signs that this is a growing problem for this country. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) has already told us, whereas three years ago 85 per cent. of the sex workers in Soho were British, 85 per cent. of them now are foreign, most of them from central and eastern Europe. Some of them, of course, will be children, who are treated with a cruelty and brutality that we find difficult to comprehend, involving everything from beatings to gang rapes to enforced drug dependency. As a society, we recognise the particular heinousness of crimes when they involve children, which is what much of this Bill is about. The press release that came out when the Bill was published said that the protection of children was at its heart. That is the case, with one exception: the clauses relating to trafficking.
  That was the point that I made to the Home Secretary, because I think that those clauses are a mistake. Under the Bill as it stands, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pointed out, trafficking offences involving children could attract the lower sentence in a magistrates court of a maximum of six months imprisonment or even just a fine. That does not reflect—I probably speak for other Members in saying so—the seriousness of trafficking offences involving children. In my view, those cases should only be referred to a Crown court and should attract the higher maximum sentences set out in this legislation.
  The Home Secretary, in his response to my intervention, was incredibly positive and helpful in the sense that he said that he would look specifically at this issue and at whether a distinction should be made for offences involving children. I hope he does so. I am pleased that others who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for Northampton, North, raised that point. I hope also that the Minister, who is my constituency neighbour and a good and reasonable person, takes that issue on board. As he will probably be doing the spade work in Committee, he might address it there.
  218
  Passing the trafficking legislation, welcome though that is, will not in itself be enough. First, the legislation has to work. This is a key aspect: the child's point of entry to the UK—either an airport or elsewhere—clearly represents a critical moment, because it is almost certainly the best and often the only opportunity to rescue them from exploitation and the lifelong damage that will follow.
  It is vital that immigration officials and others who may come into contact with trafficked victims have the right training. The Home Office has set up a working group, and there is a "tool kit" and all sorts of jargon for people who are involved, but all this comes down to a simple thing—getting the right training so that our immigration officials and others can recognise vulnerable children, spot the tell-tale signs showing that a child might be being trafficked and intervene.
  As other Members have said, we must ensure that the care provided for those vulnerable children is adequate. Most are placed in ordinary social services accommodation, but they often escape or simply walk out of the door. Also, they often make contact with the person who trafficked them in the first place. That may seem strange on the face of it, but it is not. Think about it: these children are far from home and frightened. Probably the only person they know is the person who brought them into the country. Of course, they might not be aware of what is in store for them on being trafficked, so that leads them to make contact again with their trafficker, which leads to horrendous circumstances.
  Mr. Cameron: Like others, my hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on the problems of trafficking, but is not part of the problem the fact that our asylum system invites traffickers to abuse it? Although it is clearly right to tighten up the criminal law and do all the things that the Bill is doing, will it ever be possible to clamp down on trafficking of children and prostitutes while we have an asylum system that does not consider having a quota of asylum seekers coming to this country who could be processed properly nearer to their countries of origin? That would enable us to bring over to this country vulnerable people fleeing persecution, rather than leave so much of the asylum system as it is—in the hands of the traffickers.
  Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall not be drawn into a discussion of the asylum system, but, of course, he is absolutely right. Many of the criminal gangs involved in the asylum trade are also involved in the trafficking trade. Those are distinct problems, as people who use criminal gangs to seek asylum are conscious of what they are doing whereas often people being trafficked are not conscious of what is in store for them. My hon. Friend is right that we shall leave a gaping hole in the protection that we offer people who face trafficking until we tackle the abuses of the asylum system.
  We need to consider what is called a statutory period of reflection, which countries such as Sweden, Italy and the United States have pioneered. It would give victims a certain period in which they would be allowed to remain in the UK while options for their future were considered. I am talking about a period of around six months. Obviously, simply returning a child to the

  219
  country of origin places that child at tremendous risk of being re-trafficked and exploited. Indeed, the UNICEF document contains some pretty horrific case studies.
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Do not the countries that provide such extra care and a period of reflection have more successful prosecutions of traffickers?
  Mr. Osborne: The hon. Lady is exactly right because that is exactly what the evidence suggests. I do not know whether there is a direct link because the statistics perhaps show that those countries are better at handling the issues in general and are on top of the trafficking problem.
  A period of reflection would be a great advantage because it would enable us to give victims real counselling and help, which must be our first priority, and make it more likely that victims would give evidence and testify against traffickers. One of the biggest problems that the police face when dealing with the crime is finding people, who are often scared and frightened children or young women, to stand up in a court of law and give evidence against powerful criminal gangs, many of which have links with the community or village in the country from which they came. Other countries have tackled the traffickers more effectively, which has restricted the trafficking trade and caused the criminal gangs to turn their attentions elsewhere.
  I agree with what several hon. Members said and hope that the Government will introduce legislation to deal with trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation, such as forced labour and domestic service. The matter was raised in the House of Lords and the then Minister, Lord Bassam, said:
  "Work is in progress on developing an offence of trafficking for labour exploitation. As yet no legislative vehicle has been identified for taking that forward"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 222.]
  I understand that the Bill is not such a legislative vehicle and that there are pressures on fitting legislation into the Government's programme. However, I urge the Minister to address the issue, not least because we have pretty serious international obligations. We have signed the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the UN protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children—I had to write that one down although it is pretty important. The framework decision on trafficking that the European Union adopted last year compels member states to incorporate trafficking legislation in domestic law within two years.
  Let me get it absolutely straight that the Bill is a huge step in the right direction. There is an opportunity to do more and I urge the Minister to make trafficking involving children a distinct offence. If he introduces legislation to address trafficking for purposes other than sexual exploitation, he will have done a truly good job.
  4.57 pm
  Vera Baird: I congratulate the Home Secretary on a Bill that will significantly clarify and update the law on sexual offences. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who said that legislation on its own is not always the complete
  220
  answer. That is true when one considers rape. However, before I contextualise the new changes and outline what I hope the changes to rape law will bring, I congratulate the Home Secretary on the insight that underpins the new way in which the Bill defines the offence of rape.
  Rape is an important and serious problem in our society. It is thought that one in five women and a number of men suffer rape or sexual violence at some time during their lives. Although it is well understood that rape is under-reported, rape reporting is currently at an all-time high. There were 3,391 reports of rape in 1990 and the figures for 2001, which are the latest figures that I have been able to get hold of, show that there were 9,008 reports in that year. The number of reports has more than doubled and almost tripled during a decade. However, the conviction rate was 25 per cent. in 1990—no one suggested that that was too high. Given that the conviction rate was only 5.8 per cent. in 2001, I think I can say that the conviction rate has slumped.
  Last April, Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary produced a joint report on the way in which rape is investigated and prosecuted. The report said that rape was the most traumatising of offences and noted the profound impact that it has on victims' lives. It is, indeed, a travesty that so few examples of that serious offence result in a conviction. There is, of course, no deterrence in a very low conviction rate, so the changes to the law are especially important.
  However, compared with other crimes, far fewer complaints about rape get to court. There is a big dropout rate, some of which is due to women withdrawing their complaints. A lot of research confirms that part of the reason for that is that they fear that the details of previous sexual history—true or false—will be put to them. They are also worried about being asked whether they were wearing a short dress or scarlet lipstick, with the intention of showing that that licensed the attack or that they are promiscuous and not worthy of belief. As I said to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), the Government wisely and effectively sought to abolish the admissibility of previous sexual history to show consent as long ago as 1999, but it is still admissible, even as we discuss clause 1, to show that the defendant believed that the complainant was consenting.
  On the drop-out rate, there is much less point in changing the law if we cannot get women to court to sustain complaints to trial. I acknowledge that the Government have done much to get more women to court, but for clauses 1, 75 and 76—the rape-related clauses—to be effective, there is more that they should do. They have encouraged excellent police initiatives to train front-line staff to be supportive to rape complainants in a way that they were not before. Project Sapphire, run by the Metropolitan police, has an active investigation policy for rapes. As well as giving support to complainants, the key to rape convictions is to find corroborative evidence so that the deadlock of his word against hers, and vice versa, is broken. The Government have encouraged that approach through excellent initiatives.
  However, the amount of moral support and help a complainant—male or female—gets at the outset is in direct proportion to his or her ability to sustain a

  221
  complaint to prosecution and for it to be held up in court. Although that is well known, when we discuss clauses 1, 75 and 76, we will have to face the fact that four rape crisis centres have closed for want of funds in the past 18 months. If the Bill is to work, and as women will only sustain complaints if they are given support at the outset and throughout their trauma, it is essential that the Government establish a clear, strong and well-resourced policy of support for rape complainants.
  The Government should do more to encourage the creation of sexual assault referral centres. Those are usually adjacent to hospitals. The units are run by specialists for the benefit solely of the victims of sexual assault. A woman can go there with the police, or on her own, or she can phone and be brought to it. She is treated as a patient rather than a witness. No decisions are forced on her and no detailed statements are taken; just enough to allow the relevant health checks. She is encouraged to give samples in case she wants to prosecute, but with no obligation to make the decision to do so then. She is examined by an expert who has the expertise to give evidence about findings, going way beyond that of most forensic medical examiners at police stations who are GPs with generalised experience. Counselling can be arranged. A change of clothes can be arranged. She can be taken home. The police can be brought in the next day to take a statement if that is what she wants. It will, of course, be a specialist-trained officer who liaises with the sexual assault referral centre.
  SARCs offer the best kind of support. One in every major urban centre would reduce the drop-out rate significantly and enhance the impact of the changes in the law. At the moment, however, there are only six sexual assault referral centres in the country, so in many areas such as mine on Teesside, complainants cannot receive the support that such resources can supply.
  Cleveland police—my local force—and I are organising a conference of stakeholders for September in order to consider creating a Teesside SARC. That requires input not only from the police, because such centres aid detection, but from health trusts, because the after-effects of rape are a major health issue. Most of all, there is a need for finance or a definite prioritising by the Home Office of police and health funding. Not a large amount of money is needed to run a centre. REACH, the excellent centre in Newcastle upon Tyne, runs on about £250,000 a year.
  SARCs should be linked to the national rape helpline, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary rightly referred, so that by calling a single number, a woman can receive local help wherever the traumatising crime occurs. Project Sapphire, which works closely with The Haven, a sexual assault referral centre in south London, is sure that its next figures will show a lower drop-out rate and a better conviction rate owing to that liaison.
  Getting women to court requires such a step to be taken, and to be taken now. There is little point in improving the law on rape, which ought to encourage more women to come forward, if they are not given support when they do so. If what has been done and what is still to be done succeeds in getting women to court, what happens? At the moment, there is a 45 per cent. conviction rate for rape cases that arrive in court.
  222
  For all other offences, there is a 73 per cent. conviction rate. In all judgments made, from the woman involved deciding whether to proceed, to the judgment of police on whether to proceed, to the Crown Prosecution Service deciding whether to proceed, what will happen in court plays a major part. The low conviction rate becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  Clause 1 can make a significant difference in court. As most people are beginning to realise, 90 per cent. of rape is committed by people who are acquainted with the complainant—not by strangers. That means that, inevitably, the issue is consent and whether the defendant believed that she was consenting. It is to the second test that clause 1 brings a change.
  At present, the second test is totally subjective. "Are you sure", the jury is asked, "that he did not, however unreasonably, believe that she was consenting?" Owing to comments made in the other place, I want to make it clear that the defence of believing in consent is always—I repeat always—run at court. Doubt was cast on that by some of their lordships. Such a defence is especially run since the admissibility of previous sexual history was limited in 1999 to supporting the defence of consent. The way to get round the prohibition is to run belief in consent because previous sexual history is still admissible in order to support it. If, in a rape trial, a man goes into the witness box and says, "She was consenting," which of course he must do in every case, the defence that he believed that she was consenting as automatically raised and the judge has a duty to leave that belief to the jury for its consideration.
  The present law allows that to happen. A woman may say that she had sex forced upon her and protested at the time, and a jury can believe her. However, if the defendant says, "I'm sorry, I honestly believed that she was consenting," it is difficult to gainsay that and convict him. There is therefore a situation in which women have had sex forced on them, but no one LS convicted. The current rule—I do not think that this is putting it too strongly—licenses the assumption of consent by the defendant, irrespective of the complainant's wishes. She, of course, has a duty to make herself clear, but in those cases she will have done so. He, however, has a duty to ascertain that the sex is mutually consensual, and the current rule does not impose such a duty on a man.
  If the Bill is enacted with clause 1 in its current form—I compliment those who have had input in refining it and
  making it better in the other place—when the issue at court is whether the defendant believed that the complainant was consenting, he can still say that he did, but will now have to show that that was a reasonable belief. That will have an impact that goes beyond court cases—it will become a normative or standard requirement. Men who get to know about the rule will understand that they have to behave reasonably when involved in sexual relations and must ascertain properly that the woman is consenting. I have to say that that is not much to ask.
  The structure of clause 1 is excellent because in assessing whether the defendant's belief is reasonable, all the circumstances have to be looked at, including a scrutiny of any steps that the defendant took there and then to ascertain whether the complainant was consenting or not. The requirement that the defendant is to be asked in court about the steps that he took to

  223
  ascertain consent will have another excellent impact on the way in which cases run in court. It will diminish the admission of previous sexual history to support an honest belief in consent. At present, for example, someone can argue, "If my friend told me something about her and what she likes, or if I heard it on the grapevine, that might have influenced me to believe that she would consent, and helped to close my mind to what was actually resistance."
  Imposing a slight duty on the man to behave reasonably, and making him aware that he will be asked about the steps that he took, even though he believed that consent had been given, to check that his state of mind was correct at the time, ought to focus the court's attention much more on the situation in the bed, on the floor or wherever. What he heard about the complainant's previous sexual history and the way in which she might react if he approached her will be far less central to his state of mind at the time and, in many cases, will be so remote from the here and now that it will not be relevant enough to be admitted at all.
  Clause 1, buttressed by clauses 76 and 75, is a good move in three ways. It has the two advantages at court that I have explained—first, it will require reasonableness, and secondly, it will diminish the admissibility of previous sexual history. Thirdly, it will establish a norm for the way in which men are expected to behave. Because it has that normative quality, it is important to publicise the change in the law if and when it occurs so that, in all fairness, men know that there is a further test and so that women are encouraged to appreciate that they have the extra protection provided by those first two changes.
  Two years ago, I had a conversation with the then director of the major female equality pressure group in the UK and with a famous woman broadcaster—virtually a household name. We discussed whether we would report a rape done by somebody we knew. We were not convinced that it would be worth the cross-examination, perhaps about a fictional previous sexual history; the possibility of the man saying, "Okay, she didn't consent, she was protesting, but I thought she did consent," and being acquitted; or the thought of having to go it alone, perhaps with a disbelieving police force and a disinterested Crown Prosecution Service, facing the near-inevitability of an ultimate acquittal. We all agreed that if we had been raped by somebody we knew, we would not report it—middle-class, middle-aged, confident women like us. How much worse is the predicament for the less articulate, less confident, less secure younger women who live on the poorer estates—for example, in my constituency, Redcar?
  When clauses 1, 75 and 76 come through, and the other good steps that I mentioned which the Government have taken start to bear fruit, and in particular if they drive forward the policy of rape support embodied by sexual assault referral centres, I think that reflecting on the position, I and my two friends would change our minds. We would say that it would now be worth making a report. It would not only change our minds but it would enable us to encourage those less advantaged women to do the same.
  For those reasons. I believe my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has greatly taken forward the cause of justice for women through these changes to rape law. In fact, I can go a little further. For the women
  224
  campaigners who have campaigned for the 27 years since 1976 to reverse the ruling in the case of R v. Morgan that allowed an honest, even if unreasonable, belief in consent to be a defence, there is a real possibility that this Home Secretary will become a feminist hero.
  5.17 pm
  Sandra Gidley: I add my congratulations to the Government. The Bill is welcome and, in many ways, overdue. It spent an inordinate amount of time in the other place. I am told that there is nothing that peers like quite so much as talking about sex. Clearly, that must be true, as they have been talking about it for six months. A peer recently said to me, "Don't hang on to the Bill for too long. We want it back."
  That diligence has resulted in a Bill that is much better than the original. The improved wording of the clause on rape, which has been more than adequately described by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), will hopefully be more workable and result in more convictions. I was struck by the fact that the hon. and learned Lady said there was a 45 per cent. conviction rate. I do not know whether we have been reading different figures, but I read recently in a briefing by the Rape Crisis Federation that the conviction rate had dropped to 7 per cent. That may be from a different baseline.
  Vera Baird: In respect of the cases that get to court, there is a 45 per cent. conviction rate. In respect of those where a complaint is made, there is only a 7 per cent. conviction rate, because there is a massive drop-out on the way to court.
  Sandra Gidley: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that clarification. I assumed that that was the explanation, but the briefing that I read did not make it clear.
  People are happier with the rape laws as they now stand. The naturists in my constituency are happier. Some of the sillier initial suggestions, such as making it illegal to advise the under-16s on matters sexual, have long since disappeared. That does not mean that we in the Commons have an easy ride. There are still a number of aspects of the Bill that give cause for concern, and a number of small matters that seem to have been overlooked.
  My main concerns about the Bill as it stands can be loosely summed up as relating to issues involving exploitation. Trafficking, offences against persons with a mental disorder or learning disability, and child sex offences all involve some measure of exploitation. If we as a society and as a Parliament fail to protect the weak and the vulnerable, we fail in our most important duty.
  I share the sentiments of those in the Chamber today who seem to believe, as I do, that above all, we must protect our children. When I use the phrase "our children," I do not solely mean British children, as I include those who are victims of horrors such as sex tourism and trafficking. None the less, I should like to start off closer to home and examine the Bill as it affects many children this country. Hon. Members should bear it in mind that I also start from the premise that it is completely unacceptable for an adult to sexually abuse

  225
  a child, particularly if they are placed in a position of trust. It follows that it is absolutely right that the Bill deals with such behaviour.
  I share the concerns of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who find it deeply worrying that the Bill appears to criminalise the sexual activities of all young people, regardless of whether they take place with or without consent. In my kinder moments, I wondered whether I was seeing the dawn of a new age of joined-up government and whether such provision was the Home Office's contribution to reducing the teenage pregnancy rate by saying "It's simple: let's make it illegal."
  The Health Committee's recent report on sexual health, however, highlighted some of the problems in the sex education that our young people currently receive and recommended that greater emphasis be given to relationships and sex education so that young people feel more comfortable and can discuss their sexuality in a non-sniggering manner. Sadly, I must conclude that we have not seen an example of joined-up government, as the measures in the Bill will serve only to reinforce the attitude that teenage kissing and experimental petting are somehow smutty and dirty and should be done behind the bike sheds—a place that has been mentioned already—almost as an underground activity.
  Not all adults are comfortable with the idea that teenagers are sexually active, but we need to reflect on what is happening out there in the real world and ensure that our laws do not attract ridicule. The matter definitely needs careful review in Committee. Indeed, I thought that that was the case even before the magnum of champagne was offered. What we do not need is a law that cannot be enforced.
  Other European countries have tackled the problem by decriminalising sexual activity between under-16s. I am not suggesting that we should necessarily take that route, as I am not convinced that it is the right way forward. Finland, for example, has taken a different approach. Sex with under-16s is not deemed an offence in Finland if there is no great difference between the ages or mental and physical maturity of the persons involved. That strikes me as the beginning of a pragmatic approach that we might consider. Criminalising consensual activity between adolescents devalues the suffering of genuine victims of child abuse. I strongly believe that we have to find some way of differentiating the two issues. The problem was acknowledged in Committee in the House of Lords, as it has been today. I think that the Government are well aware of it and I like also to think that they genuinely do not know quite how to take it forward in a practical way.
  I was slightly alarmed that, on Third Reading, the Minister in another place proposed safeguards against inappropriate prosecution by suggesting that guidance would be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Such guidance would be implemented by officials, who may have widely varying moral standpoints that will impact on their decisions. That does not seem fair to 15-year-olds throughout the country who are doing what 15-year-olds do naturally. I feel that we need to deal with that matter in the Bill.
  226
  I turn now to situations in which the vulnerability of a child is exploited. In particular, I welcome the attempt to deal with sex abusers who use the internet to groom. That issue has been more than adequately dealt with today and I shall not repeat what has been said; there ts a huge amount of agreement in the House. I want to concentrate on an area of particular difficulty. While I call for common-sense measures to deal with the problem of consensual teenage activity, I believe that we have to admit that there is a darker side to life and that a number of child sex offences are committed by children and young people. Research shows that 25 to 40 per cent. of all alleged sexual abuse involves young perpetrators. Of 6,400 people cautioned for, or found guilty of, a sexual offence, 23 per cent. were aged between 10 and 21. It has been estimated that in 1994 more than 10,000 children were sexually abused by another child or young person. It is not a small problem, and we need the courage to tackle it. The law needs to protect innocent children from abuse, whatever the age of the abuser. We firmly believe, moreover, that abusers who are children cannot be dealt with in the same way a s abusers who are adults. We recommend a child-centred approach to tackling the problem of young abusers, then rehabilitating them.
  As a society, we must recognise first and foremost that children and young people are still developing both physically and emotionally. Children who abuse often do so because they have themselves experienced a form of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. It is a complex picture. We owe such children help and support, which must be of a specialist nature. It is inappropriate to treat those damaged children in the same way as adult sex offenders, because often they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. That said, some children and young people do pose a risk to others, and their behaviour requires careful management.
  In 2002, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children produced a report called "I think I might need some help with this problem", which concluded that Government policy regarding that group of children remained unclear and that services remained sporadic and largely unco-ordinated. In 1998, a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons concluded that fewer than half of the 10 probation services inspected made any provision for juveniles displaying signs of sexually harmful behaviour.
  We are in desperate need of a strategy and the resources to achieve it. It is disappointing that the Bill does not explicitly provide that assessment and treatment should be available on a statutory basis as soon as children and young people come to the attention of local authorities. We believe that assessment should be on a case-by-case basis—a one-size-fits-all policy is not appropriate, because the range of children and their problems is wide and complex—and that it should go hand in hand with an assessment of the child's need for protection. Those measures would ensure that the possibility that the child may himself have been the victim of abuse is taken into account and that the necessary counselling and support is provided. We shall table amendments to that effect in Committee.
  Another area of concern, which I share with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who is no longer here, is the sex offenders register, covered in clauses 81 to 93. It may not be right to force young people to register in

  227
  the same way as adults, even though there is a reduced notification period; we must think carefully about whether that is the best approach. There is a strong case to be made for putting the child or young person at the heart of the process and dealing with them individually. If the child has been abused, that must be taken into account before any decision is made as to whether to put him on to a sex offenders register, which will have a huge impact on a very young life in terms of family, friends, and education or work. It is not a measure to be taken lightly: it should be based on recommendations by trained professionals, who are the best people to decide whether the young person is a risk to the community. As the Government have been unwilling to address those issues in the Lords, we intend to raise them in Committee.
  Many hon. Members mentioned trafficking. I pay tribute to UNICEF for its effective lobbying campaign on that subject. Again, I shall stress the most important points. There should be a distinction between adult and child trafficking. Most victims are 13 to 17, and that highlights the need for strong measures to deal with the problem. It should not be tackled in a magistrates court.
  The Government are obliged under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to protect the rights of vulnerable children. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) listed all the protocols that reinforce that point and I shall not try hon. Members' patience by repeating them. The United Kingdom police stated that there are two main obstacles to prosecuting traffickers. First, there is a lack of a specific law—the Bill deals with that problem. Secondly, there is a lack of victims who are willing to testify. That obstacle will remain unless we change the Bill. The Government have a moral duty to protect innocent children but that is absent from the face of the Bill. Earlier, it was said that the four countries that provided periods of reflection and introduced strong measures to deal with the problem had the highest conviction rates. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in his winding-up speech the way in which the UK intends to match the conviction rates of countries such as the United States, Italy and Sweden if we do not provide the necessary period of reflection. Several pilots show that the Government have some commitment to tackling the problem. However, it would be useful if they could put on record their commitment to assessing the pilots and the subsequent implementation of any schemes as a result of recommendations from them.
  We also support the case that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made for victim protection at the same time as the period of reflection, during which problems can arise. It takes time for the child to develop a relationship of trust with authorities, such as the police. Without time for trust to develop, it is impossible to get a prosecution. Even worse, children who are sent straight hack to the country of origin are much more likely to fall into the hands of traffickers. To remain oblivious to that and claim that it is not our problem is a dereliction of duty.
  I was delighted that the Government have already tabled amendments to deal with the problem of sex tourism. They would close the loophole that previously meant that those on the sex offenders' register who went on holiday for less than eight days could disappear to countries such as Thailand and Cambodia and abuse
  228
  children there. I have visited Cambodia and witnessed the extent of the problem, and the amendments are welcome.
  Abuse is also a severe problem for those with a mental disorder or learning disability. Clauses 32 to 46 deal with such offences. The charity Turning Point says that 1,400 people with learning disabilities are victims of abuse every year. Any law must be carefully drafted because it must recognise that people in that category have as much right as others to engage in sexual activity. However, that must be counterbalanced with measures to guard against exploitation by those in positions of trust and authority.
  The charity Sense, which deals with deafblind people, raised some especially sensitive issues. It makes the point in a paper that it is difficult to provide sex education for a deafblind person with some form of learning disability without touch, which is fundamental. Sometimes there is no alternative. Are we to deny people in that category the benefits of some sort of sex education? The message must also be given to people such as these that they need to be able to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. It is beyond my skills to say how we should deal with this in practice, but it is worth keeping the issue in the back of our minds as the Bill progresses.
  Some progress was made in the other place, but a number of issues relating to people with a learning disability remain outstanding. Of most concern are those relating to the capacity to consent. It is a puzzle to me and to many who work in the field that clause 32 uses the words
  "unable to refuse because of a mental disorder or learning disability",
  while the remainder of the Bill almost universally refers to "consent". To my mind, there is a fundamental difference between the two concepts, and I would welcome an explanation of the Government's thinking on this. Why cannot the wording in clause 32(1)(c) be altered to
  "B is unable to consent because of a mental disorder or learning disability"?
  We need to be consistent with the provisions relating to rape at the beginning of the Bill.
  One interpretation of this matter is that the current definition risks people with learning disabilities being seen as never able to consent to sexual activity. I am sure that the Government have not done this intentionally, and that they will seek to put the matter straight in Committee. It would also be useful if the Government were to issue a code of practice, alongside the Bill, on the provision of sex education and therapy to people with learning disabilities. This would protect care workers who legitimately provide such services.
  My other major concern surrounds the Bill's provisions relating to care workers. We wholeheartedly support the thrust of the amendments on those issues, but we are concerned that the definition of a care worker includes the phrase
  "likely to"—
  have—
  "regular face to face contact".

  229
  This could cause two problems. First, there is no provision for dealing with a care worker who abuses as a result of a one-off contact. The most obvious example that springs to mind is the use of agency staff, because many places are understaffed and need to resort to the use of agency staff from time to time. There need to be checks and balances in place in those circumstances. The Government have recognised this, but I am not sure what they plan to do about it. The second scenario is one in which abuse could be repeated on several occasions but over a long period of time, making such contact difficult to define as "regular". I flag this up as another issue that needs to be discussed in Committee.
  I had hoped to complete the theme of protecting the vulnerable by mentioning rape, but the subject has already been dealt with. I have little to add to the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar, and I would like to give everyone else time to speak. We have here a Bill that could command support in most parts of the House. The Lords have performed a huge task in successfully making it better, and I look forward to working with other hon. Members to make it better still.
  5.38 pm
  Stephen Hesford: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It might have been suggested that I, along with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and others, should expand our speeches ever so slightly. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister also realises how much time we have available. I welcome that, because my hon. Friend—to whose winding-up speech I look forward—will have as much time as he needs in which to address all the very relevant points that have been raised throughout what has so far been a very good debate.
  Before I move to the main part of my speech, I would like to reflect on what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said about the support mechanisms that exist to assist the victims of rape in coming forward. If we cannot actually get them to come forward, we want them to be able to deal with the problem and feel able to come forward to receive treatment, counselling or the like. I did not originally intend to speak about that aspect of the Bill but having heard what my hon. and learned Friend said, I realise that it is a key issue. The Bill does not deal with it directly, but without the additional features referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend, some of the important measures that we pass may not be as effective as we want them to be.
  I am a patron to the Zero centre, a rape crisis centre in my own constituency, so I well recognise the issues about which my hon. and learned Friend spoke. In my short time in the House, that centre—together with a sister organisation that deals with similar issues of family distress, rape and child abuse—has on several occasions been under threat from lack of funding. I am pleased to say that lottery funding has helped the Zero centre to get on its current firm footing. I greatly commend the work of such centres throughout the country. I also echo what my hon. and learned Friend said about the need for co-ordination between such
  230
  centres so that women can have a one-stop shop for reporting incidents, medical assistance, counselling and so forth whenever they need them.
  I greatly welcome the Bill. It has rightly been said by my hon. Friends that it has been a long time in the formulation. From my knowledge of the process, it started in the previous Parliament. I took part in a series of seminars at an early stage in the consultation process before the last election. I shall say more about definitions in due course, but at those seminars I was not filled with hope that we would reach this stage, mainly because the legal profession highlighted the major problems associated with redefining the law of rape.
  The fact that we have reached this point from that small beginning is a measure of the determination and commitment on the Labour Benches—through my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, his predecessor and current Ministers—to keep the process in train. I have noticed various points during the past three or four years at which we could have run out of steam. That should make us reflect. As my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, 1976—20-odd years ago—was the second to last time that rape law was examined in a major way. Why? The key reason is that it is such a difficult area in which to legislate. That makes the present legislation even more welcome.
  The Bill is in line with the Government's whole approach to legal and constitutional affairs. It sits well with our willingness to put victims first. Like other Members, I have had the pleasure of speaking to several such Bills, on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 put victims first in trying to get at the drug dealers when existing legislation was not as effective as it should have been. The Courts Bill 2002 is about modernising the courts to make them work better for victims. The Criminal Justice Bill 2002 is still going through Parliament, but will hopefully soon become an Act. There has been a series of measures and it is no coincidence that, under this Government, the commitment in the Home Office and the new Department for Constitutional Affairs to ensure that the court system works for victims is there for all to see. I want to talk about a particular set of victims, as my remarks are addressed specifically to part 1 of the Bill.
  A series of seminars in 1999 led to the report entitled "Setting the Boundaries". What are the modern boundaries in sexual activity? Some activities are private, or involve consenting adults or people of the same sex, but the problems of definition are difficult to resolve. I am delighted to say that a measure of agreement has been reached.
  I commend the back-room staff at the Home Office for the way in which they have brought this Bill and other measures forward. Had the process been handled less well, the degree of agreement evident in today's debate would not have been achieved.
  The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out where problems could have been encountered had the Bill not been as successful as it is—helped, of course, by the changes and amendments passed in another place. Even so, the hon. Lady made several criticisms of the Bill. I consider some of them to be misplaced and, if I am lucky enough to be a member of the Standing Committee, I hope that she and I will be

  231
  able to debate the matter. That just goes to show how much hard work it took to achieve the degree of agreement about the Bill that has been secured.
  That hard work resulted in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", which was extremely well received. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned how many briefings hon. Members have received, and that shows how much interest the proposed reforms have aroused. The briefing from the Rape Crisis Federation caught my eye, as it deals with the idea of the female victim. If the definition of rape in clause 1 was badly wrong, that organisation would be the first to point it out. An inaccurate definition would compound the problem with the old law that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar detailed. I shall return to that matter shortly.
  In my experience of dealing with sexual offences and serious crime before I was elected to the House I have seen juries deliberate on rape cases I have seen how they react to rape victims and I have witnessed at first hand how problems that have been described in the debate play out in a court.
  There is no doubt that the Bill is overdue. It is worth repeating, as has been noted already, that the change proposed in clause 1 introduces the idea that the belief is reasonable. I say that because of the awfully low conviction rate. Whether it is the 7 per cent. of cases reported, or the 45 per cent. that go to court, as against well over 50 per cent. for other offences—I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said that it was 70 per cent.—that rate is atrocious.
  It is atrocious for a number of reasons. It is a denial of civil liberties to that class of victim. One reason why there is a high drop-out rate is that the victims have no confidence in the system, which cannot be right. It cannot be right for us to think, as practitioners, which I used to be, or as legislators, that there is a class of victim that has no connection with or belief in the process that would secure justice for them in what is one of the most serious offences, which is a grave violation of a human being.
  I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar said that it might be normative to make people reflect on their actions. I hope that that may be the case. I want to describe how it may impact on the practitioners in criminal courts and how they approach rape cases—how a judge and jury may better understand a rape trial.
  On consent, one reason why there was a low conviction rate was that if that was the issue at trial, and given, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows, which I believe to be correct, added pressure is placed on the jury. How do they differentiate between the case in question and the usual dealings between the two people. And how does the victim do that? Even a wife must be able to say no. In the past 10 years, the law has changed and a wife can now say no. We no longer have the Victorian attitude that, as part of the marriage contract, the wife has to say yes in every circumstance. In the sort of rape case that usually comes to court, involving people who know each other, the reasonableness test is classically designed to make the jury reflect much more strongly on the circumstances and the acts under review.
  232
  I have not been involved in many rape cases. The cases that I witnessed that resulted in acquittal brought to mind what older practitioners told me about murder trials when we had capital punishment, when a number of murder cases resulted in acquittals simply because if the jury said, "Guilty", the defendant would hang—it is not an exact parallel, but I hope the House will find it useful to reflect on it. In many cases, the verdict was manslaughter simply because the jury could not face the consequences of a guilty verdict.
  In rape cases, there seems to be a sort of parallel. Juries would take the easy way out. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who seems to be agreeing. It was the easy way out because of the way in which the law was framed—it might have been an unreasonable belief, but it was one that was honestly held. A more objective standpoint might have brought a different result.
  It may be instructive for the House if I depart from my usual practice and remind hon. Members of a situation that illustrates the difficulty of securing a conviction under the law as it was. Again, I am grateful to the Rape Crisis Federation for its briefing. I hope that that organisation will forgive me for pointing out that one of the two case studies in the briefing was much less useful and convincing than the other.
  In brief, the first case study concerned a 16-year-old girl whose mother heard her screaming in her bedroom. The mother found a man on top of her daughter having sex with her. The circumstances seemed to be that the girl met the man as she was coming home, worse the wear for drink. She could remember nothing about the evening. When the man was arrested, he initially denied meeting her but he was caught on closed-circuit television using his credit card, which linked him to the scene. He then came up with an amazing story, which the jury accepted. He said that he had bumped into the girl, who agreed to have sex with him later on the basis that he looked Italian. In his neck of the woods, it was well known among his mates that all girls said "yes" to a man who looked Italian.
  I see that some hon. Members are laughing, but it was no laughing matter for the distressed mother and daughter in that case. The case study offers an almost ridiculous example of how someone charged with rape in such circumstances can maintain an honest, even though unreasonable, belief. Under the new law, the jury would have been asked to deal with a different set of questions.
  The second element that I want to discuss is anonymity. I understand the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is not in his place. The Opposition have concerns about anonymity and they would support a version of clause 2, which, I understand, was inserted by Lord Ackner in the other place.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the Government will amend the provision so as to take the sting out of it, although removal would be my preference. I say that because if a form of anonymity applied to a serial rapist to the extent that the public had less access to the identity of that offender, it would hinder the prospect of other victims coming forward to say, "Yes, I had contact with that person and he did the same thing to me, but I thought I was the only one, so I

  233
  didn't report it. Now that I know that other women are coming forward, I am emboldened". That would change the case, but such a situation would be much less likely if there were anonymity. If the House is determined to make conviction for rape easier in the right circumstances, removal of anonymity would be the right way forward. I support the Government in that.
  Finally, I want to turn to a slight amount of detail. In some senses, this has been mentioned before, but it is important and, again, if I serve on the Committee, we may return to it. I have not spoken about the important part of the Bill that deals with the protection of children. Some elements of the Bill are welcome, especially the new proposals on grooming and arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences
  "in any part of the world",
  but I want to be sure that we take a consistent line.
  I ask the Government, in advance of the debates in Committee, to reflect on the fact that clause 15, entitled "Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence", will apply only to offences under clauses 10 to 14, not to clauses 6 to 9, which relate to the very serious sex offences on children under 13. Clause 17, entitled "Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.", deals with the same kind of issue, but the offence under clause 17 is aimed at
  "an offence under this Part."
  So the offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming is aimed at offences under clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9, which relate to the very serious sexual offences, yet the offence of arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences, which is more serious in some ways, is treated differently.
  I shall give an illustration. In another branch of the law, it is often thought that theft is less serious than handling offences, which carry a greater maximum penalty because those offences often facilitate the theft—one is done for the other—and a parallel relationship is involved in arranging or facilitating the commission of a child offence the arranging makes the offence more likely if someone engages in commercial activity of that type or something similar. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the effect of the Bill, given that, first, there will be no life imprisonment for the most serious offences and, secondly, they will not be fully covered.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues on introducing the Bill, which is in a usable form. It represents a major step forward in treating a special class of victim and in reclaiming civil liberties for females in a number of different circumstances. They can go out and have a drink if they want, without being accused of overdressing outrageously or whatever, and people in domestic circumstances can say no if they want. The Bill will assist both classes of potential victim, and I commend it to the House.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) in the debate. As a former barrister, he brings
  234
  great experience to this issue. It is always difficult speaking at the end of a long debate, such as this. I went home the other night and told my wife that I had just made a speech in the House of Commons and she said, "What was the point of that? I expect you sat there for six hours and then made all the same points that everyone had made before you"—very perceptive. I shall try to avoid doing that tonight.
  Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It is right to codify and bring together the law on sexual offences. It is right to update the law, as the Bill does in a range of ways. It is also right to introduce the new offences that many hon. Members have spoken about, not least to keep pace with technology. Much has been made of the offence of internet grooming, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is not back an his place, spoke about it powerfully. The police have told me that they need changes in the law to keep up to date. Everyone in the House is clear that paedophiles, rapists, those dealing in child pornography and traffickers need to be hunted down and punished, and this Bill helps us to do that, which is why, I am sure, it has all-party support.
  As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I also welcome the way in which the Government have handled this Bill. They have listened at each stage: they listened in the other place, and they listened to the Select Committee report. We had some difficulty, as we were trying to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny while the Bill was in the other place, and we often found that we were dealing with a moving target—we would come up with a powerful argument, but it would not matter any more because the provisions had been amended. We came to many of the same conclusions as the other place.
  It is also a difficult area because we are dealing with awful crimes, and we are also dealing with sensitive areas in which we must choose our words carefully. The Home Secretary gave us some good examples of that from the debate in the other place. It is worth saying, however, that what we are trying to do is criminalise that which is wrong. I hope, however, that the Government are also trying not to draw into the criminal law those things that are harmless but of which we may disapprove. One or two problems may still exist, such as those relating to clause 14 and 15-year-olds having a snog. I am not claiming that I am going to win the bottle of champagne, but it is nice to know that, under new Labour, it is a bottle of champagne and not a pint of lager, so we can all work on it.
  The Home Affairs Committee looked in detail at three areas that I want to mention. The first issue was sexual activity in public, which was dealt with in clause 74 of the old Bill, but that clause has now gone. That decision was absolutely right, as the clause was far too widely drawn. It was in danger of making the law look an ass, as the Home Secretary said earlier. I hope that it will not be reintroduced to deal with the problem that the Government perceive in relation to sexual activity in public lavatories. It is worth remembering why the clause on sexual activity in public was included in the first place: it was an honest attempt to be comprehensive and gender-neutral. What happened was that we found that it would end up criminalising a couple of people in a car, halfway up a mountainside, having a fumble on the back seat. That was clearly the wrong result and that is why the Government rightly dropped the clause. I hope

  235
  that they will not reintroduce it in any form to deal with the other problems that they are having, as harmless activities should not be criminalised
  The second area was the question of exposure and the concerns of British Naturism. I suggested that we bring in representatives of British Naturism to present evidence and answer questions, which it did extremely well. It had real concerns about the Bill, which have been partly dealt with, about which I want to make a few comments. British Naturism says that it has 20,000 members and that 2.5 million people in this country take part in naturist activities. While I was listening to the debate. I worked out that that is 5 per cent., which, if the House is representative, must include at least 30 Members. I can only think of one or two who take part—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I will not go that far, as I am just starting out. Calm down, as Michael Winner once said.
  This matter was dealt with by clause 70, now clause 68. The old test as to whether one was guilty of this criminal offence was knowingly exposing oneself and being reckless as to whether that would cause offence, which was wrong. The naturists rightly said that sometimes one cannot know whether one is being reckless, as one cannot know the state of mind of the other person. In my constituency, people sometimes go punting along the Cherwell, and—for those who know Oxford well—when they reach Parsons' Pleasure, they sometimes find a few dons in a state of more than partial undress.
  Mr. Malins: I remember it well.
  Mr. Cameron: I am sure that my hon. Friend was in the punt and not on the bank. The point is that we should not criminalise that sort of behaviour. In addition, the test as it was drawn would have caught someone who was changing their swimming trunks on the beach and who tripped over—they would be reckless as to whether someone might see them and be caused offence.
  The new test in the Bill is better. First, it is that one intentionally exposes oneself, and, secondly, that one knows or intends that someone will see and will be caused alarm or distress. That sounds much more sensible, and the naturists, including those from my constituency who have written to me, should be more relaxed about it. However, they are still not happy and I hope that the Minister will listen to them.
  The naturists are still making two points. One is reasonable, the other less so. The less reasonable point is their request that there should still be a reference to sexual gratification—that is, that it should be a crime for someone to expose themselves only if they do so for that purpose. That presents a problem, because surely there are cases involving deliberate exposure to cause offence, but no sexual motive. That probably should be a criminal activity, so the suggestion is not helpful.
  The second point has more merit. The naturists would like the test of a reasonable person to be introduced to the clause on exposure—that is, a reasonable person would be caused offence by seeing someone without any
  236
  clothes on. The Criminal Bar Association gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee—I refer the Minister to it—and it seemed to think that approach sensible.
  The Select Committee sitting was a sketch writer's dream, as Members might imagine. I have referred to the point about British naturists all carrying passports saying that they are bona fide naturists, which caused the question to be asked, "Where do they keep their passports?" However, it came over loud and clear that those people are, on the whole, law abiding and not a nuisance. Their idea of fun might not be ours, but they have a right to be heard and listened to. I hope that the Minister will listen to their concerns in Committee, particularly the point that I have tried to put across.
  The third issue examined by the Committee was rape and consent. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an excellent speech. She is a real expert on this. I will not repeat the figures that she gave on the dreadful rape conviction rate, except to refer Members to page 7 of the Home Affairs Committee's excellent report, which sets out in detail the number of alleged rapes taking place each year and the number going to court. That will give the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) the full picture, but the figures are truly awful.
  It cannot be said too many times that this is a dreadful crime. That goes for date rape, stranger rape and any sort of rape. Also, it is absolutely right that the Government have a target for getting the conviction rate up. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, that should be partly about police work, partly about improving the record of the Crown Prosecution Service, partly about reforming how the courts work and partly about encouraging people to come forward.
  I am not going to get into the debate about anonymity, as I do not think that I agree with what the Select Committee said about it, but we must remember that what is right is anonymity for the person who has been raped. One of the reasons for introducing that was to encourage people to come forward, which is absolutely what we should keep.
  It is difficult to get to the bottom of the crime of rape and work out exactly what happened between two people, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, it has not become five times more difficult, yet that seems to be what has happened to the conviction rate—it has got five times as bad. In this context, we must ask ourselves how much a change in the law will address the problem of the conviction rate. I agree absolutely with the hon. and learned Lady about clause 1, which is the right way round the Morgan case. The clause says that reasonable belief in consent has to be shown. It will not be good enough to say, "I thought that she consented." The hon. and learned Lady was extremely clear about that.
  However, less clear are clauses 75 and 76, which set out the so-called rebuttable presumptions, when it is presumed that consent is not given. Clause 76 deals with conclusive presumptions, when it is conclusively proved that consent is not given. If that sounds complicated, that is because it is complicated. It was even more complicated before the House of Lords got at it.

  237
  Our report says that
  "Clause 78"—
  as it then was—
  "was probably the most confusing provision in the whole Bill… the drafting was cumbersome and attracted much criticism from judges and lawyers."
  The measure has been improved but I hope that in Committee the Minister will think about the concern about complexity. Rebuttable presumptions, which are made when one presumes that consent was not given, will apply if violence was threatened or if a person was trapped in a room. One might say that it would be common sense to reverse such a presumption of consent. There are only two narrow conditions for conclusive presumptions. For example, if a rapist impersonated another person, the Bill states that it must be conclusively presumed that consent was not given.
  I am not a lawyer but I served on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill. When there were previous changes to criminal law such as to the rules of hearsay, to the rules on previous convictions and to the right to silence—a change made by the Conservative Government—the argument was made that the court should hear all the evidence and that a jury in an open court should be trusted to reach the right decision—we should let the dog see the rabbit, as it were. However, the rebuttable and conclusive presumptions about consent seem to write into law detailed provisions on how a judge should direct a jury.
  I showed the Bill to a criminal QC this morning, and he said that there is a danger of introducing complexity with no added value. I want the Minister to think about that when the Bill reaches Committee. Let us consider what would happen if Miss A, the victim in a rape case, said that someone impersonated another person.
  Stephen Hesford: I am listening with care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying and I understand his perspective. From a practitioner's point of view—I tried to address that in my speech—if the presumptions work and are workable, more guilty pleas might well be entered for such cases because defendants would not be able to see a way out. That is why the provisions might come into their own.
  Mr. Cameron: I am about to address precisely that point. If the hon. Gentleman is right—I have an open mind about that—we should go ahead with the provisions as drafted. However, he should think about this possible situation. A victim could say, "My attacker impersonated someone else and then threatened to hit me," but the defendant could say, "I didn't impersonate someone else and I didn't threaten to hit her." Under the Bill, I understand that the judge would have to say to the jury, "If you believe that he was impersonating someone else, that is a conclusive presumption that no consent was given, and if you believe that he threatened to hit her, that is a presumption that on balance no consent was given. However, if you don't believe those things, you take a different view about consent." The provisions will make judges undertake a complicated process of explanation. What we really want is a jury to consider the case and decide that if the defendant impersonated
  238
  another person, obviously there would be no consent. The provision is an attempt to write down common sense.
  Let me quote what Mr. Rook of the Criminal Bar Association said about the proposals:
  "What you are doing here is putting judges into strait-jackets, if you like, legislative strait-jackets, where they have to go through these various directions. So, in those circumstances, we feel that actually the importance of a clear summing-up may be last because of having to go through these assumptions, shifting burdens of proof and so on."
  I admit that he was talking about the provisions before the Lords amended them, but the measures are still rather complex and the Minister must have a think about them.
  I do not think that I shall win a magnum of champagne from the Home Secretary, but attention must be given the Family Planning Association's question of whether the Bill will make kissing a crime for 15-year-olds—it is not actually just kissing that is at issue, I think that the Government would call it kissing plus. The problem is not clauses 10 to 13 but the relationship between clause 14 and clauses 10 and 11. I thought for a moment that the answer might lie in clause 14, which says:
  "A person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 10 to 13 if he were aged 18."
  I thought the solution might be to ensure that that does not apply in the narrow circumstances of clauses 10(1)(c) and 11(1)(c) when both individuals duly consent. The problem is, however, that there is no concept of consent for under-18s. The hon. Member for Romsey mentioned what happens in other countries, and that may provide the answer. We could also consider the suggestion by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for a common-sense provision to state that nothing in the Bill should criminalise what a reasonable person would think of as normal behaviour.
  In sum, good law should march with common sense and we should criminalise what we know to be wrong. There is still a danger of trying to be so comprehensive that we sacrifice some common sense and draw things into criminal law that should lie outside it. I know that the Government are listening to our points. I hope that with their good will in Committee, we will ensure that the Bill becomes good law.
  6.20 pm
  Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I, too, welcome the Bill. The intention to protect individual adults and children, and the updating of legislation to reflect today's society and attitudes, are to be applauded. As we have seen from today's news, it is essential to provide effective protection against crimes such as those stemming from the internet.
  We also owe an enormous debt to our noble Friends in the other place who spent so many hours scrutinising the Bill. On the whole, they have made it much more workable. The co-operation there shows us how Parliament can work well and our constructive debate augurs well for Committee. However, concerns do remain. In touching on a few of them, I shall try not to be repetitive.

  239
  It is important that people across the spectrum of sexuality are treated equally under the law. What consenting adults do in private is their own affair. Children and people with mental disabilities should be dealt with appropriately. The human rights of victims and the accused should be protected. I want to restate our position on anonymity. I am convinced that we need to change the way in which people's lives can be destroyed by the media, even though a charge may never be made against them. That does not apply just to rape cases, but to child abuse cases and many other offences, too. There has to be a balance if someone whose identity is protected makes an allegation that just may be entirely false. If the accused is never charged, there is no possibility of the individual being publicly vindicated by an acquittal.
  It is right to revisit clause 2 in Committee and to consider the case of witnesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said. I hope that the Government will not simply try to delete the clause, but instead will listen both to the conclusions of the Home Affairs Committee, which suggested that anonymity of the accused be protected for a limited time, between allegation and charge, and to those who conclude that there should be anonymity until the point of conviction. I hope that with a spirit of co-operation in Committee we will get the right balance between the need to protect potentially innocent suspects from damaging publicity and the wider public interest in retaining free and full reporting of criminal proceedings, including the benefits that that publicity can bring by encouraging other victims to come forward.
  Liberal Democrats welcome the measures to protect children from sexual abuse, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said, there are concerns about how the Bill treats young people. Publication of the children at risk Green Paper before the debate would have helped our discussions. I hope that it will be published before we discuss the Bill in Committee so that we can use it as a basis on which to build.
  Although I welcome the approach to protecting children from abuse, there is a danger of criminalising children for innocent activities on their part. We know that sexual activity between the ages of 13 and 16 is fairly common. Surveys show that it is as high as 30 per cent. for males and 26 per cent. for females. We must accept life as it is today, although it is of course important that precautions are taken against unwanted pregnancy and advice on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases is provided. Yes, we must be concerned if kissing and petting become a criminal offence.
  I was rather struck by the statement made by my noble Friend Baroness Walmsley in the other place when speaking on this issue. She said that there is a paradox: the Bill stipulates that a child under the age of 13 cannot understand the implications of sexual activity sufficiently to consent to it, but can simultaneously be expected to understand its implications sufficiently to be held criminally liable for it. There is much that we need to consider carefully and sensitively in Committee.
  Along with other Members, I hope that someone wins the champagne. It is essential that we try to amend the Bill to reflect the real lives and needs of young people today. We will badly let them down if we leave the Bill
  240
  in a mess. We must ask ourselves whether it is necessary to criminalise normal adolescent behaviour in order to achieve our overall objectives.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey pointed out, between 25 and 40 per cent. of all sex offences against children are perpetrated by juveniles. I should like to reflect on a very sad case that was brought to my attention in one of my surgeries. I shall call the person David, although that is not his name. David's parents came to see me. About 17 years ago, it was identified that David was experiencing a difficult adolescence. Perhaps he and his parents were struggling to come to terms with his emerging homosexuality. The parents commissioned a psychiatric report, which concluded that there was no danger of him harming anybody. Subsequently, he was fined £10 for a minor sexual assault. At the age of 19, he was convicted of a serious offence against a 10-year old. Thirteen years on, he is still in prison in the north and has no hope of release.
  I was in frequent communication with the Minister's predecessor about the matter and I am sure that I will be so again. We must realise that lack of early identification and treatment led to tragedies for two families. That brought home to me the need to recognise that there are always two sides, and to work on the preventive side. Although not all words will be appropriate in the Bill, we must carry that culture with us.
  Many points have been made, but I am running out of time so I shall end by addressing the issue of trafficking. I, too, congratulate UNICEF and all those who have worked in the area. Just a short time ago, I was privileged to be taken to Moldova with UNICEF representatives. There, sadly but usefully, I learned a huge amount about the trafficking of children and women. I saw the problems of trying to overcome trafficking due to huge poverty and the tremendous push factor, the like of which I had never seen. Even when young women were returned to Moldova and helped in a refuge, they were still likely to return to trafficking if given the chance—just as we would buy a lottery ticket. What a tragedy.
  We in the western world—the destination countries—have a responsibility to bear. I therefore welcome the fact that there are clauses on trafficking in the Bill, and that so many hon. Members have ably put all the points that need putting on the issue. I hope that we can change the approach to the problem and try to do something about it. The way in which UNICEF has raised awareness of the issue must be applauded, as must the Robbie Williams film and so much more.
  So much can be said and we have an awful lot to do in Committee, but overall I welcome the Bill and look forward to the careful consideration of the detail.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate, with helpful and constructive contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill, which is a thoughtful, wide-ranging and coherent piece of law in the making. We all agree that it left the other place a much better Bill than when it arrived there. Credit for that is due in part to the Government—their approach has been helpful and

  241
  constructive throughout the passage of the Bill—but also to peers in the other place. I wish to mention in particular my noble Friend Baroness Noakes, who took a thoughtful and eminently sensible approach to controversial issues in the Bill. She, like many other Members of the Lords, offered wise and reasonable arguments and amendments. The House owes her and the other place a debt of gratitude. It also owes a debt of gratitude to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has done on the latter Committee, including his work on this issue.
  We have had a good debate, with contributions from Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Members for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who have experience in the field, both tackled the issue of traffickers and unaccompanied children, and referred to the vulnerability of young persons and their exploitation. Their contributions were helpful for the House, as indeed was the contribution of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who made a speech about similar issues.
  We need to revise and reform the law on sexual offences, much of which was made in a different era when attitudes towards sex and personal relationships were very different. The world is also very different, especially in terms of travel and technology. However, having accepted the need to change the law, we must accept that the fundamental principles of our criminal justice system, which were right in the past, continue to be valid today. Any reform must have regard to those principles.
  I shall touch on a few issues on which further debate and perhaps amendment is needed in Committee. Before I do so, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for his contribution. He talked about sexual offences against children and paedophile activity on the internet. The taskforce greatly appreciated everything that he said and contributed to its work, and we look forward to his expert help as the Bill progresses through Committee. Before leaving the issue of trafficking, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) for his powerful speech. He, too, referred to the significance of the issue, rightly praised UNICEF and spoke about the importance of training immigration officials.
  Clause 1 is a vital provision, and deals with the issue of rape, that most grievous offence. I very much agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who talked about the vital need for support for victims in this area of law and practice simply to enable more cases to come to fruition, so to speak. She was right to stress the importance of that issue, and spoke, in my respectful view, very helpfully indeed about the law on consent generally, on changes in society, and on the difficulties that we face in relation to that. She rightly referred to the Morgan case, which tells us that in a rape trial the defendant's subjective belief that the victim consented to sexual intercourse affords him a defence, even if he has no reasonable grounds for that belief, and pointed out problems arising from that.
  242
  The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), who is a barrister by background, also referred to the matter, which has been troublesome. The Bill brings before the House a change for the better—
  an understandable change. What was first suggested in the other place was not so good, but as the Bill has progressed, we have reached a stage where, even if we d o not find clause 1 entirely satisfactory, we know that we are on the right lines, and we can discuss the clause constructively in Committee.
  I wonder whether the new reasonableness test can be improved. Concern has been expressed by a number of knowledgeable groups, including the Bar Council, that the new test may not let in for consideration the defendant's particular features—his characteristics including, for example, his youth or his mental health. We may need to examine that—[Interruption.] I may have said something wrong and I could be in serious trouble, but I will press on, as I shall not be barked down by the Home Secretary's dog.
  I come briefly to clauses 76 and 77 and the presumptions about the absence of belief in consent. It was pointed out in another place that there may be some gaps in the provision. It can be a little unwise to list circumstances giving rise to a particular situation, because inevitably one leaves out other circumstances that may be relevant. In the context of clauses 76 and 77, physical violence and the presumptions, we may have to consider in Committee the possibility of economic threat, which is sometimes as powerful as physical violence or more so—for example, a comment such as, "I'm not going to pay your rent any more unless…"—or other abuses of a relationship of power. That aspect merits sensible discussion, but I am pleased that round the House today there has been a spirit of constructive debate. There is a real prospect that we can take these matters forward.
  I shall make a general point about rape. I am conscious of time, and the need to enable the Minister to have proper time to respond to the debate. It is a sad fact of life that the drug that results in many rapes and on so many occasions when informed consent may be in doubt, and the drug that causes many instances of women's lives being damaged beyond repair, is alcohol. Sadly, heavy binge drinking, in the past associated with young men only, is rapidly becoming fashionable among young women. Increasing numbers of young people of both sexes drink regularly to excess and often have little or no memory of what went on the night before. That makes for difficulties for juries, who have to make judgments about situations that were alcohol-dominated and poorly recollected. It is an issue in life that troubles me considerably and of course brings much grief to many people.
  I understand the problem that clause 14 seeks to address, but is it the right way to do it? The clause, I think—I hope I will be corrected if I am wrong—makes criminals out of two 15-year-olds, both aware of each other's age, who with the consent of each other engage in sexual touching and no more than that. If they are guilty, they are liable to conviction on indictment to five years' imprisonment. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre expressed concern about that, as did the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney. My hon. Friend also rightly expressed some of the concerns of naturists about another aspect of the Bill.

  243
  What about clause 14? The Home Secretary was extremely helpful in his opening speech. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), he may have said that he was considering a formulation and that no one would be prosecuted in the circumstances outlined by his hon. Friend. He said, in effect, that he came to the matter with good will, which I know he does, and that he is prepared to consider the issue. [Interruption.] I am prompted to remember that he also offered a magnum of champagne. If he adds a bottle of gin, I shall have the answer by 10 pm.
  Mr. Bryant: It is alcohol that is the problem.
  Mr. Malins: It is a problem among young drinkers. If I qualify as a young drinker then, as Clint Eastwood might say, "You've made my day."
  Clause 14 is troublesome. One must consider the increasing maturity of girls and the way in which young people experiment. One is tempted to be flippant, but I do not want to be. Does anybody remember the back row of the cinema, where 14 and 15-year-olds would have a little bit of fun falling well short of an activity that might be thought harmful? Such young people will face five years on indictment under the clause if they are taken to court. It is a shame that that is the case. Yes, we have some sort of duty to send messages to teenagers about how they behave and to say that having sex at too young an age is wrong, but youngsters are growing up and they will experiment.
  I am worried that if the clause were enforced, it would send an unhappy message to worried teenagers and parents. Even a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service or the police not to prosecute could be taken only after the child had already been traumatised by a series of questions from somebody, perhaps under caution. That is a tough experience to put a 15-year-old through. I feel unhappy about the clause, but I shall say no more at the moment except that we hope to return to the matter in Committee.
  I am bound to say that clause 10 also troubles me a little. It provides that somebody who is just over 18 commits an offence if he touches sexually a person under 16. I am a little troubled by an aspect of that provision. If a mature 15-year-old girl and an immature 18-year-old boy engage in some form of sexual touching, falling short of intercourse, with mutual consent, it is odd that they should be subject to a clause providing that the guilty person will be guilty of an offence that carries 14 years on indictment. There will be no prospect of being tried in a magistrates court—it is on indictment. We need to consider that provision, as the criminal law is not the best tool to deal with teenagers having consensual contact falling short of intercourse, which is part of growing up and experimentation.
  Time is against me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall move past three excellent pages of my speech and turn very briefly to the latter part of it. We all agree that abusing a position of trust for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification must be punished and taken seriously. It is right to punish such activities, as a position of trust must not be abused. A relevant parallel is theft, which is a criminal offence, but is heavily aggravated when it involves a breach or abuse of trust, as this offence should be.
  244
  Let us take a look in Committee at the list of areas of abuse of trust. Let us consider what happens to the sports teachers in the summer holiday camps and the young man who leaves his school in the summer term aged 18 and goes back in the autumn term in his gap year, still aged 18, as a part-time games teacher and starts, when he is potentially in a position of trust, a relationship with a sixth-form girl whom he has known all his life but with whom he has not previously had a relationship. That is a small Committee point, but I believe that we would do well to consider it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield spoke about the anonymity of the defendant in rape cases, which is an important issue, as did the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) also made helpful remarks about the anonymity issue. Some, like the Bar Council, believe that the anonymity of the defendant should remain until conviction, rather than until charge. There are strong views on that and I understand that they have been expressed. It is a matter that is well worth considering further, and we shall do so in Committee.
  For my part, I think this has been an enjoyable and constructive debate. I look forward to the further passage of the Bill and thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I begin by thanking all hon. Members who contributed to this excellent debate. I am pleased with the level of agreement that we achieved, because a mature consensus is vital as we try to devise legislation that strikes a balance between the need to protect children and vulnerable adults and the aspiration, which we all share, to continue to live in a free and open society.
  In a powerful and generous speech, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to a number of matters that he hoped we would be able to discuss in some depth in Committee. He talked about the abuse of positions of trust, the need for a range of appropriate penalties, and the inclusion of visual images in the range of child pornography. I am sure that those and many other issues will be discussed; the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) added to the list. As regards the magnum of champagne, I propose that if we manage to crack the problem, we should share it among all members of the Committee.
  In a powerful speech, the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) urged those of us who will serve on the Committee to root our deliberations in the reality of abuse. The knowledge that he brought to bear will stand us in good stead if he, too, serves on the Committee.
  Sexual crime and the fear of sexual crime have a profound and damaging effect on the lives of individuals and communities, and it is the responsibility of Government to protect everyone in society from such crimes, especially those, such as children and persons with a mental disorder, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse. I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who spoke strongly in favour of exercising that responsibility.

  245
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) for highlighting the hard work and dedication of many people who worked behind the scenes on introducing the Bill—not only campaigners, Members of Parliament and Ministers, but hardworking officials.
  The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) reminded us of the important role that is played by Select Committees in the development of ideas and the framing of legislation; I thank him for the work that he and his colleagues have put in.
  We believe that the new framework of sexual offences, notification requirements and orders in the Bill will provide the protection that we need. Part 1 is a major piece of modernising law reform. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) reminded us that much of the existing law in relation to sex offences goes back to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which was itself largely based on 19th-century legislation. The Bill represents a timely review and much-needed legislation. The current law does not reflect the major changes that have taken place in our society over the past 50 years, and it is widely considered to be inadequate and out of date. The Bill will modernise the law and provide an effective response to the new dangers that we face in today's world.
  Several hon. Members raised the issue of consent, which is central to establishing whether a sexual offence has taken place. It is vital that the law is crystal clear about what consent means and in what circumstances sexual activity is simply unacceptable. Our changes to the law on consent will provide juries with a clear framework within which to make fair and just decisions. It is not enough for a defendant to hold an honest belief that someone consented to sexual activity; the Bill makes it clear that that view must also, given all the circumstances, be reasonable.
  My honourable and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in an intervention whether the rape drug would be included in the list of presumptions in clause 76. I confirm that we are considering that.
  The Rape Crisis Federation and the Campaign to End Rape have endorsed the Bill's aims and robustly defend it as a feasible and important advance for women in the justice system. I endorse the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar to the effect that legislation alone is not enough. We must do far more to develop support systems and ensure better investigation of rape cases and better case preparation. I was especially impressed by my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the sexual assault referral centres, and I intend to visit one of them before we reach Committee stage. I was about to give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some news, but I believe that he already heard it before returning to the Chamber. It is that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar described him as potentially a feminist hero.
  Mr. Blunkett: That is a first.
  Paul Goggins: Indeed.
  Many hon. Members mentioned anonymity and my right hon. Friend made it clear that, in Committee, we intend to overturn clause 2, which grants the same right
  246
  to anonymity to defendants as to complainants. Of course, we understand the distress that can be caused to people who are accused of a serious offence, especially when they are subsequently acquitted. Nevertheless, we have an open justice system and the fact that someone has been charged with a serious offence can sometimes encourage more victims to come forward.
  The disclosure of personal details before charge is especially worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) raised that issue. We are in discussion with the police and the newspaper industry about tightening up the existing guidelines on disclosing and reporting the names of people under investigation. Again, in a spirit of co-operation, we should be pleased to hear ideas from any hon. Members about the way in which to tighten the guidance further and make it effective.
  Simon Hughes: We accept the work that the Government have done and are continuing to do. Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is genuine scepticism about whether guidelines will work, because they have not in the past, and that it may be necessary to have a stricter framework that would make it illegal to go public about prospective charges against people?
  Paul Goggins: The issue has been widely discussed and has implications that go beyond the Bill. It is our job to ensure that the Bill works. In that spirit, we shall try to tighten up the guidelines in the way that I outlined.
  Overall, we profoundly hope that tightening the law on consent will deal with the justice gap whereby only 5.8 per cent. of reported rapes currently end in convictions. The Metropolitan police involved in Project Sapphire told us that they believe that the proposals on rape will enable us to secure more convictions and get more justice for victims.
  The Bill plugs several loopholes in existing law. For example, hon. Members may remember the case last year of an estate agent who managed to convince two young children to undress in front of him. One of the children told her parents what had happened and they went to the police. To everyone's consternation, no offence could be found with which to charge the man. Clause 11 therefore introduces a new offence of
  "Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity".
  It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.
  The Bill also deals with discrimination and removes from the law on sexual offences discrimination against homosexuals. Several hon. Members made that point. Some existing offences criminalise consensual sexual activity in private against men that would not be illegal between heterosexuals or women. I confirm that we are considering a system whereby those who engaged in consensual acts with 16 and 17-year-olds and have been convicted of buggery or indecency can be deregistered.
  The Bill ensures that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, is treated equally by the law. The new offences will help to protect the public, especially those groups that are actively targeted for abuse, such as children and adults with learning disabilities.
  Paedophile grooming of children, especially online, has been mentioned by many hon. Members, and is an increasingly high-profile area of concern. We must be

  247
  ready to respond to the new challenges that are posed by the advances in technology. That is why we are introducing the new offence of grooming in clause 17, which will make it an offence to use the internet to groom a child and then arrange to meet them with the intention of engaging in sexual activity. I can reconfirm that the penalty for this offence will be up to seven years' imprisonment.
  This new offence would have been relevant in a recent case involving a man who met two young girls online in an internet chat room, subsequently communicated with them by mobile phone, then met them and engaged them in a variety of sexual acts. Furthermore, although we do not know the full facts of the case of Shevaun Pennington, this is probably the right moment for me to add my comments to those of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on that case, and to reiterate our hopes for her safe return.
  The sexual offences review that preceded the drafting of the Bill heard disturbing evidence about the extent and nature of the targeted sexual abuse of people with a mental disorder or learning disability. I know that all hon. Members will be distressed to learn that research has estimated that the incidence of abuse among persons with learning disabilities is much higher than it is among the general population. There is much to suggest that those with a mental disorder are targeted for sexual abuse by offenders because the offenders believe that their victims will not be able to give credible evidence against them.
  Existing legislation offers inadequate redress when such people are sexually abused. First, current offences use demeaning and outdated language, requiring the prosecution to prove that the victim is a "defective". Furthermore, this offence carries a maximum penalty of only two years imprisonment. The Bill will provide additional protection for such people, while recognising the right of people with a learning disability to enjoy a full life, including a sexual life. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) spoke powerfully on that issue, drawing on the experience of the daughter of a friend of his.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, welcomed the steps that we are taking to strengthen measures to combat the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre spoke of the West Sussex safe house, and the good work that is being done there. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North spoke powerfully about the need for support for victims, and both she and the hon. Member for Tatton mentioned the need for time for reflection. We appreciate the principle behind the need for time for reflection, but we believe that having a set period might be too inflexible. We would prefer an approach that was tailored to an individual's needs.
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley is clearly very knowledgeable on these issues, and spoke to us about encryption. I hope that we shall have further opportunities to learn more about that in Committee. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that clause 13 will cover causing a child to watch a sexual act, which will include looking at photographs. I hope that he will
  248
  be encouraged to learn that we are considering extending this provision to cover other visual representations.
  Now we come to the kissing question, or, as we may come to refer to it in our further deliberations, the champagne challenge. Almost every hon. Member commented on this issue, and concerns were raised that the Bill would criminalise teenagers under 16 who, as part of their normal development, engage in kissing. That is not the intention of the Bill; nor will it be its effect in practice. Strictly speaking, sexual activity between under-16s is already illegal, because the age of consent is 16. It would be irrelevant that both people were under 16. There have, however, been no prosecutions simply for kissing; nor will there be in future. I would say to the hon. Member for Romsey that if we find no other way to deal with this question—if we do not win the magnum of champagne—we shall be able to trust the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that that intention is followed. The Bill will, however, ensure that, when one young teenager seeks to exploit or abuse another, we shall be able to act. The protection of children must come before all else.
  When sexual crimes occur, the law must provide justice for victims and penalties for perpetrators that reflect the seriousness of the harm caused. The Bill demonstrates our commitment to doing both, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]:

  SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14th October 2003.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings
    7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Joan Ryan.]
    The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 140.

    Division No. 291]

    [6:59 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Cox, Tom (Tooting)

    Ainger, Nick

    Cranston, Ross

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

    Allen, Graham

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Cummings, John

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Austin, John

    David, Wayne

    Bailey, Adrian

    Davidson, Ian

    Baird, Vera

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Banks, Tony

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Barnes, Harry

    Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Battle, John

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Beard, Nigel

    Denham, rh John

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dismore, Andrew

    Benn, Hilary

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Doran, Frank

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Berry, Roger

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Best, Harold

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Betts, Clive

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Blackman, Liz

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Edwards, Huw

    Blizzard, Bob

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blunkett, rh David

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Borrow, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Brennan, Kevin

    Flint, Caroline

    Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Follett, Barbara

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Browne, Desmond

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Bryant, Chris

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foulkes, rh George

    Burgon, Colin

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Burnham, Andy

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Cairns, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gilroy, Linda

    Casale, Roger

    Godsiff, Roger

    Caton, Martin

    Goggins, Paul

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Challen, Colin

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Chaytor, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clapham, Michael

    Grogan, John

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hanson, David

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Clelland, David

    Healey, John

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Heppell, John

    Colman, Tony

    Hesford, Stephen

    Connarty, Michael

    Heyes, David

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    250

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Morgan, Julie

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Morley, Elliot

    Mudie, George

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hutton, rh John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    O'Hara, Edward

    Illsley, Eric

    Olner, Bill

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Pearson, Ian

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Perham, Linda

    Picking, Anne

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Prescott, rh John

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kemp, Fraser

    Purchase, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Purnell, James

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rammell, Bill

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

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

    Lammy, David

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Lepper, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Rooney, Terry

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Ruane, Chris

    Linton, Martin

    Ruddock, Joan

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Love, Andrew

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sawford, Phil

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCafferty, Chris

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sheerman, Barry

    McDonnell, John

    Sheridan, Jim

    MacDougall, John

    Short, rh Clare

    McFall, John

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Singh, Marsha

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Skinner, Dennis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    MacShane, Denis

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    McWalter, Tony

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Soley, Clive

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Southworth, Helen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Spellar, rh John

    Merron, Gillian

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Michael, rh Alun

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Stevenson, George

    Miller, Andrew

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Mole, Chris

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Moran, Margaret

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    251

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Ward, Claire

    Stringer, Graham

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Watts, David

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    White, Brian

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wills, Michael

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Timms, Stephen

    Winnick, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wood, Mike (Batley)

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Truswell, Paul

    Woolas, Phil

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Worthington, Tony

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Ms Bridget Prentice and

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Vernon Coaker

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Goodman, Paul

    Allan, Richard

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Amess, David

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Bacon, Richard

    Grieve, Dominic

    Barker, Gregory

    Gummer, rh John

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Hague, rh William

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Hammond, Philip

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hancock, Mike

    Boswell, Tim

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Brady, Graham

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brazier, Julian

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Heath, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hendry, Charles

    Burstow, Paul

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Butterfill, John

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cameron, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cash, William

    Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Chope, Christopher

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Clappison, James

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lamb, Norman

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Leigh, Edward

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Lidington, David

    Dodds, Nigel

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Loughton, Tim

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Doughty, Sue

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Evans, Nigel

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Malins, Humfrey

    Fallon, Michael

    Maples, John

    Flook, Adrian

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Francois, Mark

    Moore, Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Gidley, Sandra

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    252

    Öpik, Lembit

    Steen, Anthony

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Trimble, rh David

    Randall, John

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Rendel, David

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Ruffley, David

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Weir, Michael

    Salmond, Alex

    Whittingdale, John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Selous, Andrew

    Wiggin, Bill

    Shepherd, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Simmonds, Mark

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

    Willis, Phil

    Wilshire, David

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. Robert Syms and

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Hugh Robertson

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to motions 4 and 5.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.

    GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
    That the draft Land Registry Trading Fund (Extension and Amendment) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[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
  254
  adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITIONS

    Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
    7.15 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Reflex sympathetic dystrophy is an intense, nerve-based, pain-causing condition, which, if not identified early and given alleviating treatment, may become irreversible.
    Thus, the petition states:
    The petition of Miss Amy Crumpler, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy sufferer and some 1,800 others of like disposition declares that a medical recognition of Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy is urgently needed due to the lack of understanding and treatment of current fellow sufferers. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons publishes appropriate medical guidelines to be followed throughout the United Kingdom when both diagnosing and treating Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Zoe Evans
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this petition, which deals with a matter of great poignancy. Schoolgirl Zoe Evans from Warminster was murdered by her stepfather, Miles Evans, in 1997. A tariff has yet to be set for that offence. The petition has been organised by The Wiltshire Times.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of 627 Persons, mainly resident in West Wiltshire.
    Declares that a minimum prison sentence should be set for the killer of Zoe Evans at the earliest opportunity so that her family can finally have peace of mind.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons demands that the Home Secretary ensures that minimum sentences are set without further delay and that the case of Zoe Evans is considered expeditiously.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  RAF Lyneham
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  7.17 pm
  Mr. James Gray: Before I say anything about the potential closure of RAF Lyneham, it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the airmen and airwomen of the base, who, in their Hercules planes, have played such a central role in almost every conflict of the past 60 years and in every humanitarian effort in which we have taken part during that time. They pride themselves on being the first in and the last out in every conflict. As recently as Operation Telic in Iraq, we have seen what superb work they do. We are proud to have them in Wiltshire. We like the Hercules flying over my constituency and we shall be disappointed and extremely sad to see them go when they are moved to Brize Norton, as the Under-Secretary of State has announced they will be.
  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his intention to announce last Friday the closure of the base. I reconfirm that it was not me who leaked that decision to the press. It became known the following morning, although it was already common knowledge at the base. Two weeks previously, when I attended the Classics on the Wing concert at the base, the Chief of the Air Staff, among others, talked about the likelihood of closure. I did not leak the information. I go to great lengths to respect the fact that decisions should be announced in this place and I am grateful to the Minister for that advance notice.
  It is rare for an event of the magnitude of the closing of a base such as RAF Lyneham to hit a single constituency. Some 700 directly employed civilians will lose their jobs. It is disappointing, incidentally, that the Minister's letter refers to only 250 job losses, then, in parenthesis, it refers to all those who are employed on contract. A total of 750 will lose their jobs, and 2,500 RAF jobs will go. Those people will not be moved to Brize Norton; there will be a 2,500 reduction in the net manpower of the RAF when Lyneham closes. Of course, a large number of support industries of every kind in the surrounding area will be affected. If all the people in those jobs are added together, plus their spouses and their families, about 10,000 people owe their livelihoods to RAF Lyneham, so the effect of the Minister's announcement should not be underestimated.
  We believe that what is involved is a £75 million contribution to the local economy and, that if not handled correctly, the closure of RAF Lyneham will be absolutely catastrophic, not only for the village of Lyneham itself, but for the surrounding towns: Wootton Bassett; Caine, which is the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram); Cirencester—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is here this evening; Chippenham, of course; and Malmesbury. People from all those surrounding towns depend to a significant extent on RAF Lyneham, so I very much welcome the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to begin to consider how to handle the announcement.
  256
  I should say in passing that the people of those towns took comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister visited the base some time ago and that, subsequently, in answer to an oral question that I asked him about the future of the base on 7 May, he said:
  "I accept and understand the very important role that it has played in previous conflicts and, I have no doubt at all, will play in future conflicts, too."—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.]
  The people of Lyneham took great comfort from those remarks, which were made in this very Chamber. It now transpires that either the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he chose deliberately to mislead the people of Lyneham. Either way round, it is pretty poor stuff.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to rephrase that.
  Mr. Gray: I will happily rephrase. The Prime Minister gave me an assurance—that is how I read what Hansard says—that Lyneham has a future in all future conflicts. If he was badly briefed and got it wrong, that is a matter for him. I have previously suggested raising in a point of order the question of whether the Prime Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, misled the House, and I suggest that he might like to come to the House to apologise personally for having done so. He has chosen not to do so, but it remains my view that while he said the base had a future, that is demonstrably not the case. I hope that you will accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the House; I merely suggest that he was extremely badly briefed in saying what he said. That is perhaps the most charitable interpretation that any of us can possibly put on it. The truth of the matter is that the base is to close, and the Minister has made that plain.
  We have previously engaged in a long debate about the future of Lyneham. We have argued about the basing of the A400M and whether or not it is sensible to have all our military transport eggs in one basket at RAF Brize Norton. I pay tribute to Sam Wright, Len Moore, Colin Quaiffe, and Councillors Allison Bucknell, Chris Wannell and Toby Sturgis, all of whom have fought a valiant campaign to save Lyneham. I also pay tribute to the 17,000 who signed a petition to that effect.
  We produced a learned dossier. I am pleased to say that it was an entirely original dossier; we thought it up entirely ourselves and spared no effort on it. We even thought that we had achieved prime ministerial support, but Treasury cuts prevail, as ever, and what will be will be. The Treasury has spoken: Lyneham must close. That is a possible catastrophe for my constituency, but the Minister has taken his decision.
  I should therefore like to take this opportunity to move from discussing whether or not the base should close. That is a disaster, a catastrophe and a huge strategic mistake in respect of the future defence of the realm, but it will happen, and I should like to say a few words about what we can do to mitigate the possible disaster for my constituency and to suggest ways in which the Ministry of Defence might like to help.

  257
  First, I should like to clarify the time frame and the likely process of the closure. Will the Minister tell us in responding to the debate when the C-130Js will leave? In his letter, he says that that will happen in about seven years. Am I right in thinking that it will happen in about 2010? It would be useful if the Minister would confirm whether that is indeed the year when the C-130Js will leave Lyneham and go to Brize Norton.
  Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many C-130Ks will be left by then? Clearly, if only a handful were left—two or three, for example—there would be no purpose in keeping the base open after 2010. Who would want to keep a base open for two or three planes? It may even be beneficial to know what will happen when the Hercules have gone. We do not want a largely derelict base, left in the middle of my constituency for a lengthy period, with two or three planes on it. At what stage will the Minister consider the airbase to be unviable? Does that change depend on the in-service date of the A400M, which, to say the least, looks a little questionable, as it has so far not even been designed, far less started to be built? In that case, will the Minister accept that there is at least the possibility of some slippage in relation to the in-service date, and therefore in relation to the date on which Lyneham is vacated?
  We need to know all that, because the one thing about which we must be absolutely clear is that we cannot allow an extensive period of wind-down dereliction. When the RAF leaves, local people want a scheme for the economic regeneration of the base to be put in place immediately. We do not want, as I have seen at a number of other military bases in and around my area, a period of dereliction, often of a number of years, before something is put in place.
  Similarly, will the Minister say precisely what discussions he is having with other military users about potential use of the base? In particular, what discussions is he having with the Army? Is there a possibility that the Army may use the base? I suspect that local people would prefer further military usage in the future rather than conversion to other use, but we need to know with some degree of clarity what the likelihood is that it will be used for some other military purpose. In these days of manoeuvrability and the ready deployability of services, perhaps there is a role for Lyneham, with its runways, in a rapid reaction corps and as an Army base for deployment at short notice. Will the Minister let us know what he can about those discussions with the Army? Alternatively, are they largely paper discussions, in which case, again, it would be useful, from the point of view of local people, to be absolutely plain about whether there is some military purpose for the base?
  Leaving that on one side, it is important that we lose no time in coming up with and implementing an agreed vision of what we would like to see at Lyneham after the military have left. To that end, I have established a Lyneham taskforce, which met for the first time on Friday. It consists of councillors of all three political parties, as well as officers from Wiltshire county council, North Wiltshire district council, Lyneham parish council and Wootton Bassett town council, from the Wessex association of chambers of commerce and Wootton Bassett chamber of commerce, and from the Federation of Small Businesses, the regional
  258
  development agency and the Swindon and Wiltshire economic partnership. It is therefore a very useful group of people, who have already got together to start to plan what we want to see on the base after the RAF goes. I hope that the Minister will confirm tonight that he would be content to see officers or officials from the base or from defence land taking part in that taskforce, too. Will he assure us that we can have the maximum amount of co-operation from the Ministry of Defence on matters such as looking at the level of contamination on the base, the buildings that will be left after the RAF leaves, and some of the economic appraisals made during the basing study of the last 12 months, some of which might be useful from the point of view of the taskforce?
  Similarly, the taskforce has already established the need to appoint a number of consultants to consider some of these aspects. Am I right in thinking that the Ministry of Defence, or perhaps—through the Minister's good offices—other Departments, might be ready to provide some support to the taskforce in carrying out some of those consultancy tasks? Will the Minister let us know what assistance and co-operation he will be ready to give to the people of the area in mitigating the worst effects of his announcement?
  That taskforce is getting together immediately to consider what we want Lyneham to look like by 2013. It is already clear that we do not want it to be a dormitory new town, although some housing, especially low-cost housing for local people, is perfectly possible. We must have decent employment land. In the area, in recent months, St. Ivel at Wootton Bassett has closed, with 240 job losses, Lucent has closed, with about 500 job losses. Dyson has moved 500 of its jobs offshore to Indonesia. And Vodafone in Swindon laid off 500 people last week. The area therefore has something of an employment crisis. We need high-quality manufacturing employers to come in, and it seems to me that making use of some parts of Lyneham might have a role to play in that. I hope that other parts of the base might return to agriculture or leisure use of one sort or another. Will the Minister reconfirm, however, that he is ready to support our efforts, perhaps with other Departments, to alleviate the worst effects of his announcement?
  While the Minister's announcement of a withdrawal from Lyneham is without question most unwelcome and a potential catastrophe for the local area, we should be grateful for clarification on two or three matters in particular this evening. First, what is his detailed estimate of the date by which the site will be vacant, which we need to know with some degree of clarity? Secondly, what discussions is he having with the Army or others about alternative military uses for the site, and will he sanction full co-operation by MOD officials with the Lyneham taskforce to come up with a suitable alternative vision for the base and surrounding areas?
  There is no doubt about the fact that this is a sad day for Lyneham, but let us be clear about the fact that, as the local constituency MP, I am determined to drive matters forward to secure the best possible outcome for my constituents and to try to turn a potential catastrophe into an opportunity. The economic and environmental circumstances of Lyneham in 2013 must be at least as good as they are today, and I hope that they will be better. I intend to make it my business to ensure that that is the case.
  7.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing the debate, as it gives me the opportunity to outline the reasons why the Government have taken the decision to relocate all air transport and air refuelling assets to RAF Brize Norton and, as a result, to close RAF Lyneham by 2012.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I begin by acknowledging the valued role that RAF Lyneham has played over the years, most recently with its significant contribution to Operation Telic. I am glad of the opportunity to thank all the personnel and those who live around the station, whose support is much appreciated. I do not underestimate the part that the station has played in the past, and will indeed continue to play for some time to come.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the strategic review work that considered the future role of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St Mawgan, has taken over a year. Phase 1 of the review was to decide the optimum basing for the A400M, which will replace the C-130K fleet currently at RAF Lyneham. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in August 2002 my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced that RAF Brize Norton would be the home to that new fleet.
  Phase 2 of the review was to consider the longer-term future for all three stations. It is a result of that work that the Government announced in a written ministerial statement on 4 July that RAF Lyneham is to close. That means that the C-130J fleet will move to RAF Brize Norton in 2009. That was the first question that the hon. Gentleman posed. Under that plan, the whole C-130K fleet will remain at RAF Lyneham until it goes out of service in 2012. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the A400M, whose in-service date is expected to be 2011.
  We have consulted with the trade unions throughout the review, and a formal period of consultation is now well under way. The decision to close RAF Lyneham has not been taken lightly. The reason why the review team took as long as it did was to ensure that all issues had been fully considered. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the review was indeed comprehensive. He will recall that the review team briefed him and has taken part in meetings with local and regional authorities in order that all the issues could be identified and considered.
  I also know that, in coming to this decision, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has given full and proper consideration to all the factors involved. It is never easy to close any unit, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not make the best use of taxpayers' money to meet the defence requirement. To keep a station that is not required to meet the defence need would be a waste of public money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.
  Of course, we are all quite naturally concerned about the impact on the people working at and in support of the station. The impact on personnel and the economy was not overlooked in the review—it was an important consideration. What the hon. Gentleman seems not to understand is the fact that with the new, manpower-efficient aircraft coming into service towards the end of the decade, there would in any case have been a
  260
  reduction in the number of personnel required. Of the overall post reduction of 2,140 MOD personnel, 1,560 of those would have been lost with the arrival of the new aircraft. The net job losses relating to the closure of RAF Lyneham amount to about 580, of which 180 are MOD civilian posts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should keep the older, less efficient fleets just to maintain the current job numbers. As our experience of recent operations shows, air transport and air refuelling are key enablers of the successful deployment and use of our forces. The Government have put in place a modernisation plan for the air transport and air refuelling fleets that will ensure that we have more capability at lower annual cost.
  The Ministry of Defence always tries to do its best for its people, which is why we made the announcement as early as possible so that everyone had the maximum possible notice of the change. There is worry that the way in which the hon. Gentleman's press release was issued last week, and other factors, might have affected some of the staff. I understand that the result of his contact with local press was that staff might have heard of the decision through the media ahead of the formal announcement in the House. That has been the subject of correspondence between him and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I think that enough has been said on the issue.
  Mr. Gray: The Under-Secretary has made the most bizarre remark. Incidentally, it is disappointing that the Minister of State has not come to the Chamber today to face me and talk about the issue. I made it plain a moment ago that I made no comment at all to the press until precisely 11.30 on Friday 4 July, in Lyneham village hall. I turned down visits from the "Today" programme and a variety of other people. I issued no press release of any kind whatsoever. If the Under-Secretary is suggesting that I somehow leaked the matter, he is wrong and should withdraw that suggestion.
  Mr. Caplin: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 14 July and said that the hon. Gentleman believes that
  "this information was given to the media by someone at the base. Clearly, it is impossible to establish the truth or otherwise in this."
  I am able to confirm that no service personnel will be made redundant as a result of the decision. The early announcement will allow our recruitment planners to take account of the reduced manpower requirements, and personnel will be redeployed as necessary. We anticipate that some of the 280 MOD civilian staff who currently work at RAF Lyneham will be found alternative MOD employment. As the closure draws nearer, we shall reduce staff numbers through natural wastage. Of course, I cannot rule out the possibility that some civilian staff might have to be made redundant but if that is the case, they will be appropriately compensated and looked after. That measure, in addition to the fact that the area is one of relatively low unemployment, should help to mitigate the economic effect.
  The hon. Gentleman's press release accused the Prime Minister of making a substantially misleading remark at Prime Minister's Question Time. That allegation was completely without foundation—he repeated the

  261
  accusation in the debate. The Prime Minister said on 7 May that he had no doubt that RAF Lyneham would play a role in future conflicts. At the time, no decision had been taken—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had not even seen the final recommendations arising from the review. Moreover, even now that the decision has been taken to close RAF Lyneham, the Prime Minister's statement remains true.
  Mr. Gray: I asked the Prime Minister:
  "Does he also agree that all future conflicts will equally depend on RAF Lyneham?"—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.]
  The Prime Minister replied that he had "no doubt at all" that Lyneham would play a role "in future conflicts, too." There was a clear implication that Lyneham would play a role in all future conflicts. If the Prime Minister did not know about a decision that would affect 10,000 people's livelihoods on 7 May, that says an awful lot about the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 Downing street.
  Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that intervening sometimes does not help the hon. Gentleman's case. Why he thinks that the Prime Minister should apologise for, or come to the House about, a statement that was absolutely true is beyond me. Indeed, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apologise for stating in his press release on 4 July that the Prime Minister gave an assurance that the base would not be closed. The Prime Minister's statement to the House on 7 May clearly gave no such assurance. The hon. Gentleman has decided to interpret it that way for his own constituency benefit.
  I shall explain why the decision has been made. In the Adjournment debate on the 26 February last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the review was driven not by the need to make financial cuts, but by the need to identify the best and most cost-effective basing arrangements for the new fleets. Despite that assurance, I note again that the hon. Gentleman stated in his press release that the decision was driven by financial cuts. He repeated that tonight. I stress that that is not the case. Indeed, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the recent spending review, the Government provided for the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. We all know that it is the Tories who plan to slash public spending by 20 per cent. if they are ever elected to government again.
  262
  It is essential that the Ministry of Defence regularly reviews what it needs to meet the defence requirement, and this review was a part of that ongoing process. The review was needed to consider how best to accommodate the new fleets. Planning for the future is what any good business would do and it is our duty to the taxpayer to ensure that we only spend what we need.
  The hon. Gentleman has also questioned the amount of money spent on the infrastructure at RAF Lyneham over the years. Does he believe that we deliberately underinvested in the station to make its closure more inevitable? If he does, he is simply wrong. All strike command stations have been treated equitably for such spending. Expenditure on infrastructure is authorised according to the urgency of the work and each station is required to prioritise its spend in accordance with specified criteria, the foremost criterion being work required to meet statutory requirements. In fact, for many years, additional money has been made available to support work on the Lyneham estate. There is no question that RAF Lyneham has in any way been singled out over the years for inequitable treatment.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about working with local authorities and what he described as the Lyneharn taskforce. Ministry of Defence officials would be happy to co-operate with such a taskforce. I understand that consultation is taking place with trade unions, which I think he said are involved in that taskforce, and others. All consultation and discussion will take place before closure in 2012.
  I understand that the announcement of the closure of RAF Lyneham will be disappointing news for the dedicated military and civilian personnel at the base who have contributed so much to recent operations. I take nothing away from the excellent work that has been done at Lyneham over the years. I recognise, too, the disappointment that will be felt by those in the area who give the station so much valued support.
  RAF Lyneham has a long and proud history. However, I am sure all concerned will understand that we must make best use of defence resources. Part of that equation is looking closely at the bases we need in the long term. Locating the RAF's air transport and air refuelling fleets at a single station will increase the efficiency of our operations and allow more efficient and modern working practices to be implemented.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

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

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting he now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
9.30 am
Mr. Boris Johnson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making time for this important debate. This is the 13th time that Zimbabwe has been debated in this Chamber during this Session, which is a testament not just to the importance that we attach to Zimbabwe, but, alas, to our impotence to do anything about that country.
I shall begin with some personal reminiscences. In April 2002, I went to Zimbabwe unobtrusively as a tourist. In the company of the redoubtable Peta Thornycroft of the The Daily Telegraph, I decided to see at first hand what Robert Mugabe's policy of land reform actually entails. Peta took me to the Mazowe region just north of Harare to a 5,000 acre farm that had been started in 1936 by Tom Bayley, who was in his 90th year when I met him. When I went to see the Bayley family, they had been under siege for two years and had suffered about as much as the human spirit can endure. The war veterans, as they call themselves, were camped on the Bayleys' land and were burning lumber for fires, roasting and eating the seedcorn, constantly intimidating the Bayleys and making it impossible for them to bring in their crops. The cattle were infested with ticks and dying, and nothing had been sown for years.
The siege was intensifying because the war veterans, as they style themselves, were forbidding the older Bayleys from being visited by their son and daughter-in-law who lived in a separate house. They had been completely cut off for more than a month by a bunch of thugs wielding knives and pipes. Those people had the overt encouragement not only of the Mugabe regime, but of the police. A policeman was milling around and giggling. He was wholly complicit in the operation and refused to do anything to protect the Bayleys' basic right o property.
Thanks entirely to the bravery of the redoubtable Peta Thornycroft, we plucked up our courage and walked the 500 yd from the main Bayley farmstead to the little cottage where the old parents lived. It was very spooky because we had to run the gauntlet of the malodorous, tough-looking "war veterans". After a while, we got through the fence and into the cottage. The old Bayleys were thrilled to see us because they had not seen a friendly face for a month while they had been besieged. They sat us down at their kitchen table and told us what it was like. Tom Bayley said, "We are being tortured." He also said that he had been on the farm for 70 years and had come from Chelmsford in Essex aged 20; everyone had told him that he should go out to the empire, so he did. He said that if he did what the thugs wanted and walked out of the house, they would take
2WH
everything. He then produced a tray of medals that he had earned for military service for this country during the second world war. He also produced a British passport. At that moment, I felt overcome with shame, embarrassment and pity. I wondered what I as an MP could do for that guy—a British citizen, a British subject. What could the House of Commons and this country do to protect the rights of a Briton who had fought for his country and who had a British passport? I thought how fallen, how changed, this country was that we could do two thirds of zilch to protect a man in such circumstances. He started crying, and it was very upsetting.
The only person who seemed to have a plan in those deeply sad circumstances was the redoubtable Peta Thornycroft, who marched out, confronted the ZANU-PF thugs and said to one, "If you were my son, I'd bend you over my knee and beat you." These correspondents from The Daily Telegraph are pretty tough. As I recall, the man replied, with a signal lack of logic, "If you were my mother, you would not be my mother." I did not quite follow his argument, but in any case we parted with expressions of a mutual lack of esteem.
I returned to London and this place and set about trying to get some Sinemet for the old lady, Mrs. Bayley, who had Parkinson's disease, but there was absolutely nothing more that I could do. There was nothing that the Government could do and nothing that anyone could do—not a sausage, not a bean. That was very depressing.
Within a few months, the old couple were dead. People may say that they were hounded to their graves. He died of a heart attack, and she died of grief shortly afterwards. The younger couple also met tragedy: they were involved in a car crash in which Trish lost her life and her husband was badly injured. Their land was taken away.
When I think of that episode, it fills me with rage. People should think of the economic consequences of that episode alone. They should think of the madness and the economic destruction that the policy of land reform has brought to Zimbabwe. Danbury farm near Mazowe could, in good times, produce enough seedcorn to feed 1 million people. It could produce 47,000 litres of cooking oil. That is what the old boy told me in his misery. It could produce 90 tonnes of edible beef a year. Now those people were to be kicked out and given nothing. They were not going to be paid for the value of their land; they were going to be paid a quarter of the value of the improvements that they had notionally made to the land, and moreover they were going to be paid in Zimbabwean dollars.
Although I had that experience of meeting a white farmer who was being dispossessed of his land, that is not the whole story; it is only a fraction of the story of what Mugabe is doing to his people. It is not a story of black on white oppression. It is the story of one man systematically tyrannising his people: 800,000 black farmers and farm workers have been driven off their land, with catastrophic consequences for the country. If people go to Zimbabwe, they will see that the disaster is of almost biblical proportions. Inflation is running at 300 per cent. According to Save the Children, 5.2 million people need food aid. The economy is contracting. I think that the figure was 12 per cent. for last year alone.

3WH
Mugabe spends a great proportion of his time flying around the African continent in increasingly desperate efforts to barter the patrimony of Zimbabwe for vital oil supplies. He is always off in Tripoli trying to persuade Gaddafi to supply him with oil. He is mortgaging Zimbabwe's future, as I am sure the Minister knows, by trying to do a deal involving the pipeline from Beira to Mutare. He basically placed that pipeline in the hands of the Libyans in exchange for short-term oil supplies.
Harare is a glorified car park. It is paralysed. There is simply not enough fuel for people to move around. That is to say nothing of the AIDS situation. I think that HIV affects about one in three—perhaps 35 per cent.—of the adult population. That is to say nothing of the routine torture and intimidation of members of the opposition, the expulsion of journalists and all the stuff that we have read about: the mayor of Harare was suddenly descended on by 15 policemen the other day and ordered to leave his office, and above all, ZANU-PF use what food supplies there are as a political weapon. Grain stocks are being used to bully and coerce, as was described not long ago by Peter Oborne, the political editor of a magazine in which I must declare an interest.
I do not think that this is the place for just another recitation—although I have just given one—of the charges against Mr. Mugabe. We do not need any more tub-thumping denunciations from this House about the black Hitler and all that sort of jazz. We have done all that. My aim is to see what we can do to begin to find a way out for that country and its people. By way of praeteritio, I want to deal with a solution that we will certainly not employ, agreeable though it might be for red-faced colonels in the home counties to speculate about it. There simply will not be—unless the Minister corrects me—a military solution to the Zimbabwe problem in the short term. Delightful though it may be to conjure up images of 2 Para investing Harare airport and the Special Boat Service going up the Limpopo, I do not think that that will happen.
I am sure that the Minister has had many discussions with his constituents about Iraq, and there comes a point in any discussion about Iraq when people say, "Well, what about Zimbabwe?" They say that it is inconsistent to displace a tyrant in the middle east but to leave another tyrant in place in Africa. There is some force in that argument, and it may be true that if cars were powered by bananas, Africa would have greater strategic importance in the eyes of the Pentagon than it does now. We all agree, however, that a military operation would be much harder than people think, chiefly because the lines of supply would not be guaranteed from any neighbouring country. That explains politically why the military option has been ruled out. Mugabe does not stand in relation to his neighbours as Saddam Hussein stood in relation to his.
What does that leave? It leaves diplomacy. I think that it will be common ground in this Chamber—unless the Minister corrects me—that British and global diplomatic efforts have been marked by catastrophic failure. If we are to get anywhere in this business, we must not just put ourselves in the shoes of people such as the Bayleys, easy though it may be to identify with them; we must also try to understand the mindset and the rhetoric of the thugs to whom I talked, who were
4WH
besieging the farm. We need to go back into history, look at the origins of the crisis and discover whence Mugabe emerged as a liberation leader whose power emanated from the barrel of a gun. In the imagination of his people, he triumphed over the regime of Ian Smith, which was, let us make no bones about it, odious in its own way. We have to go back and understand the history of Zimbabwe and whence Mugabe emerged.
I am in some ways a defender of colonialism. I believe that there were some good things about the British empire. I say that with no shame. I take a Whiggish view of the empire, which I think brought great benefits to many parts of the world, but there is no doubt that what is now called Zimbabwe was acquired by expropriation. The pioneer column crossed the Limpopo in 1890 in search of gold and, failing to find gold, grabbed what land it could. As Martin Meredith has written in his excellent book on Mugabe, the scramble for land became little more than plunder. Farms were pegged out regardless of whether local people were living there. Arriving in 1896, a new administrator, William Milton, was appalled by the scale of the land distribution. As he said:
"Jameson has given nearly the whole country away to Willoughby's whites, and others of that class so that there is absolutely no land left which is of any value."
The result was that by 1980, at the time of Zimbabwean independence, most of the productive land was still possessed by the whites. At the time of the Lancaster House talks, 6,000 large-scale white farmers owned 39 per cent. of the land and 8,000 small-scale black farmers owned 4 per cent. of the land. The remainder—inferior land—was held in common. In communal areas, the population density was three times greater than it was in what were thought of as the white areas.
There always has been—and still is—an overwhelming case for land reform in Zimbabwe. That should be common ground for all hon. Members in this Room. As Lord Carrington said at the time of the Lancaster House talks:
"We recognise that the future Government of Zimbabwe, whatever its political complexion, will wish to extend land ownership."
Mugabe embarked on a desultory programme of land reform, partly financed by the British Government. It was not a wholly successful programme. Partly because Zimbabwe was doing quite well during the 1980s, the programme did not advance very far. Indeed, Mugabe relied very much on the white settlers to keep the Zimbabwean economy going. There then came the problem of his excessive longevity in power and his need to maintain his position.
During the referendum in 2000, Mugabe tried to accelerate the process of land reform constitutionally. He tried to play the anti-colonial, anti-settler card in order to buoy up his popularity and shore up his position in power. Failing in that referendum, he began the terrible pogroms of the sort that we have seen during the past three years. He incited the war veterans to begin despoiling the farms in the way that I saw last year.
If one wanted to be polemical about the way in which the Labour Government have handled land reform and Mugabe, one could say that they have made a pretty poor fist of it. One could say that they have oscillated

5WH
between apathy and a kind of megaphone diplomacy that simply played into Mugabe's hands because he was able to claim, "The big white chiefs are making a frightful noise in London. They are trying to boss us and bully us as they always used to. Why should we pay any heed to them?" One could make a case that the Government's handling of the issue has not been altogether brilliant.
On the other hand, one has to accept that Mugabe is largely to blame for the corruption of the land reform process and for a disgraceful episode that will go down as one of the most brutal and cynical acts of political manipulation in the past 20 years. It is a great disgrace. The question is what we do now.
There are several actors in the matter. There are the Europeans. In a hotly contested field, the most creepy example of recent French diplomacy was the decision to invite Mugabe to a summit in February, the day after European Union sanctions expired. I do not think that we can expect much real support or action from other EU countries.
A lot of hope is reposed in the other African countries. People often hope that Thabo Mbeki will do the business and pull the plug on Mugabe in the way that the apartheid regime in South Africa pulled the plug on Ian Smith. One has only to consider what Mugabe's fellow African leaders say about him to understand that they see Mugabe and the issue in a very different way. On his re-election in 2002, Daniel Arap Moi sent his
"congratulations and best wishes to his dear brother."
Benjamin Mpaka in Tanzania said Mugabe was "a champion of democracy" and added that
"the people of Zimbabwe have spoken loudly and clearly."
The more one listens to Thabo Mbeki, the clearer it becomes that the South Africans will not pull the plug. It is difficult for Thabo Mbeki to turn on a man whom he regards as a liberator and as his senior in the struggle for freedom for black Africa. Dismayingly, Mugabe attracts considerable support among black South Africans.
That leaves the Americans and us. The Americans are at last beginning to take notice. I was heartened by President Bush's recent visit and by the decision to stoke up interest in the subject in America, but we should not underestimate what we can do in Britain.
Who is Mugabe's greatest enemy? His greatest enemy is himself and the increasing damage that he is seen to be doing to Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwean economy. From talking to people in his regime, I am sure that he wants out. He wants to step down quietly at the age of 79 after 23 years in power. With at least half of his mind, he is aware of his failure and, more importantly, large numbers of people in ZANU-PF also recognise that he is their and Zimbabwe's leading liability.
The question for Members and the Government is whether we should make an exit for him. I have no doubt that ZANU-PF would like to restart dialogue with the British Government. Dialogue collapsed during the long row about land reform and was replaced by megaphone diplomacy, which I discussed earlier. An offer, which my hon. Friends will discuss in a moment and of which the Minister will be aware, will be put on the table. Mugabe, attended by all ceremony and dignity, will disappear from the scene. In return, he will
6WH
achieve agreement on the following points: the acceptance of land reform with abuses to be dealt with; the recognition of the presidential election, which will be difficult; and the supply by Britain and other countries of substantial and immediate funds to pay for land reform and to assist Zimbabwe in its current plight.
Members and the Government must make a choice. We must work out whether Mugabe is bluffing in offering that so-called deal or whether there is a reason to open discussions. It may be that the deal is a typical ruse by a hardened tyrant who is trying to prolong his period in power. In my view, however, Mugabe's position is desperate: in 2000, some 660 British companies had investments in Zimbabwe; now 440 British companies invest in Zimbabwe. Furthermore, unemployment is running at 70 per cent. It would be a desperate thing for him to cling on, but desperate men may use desperate means.
Should we take the risk that Mugabe will continue to abuse his country until 2008, when his presidential term expires, or should we risk re-engaging with ZANU-PF, which may be seen as legitimising some of the monstrous things that he has done? One way or another, Zimbabwe will need our aid, which we are morally obliged to provide, to help to rebuild the country, which was once the bread-basket of Africa. One way or another, Mugabe will go and it will be sooner rather than later. It is a question for him: does he want to go like Ian Smith and continue to live in Harare or does he want a Ceausescu moment? We must think of the speediest method of removing a man who has done so much damage to his country. The tools at our disposal are limited, but as anybody who has travelled in sub-Saharan Africa knows, we are far more influential in that part of the world than is commonly supposed.
It is no longer good enough for the British Government to say that they are powerless and that anything they do makes matters worse. A policy of standing on one side is no longer good enough, and it is time for us to re-engage for the good of Zimbabwe and for the suffering people of that country.
9.54 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate. He said that it was the 13th debate on the matter, and it may also be the 13th to take place in Westminster Hall. That is indicative of the Government's position and their embarrassment about the issue. It is a shame that we have never had the opportunity to debate the matter in the House.
I am the new chairman of the all-party Zimbabwe group, and this afternoon, the Zimbabwean high commissioner will meet it for the first time. I must, incidentally, apologise in advance as I am also on a three-line Whip and am expected to be in Select Committee at 10 o'clock, so I shall not be in the Chamber for the winding-up speeches. The Minister for Europe rather than the Minister responsible for Africa, attended the last debate. We did not, therefore, get much change from his speech or the subsequent debate.
We have a money laundering sub-committee in the Commonwealth secretariat, and we know from Transparency International that perhaps as much as $2

7WH
billion has been taken by President Mugabe and placed in banks. From Transparency International, we think that the money is largely in Malaysia and the City of London. Is it beyond the wit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to organise with the Financial Services Authority an investigation into money laundering from Zimbabwe? I have raised this point before and will raise it again: if we can stop the flow of money, we can stop his future. When I went to UBS in Zurich, I was very impressed as it had 8,800 leads on Mugabe, his family and his Ministers going back 23 years. Not one of them led to UBS, and its representatives said in our meeting that all roads led to the City of London or Malaysia. We can raise the issue of his laundered money in this country.
I also want to press the Minister on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Will he explain what we are doing with CHOGM and the Commonwealth Secretariat? Don McKinnon is in Mputu this morning and he has been to the African Union Heads of State meetings over the past couple of days. CHOGM is due in Nigeria in December. It cannot be in President Obasanjo's interest to have the President of Zimbabwe arrive unannounced and uninvited to wait to be called on an airstrip in Abuja. The President of Nigeria and the secretary-general of the Commonwealth hold the cards. What conversations have the Government had with Don McKinnnon? We have a window of opportunity between now and December in which to resolve the Zimbabwe question.
I was a proud member of the London branch of the African National Congress for 10 years. Donald Woods, when he was alive, suggested a visit in the mid-1980s by eminent persons to South Africa, and that delegation published a report on its visit. Is that not a solution that would at least start the process of replacing Mugabe? By an agreement with the Commonwealth secretariat rather than the Government, could we not send a delegation of eminent persons to Zimbabwe before the CHOGM meeting, so that it can report on what it finds? It would be independent, untarnished by our colonial past and should be a proper, high-level visit by eminent people. I commend the Minister to follow that route.
President Obasanjo, President Mbeki and President Muluzi of Malawi met Morgan Tsvangari in Harare recently. Can the Minister confirm the four points that they discussed about President Mugabe's future? I believe that they discussed where he would live and a guarantee of his security. They discussed the idea that, if he stood down, there would be no court cases into any fraud, human rights abuses or money laundering. The case involving the former President of Kenya, President Moi, is now on its way to the High Court, and the former President of Zambia, President Chilumba, is on his way to the High Court in Zambia. It would seem remiss if President Mugabe were not also on his way to the High Court in due course. I would still like to know whether that was on the agenda when the three presidents met Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai.
Thirdly, I gather that President Mugabe is prepared to stand down if he can keep his money. I have raised this point before and will raise it again. Could we just turn off his money laundering?
8WH
Finally, President Mugabe wanted to name a successor. I understand that the Movement for Democratic Change realises that if there is going to be a shift in Government, there will have to be an interim Government. It is considering that and does not think it a bad idea. However, it will not accept all the other things on the agenda that Mugabe raised during the visit. Will the Minister confirm that?
Members who read The Independent will have seen that it features a front-page story reporting that Mugabe is involved in negotiations and that there seems to be some movement. Is that true? Will the Minister comment on that?
The disappointment for black Africa is the lack of black leadership. That is what we find difficult, given that it was, largely, a white colonial power that took Africa. The most disappointing person is President Mbeki. It is really depressing to hear him play up President Mugabe. He must know, through his own diplomatic sources and evidence, of the criminalisation of life in Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Henley has already given statistics, and I do not want to go over all of them. He talked about the mayor of Harare, who was arrested twice last week. We should also consider that 800 opposition activists, some of whom have been beaten and tortured, have been arrested in the past six weeks. We have met some of the activists in the House. Some are held in police custody and have no access to the law, and 150 have been hospitalised. Mugabe does nothing to stop that. If the perpetrators are not prosecuted and there is no investigation, there is a breakdown and we have a failed state.
If it is right to bring about regime change in Iraq, it is also right to consider Zimbabwe in that context. We should not back away from the matter or be embarrassed about our colonial past. We are talking about the most disgraceful abuse of human rights anywhere in the world. It is shameful that it is allowed and that black presidents in neighbouring countries do not stand up to it. That is part of the disappointment.
Time is running out for Zimbabwe. A political settlement is needed as a matter of urgency. We might disagree about the exact figures, but about 5 million people need food aid, and fuel and electricity are short. Official inflation is running at 300 per cent., but I think that it is substantially more than that. The country has something of the Germany of the 1920s about it. There is no foreign currency, there is a shortage of bank notes and there is unemployment—employment is never a given in any African state—of between 70 and 85 per cent.
Zimbabwe was once the bread-basket of Africa. Over the past 50 years, it could have fed not only itself, but many surrounding countries. It is sad to see what a desperate state the country is in, and it is sad that we just stand by. We cannot support that policy any longer.
We need to engage President Mbeki and President Obasanjo. They are the two key elements in the jigsaw. We have about five months before CHOGM in Abuja on 5 to 8 December. We need to pressure Mugabe now to enter into unconditional negotiations.
10.3 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am both pleased and saddened that we are debating Zimbabwe again. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley

9WH
(Mr. Johnson) on securing the debate. It is timely because this afternoon sees the inaugural meeting of the all-party Zimbabwe group, which I hope to attend. If nothing else, it will show the broad cross-party support that exists, as demonstrated by the comments of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), with which I completely agree.
In spite of the fact that we have debated Zimbabwe 12 times in Westminster Hall since February 2000, we are here for the 13th time today, because we still take the matter extremely seriously. However, while we debate the issue, the situation in Zimbabwe worsens by the day and by the hour. I wonder, somewhat sadly and forlornly, whether we will be here again in weeks and months to come to debate the matter for the 14th time and to repeat the same impassioned, frustrated and desperate pleas, as we watch what was once the grain basket of Africa rapidly become its basket case.
I shall not rehearse the arguments that have been made today and in previous debates, but, before I come to the main thrust of my comments, I wish to discuss something with which I believe many others have struggled. In a statement on Iraq, the Prime Minister said,
"let us at least not forget the 4 million Iraqi exiles, and the thousands of children who die needlessly every year due to Saddam's impoverishment of his country—a country which in 1978 was wealthier than Portugal or Malaysia but is now in ruins, with 60 per cent. of its people on food aid. Let us not forget the tens of thousands imprisoned, tortured or executed by his barbarity every year. The innocent die every day in Iraq—victims of Saddam—and their plight, too, should be heard."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 125–26.]
On the very same day, at Foreign and Commonwealth questions, the Minister for Trade and Investment stated, in his remarks on human rights abuses in Zimbabwe:
"The situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. The leader of the opposition is on trial for treason. Arrests and torture of those opposed to President Mugabe's regime continue unabated. The economy is in crisis: unemployment is at over 70 per cent., inflation is above 200 per cent., the currency is in free fall, there is a critical shortage of foreign exchange, and more than 7 million Zimbabweans now need emergency food aid."
The rhetoric and barefaced facts in both statements are powerful. In the eyes of many, including me, the former was justification enough to go to war. Yet on the latter, the Minister for Trade and Investment concluded:
"We are doing what we can to feed the population",
and, later,
"if a regime is determined to destroy its own country and its own people, there is a limit to what the international community can do."—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 105–07.]
In a previous debate on Zimbabwe some time ago. the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)—he has moved ministerial posts since then—accused me of advocating military intervention in Zimbabwe, although I was not advocating that at that time. I am not certain that I share the views so artfully articulated, as one would expect, by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, because, if there were a genuine desire to use military intervention in Zimbabwe—
10WH
which, again, I am not advocating this morning—I do not believe that it would pose the problems that my hon. Friend described.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am confused. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating military intervention?
Mr. Swire: I am sorry that the Minister is confused. I am not necessarily advocating military intervention, but I am saying that, if there were a desire for military intervention, it would not involve the problems suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley. In other words, it would be possible to intervene militarily, but I am not saying that that is the answer.
Mr. Johnson: Since my hon. Friend has invoked my point about military intervention, perhaps I could clarify it? My intention was to describe the world as I see it, rather than as I would like to see it. I do not believe that military intervention in Zimbabwe is likely; I sought to get that point out of the way and then to consider the diplomatic possibilities. I share my hon. Friend's martial enthusiasm in principle, but believe that it is unlikely to be reflected in practice.
Mr. Swire: I should not wish it to go on the record that my martial enthusiasm extended to a full-blooded invasion of Zimbabwe, because that is not what I suggested. However, it is worth pointing out that the European Union President was keen to create an African peacekeeping force, the aim of which was boldly stated in the mission statement as being
"an African solution to African problems."
That force was to be accompanied by a European Union funding package of £170 million, but the President was thwarted in his intention because, as he said:
"We face a wall in any contacts, and that wall is Zimbabwe."
I leave it for others to comment on whether there is a message in that statement.
By drawing attention to the consistency or inconsistency between the statements made about the humanitarian raison d'être for using force in Iraq, and the lack of action in Zimbabwe, I was questioning whether the reactions to Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe were proportionately consistent. I am sure that many others struggle with that problem and think along similar lines, but that is not the central issue that I wish to pursue.
The issue on which I shall question a Minister again—although it will be the first time that I question the new Minister on it—is that of the Zimbabwe public service pensions for those who were in government service. Over the past few months, I have received visits at my surgeries and considerable correspondence from a number of Zimbabwean pensioners as well as the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association, about the cessation of their pension payments. Although no agreement was made on public officers when the Zimbabwean Government was formed at the time of independence, the then Minister in charge, Lord Trefgarne, wrote in December 1979 that the Zimbabwean independence constitution would contain full safeguards for public service pensions and their

11WH
remittability. The 1979 Lancaster House agreement ensured that the Zimbabwe constitution would contain provisions relating to pensions payable in respect of the service of a public officer, and that pension benefits would continue to be paid to those no longer resident in Zimbabwe.
Nevertheless, as we have heard this morning, Zimbabwe has continued to be ravaged by Robert Mugabe, who presides over a country in which inflation has risen to 260 per cent., and where pessimists suggest that the figure may soon rise to 500 per cent. He is bankrupting the country and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley said, he has mortgaged the strategic oil assets to Libya, and plundered the country's exchequer. As a result of that and the rampant inflation, those pensioners' pensions have been rendered almost valueless. Those people, servants of the Crown, have been told by the Zimbabwean Government that payment of their pensions has ceased because the Government have no foreign currency. That has been the case since February.
Unlike Mr. Mugabe, those pensioners are not in a position to raise their salaries from 3 million Zimbabwean dollars to 20.2 million Zimbabwean dollars, with an additional 2 million Zimbabwean dollars in annual cash expenses, as he has done in the past few weeks, It is far easier to stay ahead of such colossal inflationary rises, when one is in a position to award oneself a 600 per cent. salary rise.
The assurances given at the time of Lancaster House were taken at face value, and we must remember the exceptional circumstances of that period. It seems that the Government, through a disingenuous argument, seek now to renege on a promise given in good faith. The reason why there is no safeguard for the former servants of the Crown is explained in a letter from the Foreign Secretary to Lord Waddington on 25 June. In it, he claims that because people were recruited on "local terms", the
"British Government therefore had no responsibility for matters connected with public administration".
The Foreign Secretary disavows any form of responsibility that we may hold towards these people, concluding that:
"Responsibility for payment of these pensions therefore rests with the Zimbabwe Government",
and hence,
"I fear that until the Zimbabwean economy improves, pension payments will continue to be intermittent at best."
He can say that again.
There we have it: because the people who once served our country were allegedly recruited locally by the then Rhodesian Government, they are no longer our responsibility. If that were the case, it would be at best unsatisfactory for us to try to wash our hands of what are blatantly our responsibilities, but even that premise has been robustly challenged by Lord Waddington. In another place on 27 June 2000, responding to a Minister's letter to the chairman of the OSPA, he was right to say that
"what the Minister was conveniently ignoring is that many of the Zimbabwe pensioners were in fact recruited here, on what were expatriate-type terms broadly similar to those of HMOCS"—
12WH
Her Majesty's overseas civil service—
"officers in other dependent territories. Their passages were paid out to the territory, they took their leave entitlement back here and now, at the end of their service, they have retired here. It really is disingenuous to pretend that local people recruited locally in the colonies are in like case. Clearly they are not."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 854.]
When the Under-Secretary, Baroness Amos, wrote to me in June last year, she was as unhelpful as the Foreign Secretary:
"I fear that until there is an improvement in the economic crisis in Zimbabwe, and the value of the Zimbabwean dollar on the foreign exchange market increases, there is unlikely to be any improvement in the level of pensions paid to pensioners. I know this will be of little consolation to your constituent".
That is dead right, although I do not even need to answer that further because the constituent who has had his pension frozen, Mr. Wade, answered it for me when he wrote:
"The situation is daily becoming more desperate, not just for the whites, but for the whole community, and just what are we doing politically?—Sweet nothing!"
It is also worth remembering that the British Government have continued to pump money into Zimbabwe—some £51 million since 2001, and an estimated £35 million in contributions this year alone. Mr. Wade's sentiments are echoed by another constituent, Mr. Bibby:
"It seems that Mugabe will be allowed to carry on intimidating and murdering all who stand in his way, and, no doubt, we will spend tax payers' money feeding the starving inhabitants of that benighted country which is entirely attributable to Mugabe's megalomania. We live in strange times".
Mr. Mullin: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should not be feeding the starving in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Swire: I am not, and if the Minister had been paying attention, he would realise that I was quoting a constituent's letter that merely showed the exasperation felt by many of the pensioners who cannot understand the Government's inactivity. If the Minister allows me to conclude my remarks, I will answer the point in due course.
What does the Minister intend to do to help the people whose pensions have been effectively wiped out? It is no good keeping his head down and hoping that an economic miracle will take place in Zimbabwe. Those people need help and deserve the good faith of a Government who so far appear happy to have turned a blind eye to the problem. Will they consider doing what they did with Aden and Somalia? For other reasons, it was not possible to make a public officers' agreement with the emerging Government, so a loan advance scheme was set up that protected the pensioners for as long as necessary.
The 1,200 pensioners living in this country, 700 of whom were recruited through Rhodesia House—the then Southern Rhodesian Government office in London—are in desperate circumstances. They are owed not only an explanation, but prompt action. The Overseas Pensions Act 1973 would allow Her Majesty's Government to protect the pensions of Zimbabwe public service pensioners in the same way as those of British colonial pensioners. Contrary to what has been stated by Ministers, some groups of pensioners are not

13WH
covered by public officers' agreements, through which pensions are protected by the Government, and I would welcome the Minister's remarks on that.
The Minister asked whether I thought that we should cease aid to Zimbabwe and allow people to starve just because pensioners in this country are not receiving their pensions. Of course I am not suggesting that. I remind the Minister that I have tabled a number of questions and repeatedly asked what the Government are doing to trace the millions stolen by President Mugabe—the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey suggested earlier that that figure was as much as £2 billion. It is no good saying that whenever we suggest taking action, we are exacerbating the situation politically or economically, because people do not believe that.
I concede that the most important thing to do at the moment is to rid Zimbabwe of the benighted influence of its self-elected President. I am heartened by reports from Pretoria last week that President Bush met President Mbeki to discuss a £6.2 billion reconstruction package over an unspecified time and perhaps elections in 2004 that could involve the exit of Mugabe. I do not wish to discuss my own views on what should happen to Mugabe—whether he should be pursued by a high court, whether all his international assets should be sequestered, or whether he should not be given domicile in this country—because it is more important to get rid of him first on almost any condition that he takes.
However, we are talking about 2004, which is a long time for those who are not receiving their pensions, and a deal between the Americans and the South Africans, with, yet again, Britain playing no role. I find that humiliating. The point that I am trying to make is that, although the Government can continue to deny legal responsibility for the pensioners, they can no longer ignore their moral responsibility.
10.23 am
Mr. Michael Moore: It is extremely depressing to meet again, for the 13th time in a few short years, to discuss a matter that seems only to get worse without any decent progress being made. Like others, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) for securing the debate and setting out a range of issues and points of view, which deserve serious answer from the Minister. The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who has had to leave the Chamber, also set out important questions, in particular about money laundering to which I will return. As the new chair of the all-party Zimbabwe group, he has tackled his brief with enthusiasm and vigour and already instigated a series of initiatives that will hopefully add a perspective, which has been lacking until now, on Parliament's role in the whole sorry saga.
The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) commented on many of those issues, but also highlighted the serious case of those people in Britain whose pensions are in some difficulty. I hope that the Minister will shed light on that, not least because the 1,200 or so affected are spread throughout the United Kingdom.
Many of the developments have been set out by other speakers, each of them apologising for repeating a well-known story. The seriousness of that story is none the
14WH
less such that it bears repetition and requires us to confront uncomfortable facts. Every current measure in Zimbabwe is designed to hold on to the power that was stolen in last year's election. Measures may be legal, although they are mostly illegal. They involve torture, rape, murder and a huge list of atrocities. There have been sustained efforts against the Movement for Democratic Change. There have been charges against its leader Morgan Tsvangirai for an alleged murder plot against Mugabe or for organising the stay aways over the past few months.
We must not lose sight of the fact that despite all that intimidation and the real dangers to themselves and their families, thousands of people in Zimbabwe keep taking to the streets. Everywhere they turn, ZANU-PF is waiting with some trumped-up charge or some simple, ugly violence. Only a few days ago the mayor of Harare was the latest to bear the brunt of that. This is more than just a political crisis. It entails serious abuses of human rights that have been documented here this morning and by many international groups.
Amnesty International in its 2003 report sets out the catalogue of violations. They include extra-judicial executions by the Zimbabwe defence force, impunity for state or state-backed groups who commit atrocities, intimidation of the judiciary, and the repression of freedom of expression, association and assembly, which are basic freedoms that we take for granted here in Britain and elsewhere in the west. More than 1,000 cases of torture were reported to Amnesty in 2002.
We must never lose sight of that stark figure, not least because it happens against the backdrop of an economy that adds humanitarian angles to the human rights abuses and the political disgrace of Zimbabwe. It is an economy on its knees. Maize production from the once great producer in Africa now feeds barely 50 per cent. of Zimbabwe's people. Two million people still need food aid. The United Nations estimates that perhaps as many as 5.5 million will need humanitarian assistance by the end of this year.
Responses from across the world have been inadequate. Indeed, the whole world community has been paralysed. It has been taunted by a dangerous dictator and ridiculed by a regime that, despite its lack of public support, its bankrupt economy and collapsing Government infrastructure, still manages to outmanoeuvre and outwit its neighbours, the European Union, the United States and the entire UN. It is the people of Zimbabwe who pay the price.
There is a major responsibility on the African countries, which was highlighted earlier this morning. President Mbeki has claimed that there is a dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, a claim that is rejected by the leadership of the MDC itself. The African Union shows how seriously it takes this crisis by awarding Zimbabwe a prominent position in its secretariat. The New Partnership for Africa's Development, the great hope for Africa and Africa's ability to take these issues on itself and to sort out its own problems, now seems doomed with its hopes dashed. As the Amnesty International report puts it, efforts to promote Zimbabwe as a test of the efficacy of the newly launched African Union and NEPAD have failed, following the reluctance of most African leaders to condemn the Zimbabwean Government's human

15WH
rights record. That is not being said by some partisan politician in the UK or elsewhere, but by Amnesty International.
Africa's failure has been supported—if that is the right word—by the European Union. We have anguished about it and wrung our hands, but we have implemented only limited sanctions. Our political position has been undermined by the French, who allowed Mugabe to visit their country—that leaves a bitter taste in many people's mouths. In the United States, we have heard increasingly strong words from Secretary of State Colin Powell, yet in South Africa last week, President Bush's comments appeared to soften the tone and to weaken the position that America had begun to develop.
This morning's report in The Independent, referred to earlier, hints at the prospect of a deal. If there is such a prospect, I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation. I make it abundantly clear that this country is not interested in some kind of mediated handover from one ZANU-PF thug to another. If there is to be a transition in Zimbabwe, it must be on the basis of fresh elections.
The UK Government have been strong on rhetoric but they suffer from paralysis. The Minister is new to his portfolio; I hope that he brings a new perspective to it. During his career, he has gained the reputation of being a renowned champion of human rights causes, and there could be no greater challenge than Zimbabwe. The Government must back up their denunciations with efforts, clamp down on exemptions to existing sanctions, extend those sanctions to cover the wives and families of those on the list, and widen the pool of ZANU-PF officials who are covered by it.
As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey mentioned, the Government must focus on the regime's business partners based in the EU. There are huge new powers in the UK to investigate money laundering. Much is at stake in the City of London, yet there is precious little evidence that any money has been tracked down.
We must broaden the Government's diplomatic operations, and take more action at the United Nations. The Foreign Secretary has argued that there is no majority at the UN in favour of action, but—as was demonstrated during the Iraq crisis—this is surely not a Government who should be cowed by being in a minority. They should be taking the debate to the UN and ensuring that we know who is opposed to sanctions and other actions against Zimbabwe.
Perhaps most fundamentally, we must make up our mind about the MDC. There are major issues concerning any Government intervening in another country's politics. Elected Governments must respect other legitimately elected Governments, but does anybody seriously believe that ZANU-PF is properly and democratically elected, or that Mugabe is the rightful President of Zimbabwe? If the British Government cannot change their position, they should explain why not, but they should not stand in the way of other bodies that could and should be seeking to promote democracy in Zimbabwe. The MDC has
16WH
routinely demonstrated its credentials and has withstood intimidation on a grand scale; it should have our support.
The post-colonial guilt trip is played against this Government all the time. Rather than continuing to be blinded by it, they must see past it. Rather than being conned, the UK Government should be challenging Mugabe and his regime, holding up the MDC as the hope for the future and agitating on the world stage for real and effective change.
10.34 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role. He carries with him a fine reputation for human rights awareness, so we will be very interested to hear what he has to say today. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on introducing this important debate. Over a long period he has directly and indirectly highlighted the tragedy of Zimbabwe, and we are grateful for the very forceful way in which he has brought the matter to the House's attention this morning. I also very much welcome the establishment of the all-party Zimbabwe group.
As we have heard, Zimbabwe remains in the grip of terror. It is locked in a horrifying downward spiral. Zimbabweans suffer unparalleled economic hardship and brutality, which has come about directly because of the Mugabe regime. When farm occupations started, we knew exactly where they would lead. A legitimate desire for land reform was used as an excuse. Illegal seizure of farmland, coupled with increasing violence, was simply the start of a process of collapse and chaos that has continued unabated. We have seen destruction coupled with economic implosion and starvation, all to a terrifying and sinister backdrop of violence. I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who raised the tragic plight of pensioners who worked as civil servants for the Crown. I hope that the Minister will respond to his points.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), called for action to halt Mugabe's thuggery at each stage at which it became worse. We called for specific action each time, and we are sad and regret that the Government, indeed the whole international community, have reacted very slowly. The Government initially pleaded for caution, then moved on to say that firm action was being taken. We must ask what action that was. Targeted sanctions and travel bans were introduced only after enormous prompting from Conservative Members and others, and they are, even now, sporadic and unfocused.
In spite of all that, Zimbabweans have come validly as refugees to this country, and some to my constituency. The Home Office appears to believe that Zimbabwe is a place to which it is safe for asylum seekers who seek to stay in the UK to return. Is that really what the Government believe? We need some clarity on that.
My hon. Friends and others have talked about the terrifying economic statistics that provide the backdrop to the situation in Zimbabwe, so I shall not rehearse them. How the country has deteriorated is almost beyond description. The once thriving agricultural sector collapsed last year after confiscation of

17WH
commercial farms. That was done supposedly for the poor and dispossessed, but land reform actually benefited Mugabe's cronies, the apparatchiks of ZANU-PF and his stalwarts. It certainly did not help landless peasants. On money laundering and the acquisition of properties and moneys abroad, the point made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) was very telling.
The productive land of Zimbabwe lies idle and uncultivated while starvation bites deeper. I saw that for myself last summer when I visited Zimbabwe with my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. Human rights have been routinely abused. Recently., the persecution of opposition MDC supporters has intensified, and everyone is suffering in consequence. I heard about that, in the most graphic and moving detail a matter of weeks ago from Archbishop Ncube of Bulawayo, who, when in London, spelled out what was happening, so tragically, in Matabeleland. Last month came the arrest of the opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai. He was paraded in a courtroom in shackles and leg irons before being released on bail on 20 June. His offence was to call for work stoppages and demonstrations to protest non-violently at the economic suffering and political repression. His supporters have been targeted equally.
I echo the points of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). For many months we have pressed for the involvement of the United Nations Security Council. I recognise the difficulties involved. We have been told that the UN could not get involved because events in Zimbabwe were an "internal matter". We were told that it becomes involved only when civil war, genocide and wanton destruction spill into surrounding countries. I put it to the Minister that all the ingredients for civil war between the two major tribal groupings are already in place. Indeed, there have been warnings of genocide from Archbishop Ncube and others. There is absolutely no doubt that the crisis in Zimbabwe is spilling into surrounding countries, leading to a dramatic drop in inward investment and considerable numbers of refugees.
South Africa and its African partners understandably fear the repercussions of the state collapse that is happening before their eyes. Two million Zimbabwean refugees are now in South Africa, and we know the effect on the South African economy and its reputation. Damage has been done to the entire continent's admirable efforts to establish new political and trade relationships with the rest of the world through the New Partnership for Africa's Development, part of which deals with good governance.
No matter how brutal state-sponsored violence is, it is no longer great enough to produce compliance among the civilian population. We have seen that recently. Civil rights groups, trade unionists and ordinary people are taking to the streets, staying away from work and challenging the legitimacy of the Government. Despite claims that it was taking a strong line in imposing targeted sanctions and travel bans on leading figures in Mugabe's regime, the so-called common position of the EU was shown to be a sham when Mr. Mugabe visited President Chirac—a point made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. To those who think it right to establish a public dialogue with Mugabe, I say that it simply leads to a further
18WH
deterioration in the situation and reinforces the leadership of that individual, as we have seen over and over. It has the reverse effect from the original intention.
Yesterday, President Mbeki spoke on radio and television in the UK during President Bush's important tour of Africa. He was explicit in his revelation of discussions between ZANU-PF and the MDC. I was perplexed when I listened to his talk of discussions and Mugabe stepping down. Frankly, we have heard it before, and all too often. I find it hard to believe that Mugabe will willingly surrender power after all that he has done to preserve it. Both ZANU-PF and the MDC have specifically contradicted President Mbeki's view.
Mugabe has been named as the African Union's ambassador for southern Africa. That sends a message merely of acceptance and tolerance of Mugabe's crimes, which should not be the underlying intention of the AU. It is quite extraordinary. Each time we have been told that progress is being made, we have seen precious few results. If there has been softly-softly diplomacy and people believe that progress might be made after so many false dawns and contradictory messages have emanated from Harare, it is not unreasonable that we should look for some sign from Mugabe. The violence must end, and be seen to have ended. That must be concrete, and a clear message must be sent that something positive is being achieved. If President Mbeki is sponsoring some unofficial dialogue, he must continue to press for cessation of the violence as part and parcel of the process, and he should say so openly and publicly.
What light can the Minister shed on recent events and President Mbeki's comments? If there is an agreement in the offing to end the downward spiral of thuggery and economic misery, it will, of course, be welcome, but there can be no resolution until the downward spiral is brought to a halt, Mugabe steps down and free and fair elections take place. Until we see some clear signs of that happening, pressure from the international community must continue.
10.45 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): May I make it clear at the outset that the Government share the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and his colleagues about the dreadful situation in Zimbabwe? We welcome constructive contributions to the debate on how to deal with the matter and we share the widespread frustration of all decent people that there are no easy or immediate solutions to the plight of Zimbabwe and its people.
During the past two years, there has been a great deal of huffing and puffing from some Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for Henley said, this is our 13th debate on the matter and there has been a marked absence of constructive suggestions. I was pleasantly surprised by the hon. Gentleman's demeanour, but not by that of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). In the Opposition's wilder moments, military action has been suggested, which, as the hon. Member for Henley hinted, may play well in the saloon bars of Henley and East Devon, but which makes us a laughing stock in the real world.
Mr. Swire: I sought earlier to put the record straight. I was not arguing for military intervention in

19WH
Zimbabwe, but pointing out its feasibility and disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley about that. It is disingenuous of the Minister to repeat what is not the truth.
Mr. Mullin: I was not entirely clear what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, but he raised the possibility of military action and some of his colleagues, who are not present today, have also done so. I am pleased to hear that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), after some hesitation, has confirmed to the Foreign Secretary that he, at least, is not proposing military action. I hope that we shall hear no more of such folly.
I have read the contributions of he hon. Member for Henley to The Spectator and The Daily Telegraph which, understandably, focus on the plight of white farmers whose land has been brutally and illegally expropriated. I do not want to minimise the plight of families such as the Bayleys, which he described so movingly, but, outrageous as it is, it pales into insignificance when compared with the plight of the hundreds of thousands of black farm workers and their families who worked on the appropriated white farms, many of whom face destitution and starvation.
Before I move on, I could perhaps make another point. The worst atrocities in Zimbabwe occurred not during the past two or three years, but during the early years of the Mugabe regime when his army slaughtered thousands of people in Matabeleland. It is a matter of record that the Government in power at that time were Conservative. It is also a matter of record that they had little or nothing to say on the subject. They were unable to summon even a tiny fraction of the outrage that they have managed to summon over the dispossession of white farmers. Indeed, I am told that Mugabe later registered his appreciation for the understanding that they had shown over the problem in Matabeleland. So let us have no more nonsense of the sort that we sometimes hear—not necessarily today—from Conservative Members about the Government walking by on the other side of the road.
I utterly refute the assertion that we do not take the situation in Zimbabwe seriously enough. That is manifestly not the case. We have lone as much as or more than any other country to draw the world's attention to what is happening in Zimbabwe. From the outset we have worked with the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United States and—most importantly—other countries in the region to isolate the ZANU-PF regime. We have helped to secure Commonwealth sanctions, EU sanctions and Zimbabwe's suspension from the International Monetary Fund. We will not support sanctions that make the lives of ordinary Zimbabweans any harder than they are at the moment. I assume that we can count on the Opposition to support that position.
EU sanctions, which include a travel ban, an asset freeze and an arms embargo, are targeted at the guilty rather than the innocent. In addition, on 6 June, the IMF suspended Zimbabwe's voting rights—the only time that that has happened to a country not involved in conflict. In effect, Mugabe has imposed his own sanctions on Zimbabwe. It has been suggested that
20WH
sanctions should be extended to business people with alleged connections to ZANU-PF. The EU has so far not taken that step, but it remains an option that cannot be ruled out.
The hon. Members for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) suggested that we should move a resolution at the UN Security Council. Hon. Members will know that the UN Commission on Human Rights is the major forum for addressing human rights abuses. The EU, with the support of the UK, has proposed resolutions on Zimbabwe at the commission in each of the past two years. On both occasions the resolutions were lost to no-action motions. Of the 11 Security Council members on the commission this year, six—including all the African countries—supported no action. Hon. Members may find that frustrating, as do I, but if Zimbabwe's neighbours do not consider that its problems merit UN discussion, there is not the slightest chance of a draft resolution being passed by the Security Council, and even to propose one would be an own goal.
We are working closely with the South Africans, and it is right that they should have the lead role as they are, after all, in the front line. They are playing host to perhaps 1 million Zimbabwean refugees, so they are as aware as anybody of the ruin that Mugabe and ZANU-PF have brought upon Zimbabwe. They have as much interest as anybody in a peaceful transition to a stable and democratic Zimbabwe.
The South Africans have not been inactive. In May, the South African President together with the Presidents of Malawi and of Nigeria went to Harare to discuss with all parties the prospects for a peaceful transition. That dialogue continues; the Prime Minister saw President Mbeki yesterday who again confirmed that there are informal contacts between the Zimbabwean parties, some of which are mediated by the South Africans and some by church groups. President Bush saw President Mbeki on 9 July and noted that the US and South Africa share the same objectives and that he would not second guess President Mbeki, and I do not think that we ought to either.
Mr. Spring: That is an extremely important point, and we all agree that South Africa has a lead role. If President Mbeki is sponsoring those unofficial contacts, that is good. I hope that the Minister, through the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, will make it absolutely clear that there should be no dialogue while physical persecution is directed against the MDC. There is no encouragement for the MDC to act while their lives and 1 hose of their families are at risk every day.
Mr. Mullin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are some informal contacts, because I guess that some members of ZANU-PF know that the regime is ending. Not all of them approve of what has been going on over the years and they may be looking for an exit strategy. It is not unreasonable to suspect that informal contact is being made. It is in the interests of both parties, with a view to providing some kind of transitional Government prior to free elections. However, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for

21WH
Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that free elections must be the ultimate goal so that a new democratic regime can be installed.
Mr. Spring: The Minister has not addressed my central point. I accept what he says, but I merely pointed out that there is no basis for the MDC to have confidence in an ongoing dialogue if its supporters are subject to persecution. The British Government must say to our South African friends, who may be sponsoring the dialogue, that if it is to prosper, there must be a clear indication from Mugabe that he will stop the persecution.
Mr. Mullin: I do not want to speak for the MDC, which is on the front line: indeed, none of us should. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I would not encourage formal contact if persecution took place daily. However, such contacts are taking place informally, and I hope that they will be formal before long.
I will now say a word about the humanitarian crisis and our contribution to dealing with it. Last year we helped to feed more than 7 million Zimbabweans: this year we expect about 5.5 million to require food aid. In addition, about 35 per cent. of the population is HIV-infected. The UK Government have led the international response to the humanitarian crisis. We are the largest European bilateral aid donor and the second overall after the United States. We will continue to contribute significantly to humanitarian relief for the foreseeable future. It is not without irony that Britain and the United States—the two countries most regularly singled out for criticism by Mugabe—are doing more to feed his people than he is. In addition to feeding programmes, we maintain a substantial programme to tackle HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe, and we expect to spend £26 million on the project over five years.
I will briefly touch on some points raised by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). If I am not able to deal with all the points made, I will write to hon.
22WH
Members. Like others, my hon. Friend asked about money laundering. If he or anyone else has evidence that Zimbabwean money is being laundered through the City of London, he should give it to us and we will pass it on to the Financial Services Authority—that point has been made to him before. We require evidence before we can proceed.
I agree that it is highly undesirable that Mugabe should be present at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, and President Obasanjo of Nigeria, who is hosting the conference, is well aware of that and active on the subject. I will meet the Commonwealth secretary-general on Thursday, and we will undoubtedly discuss that issue.
The hon. Member for East Devon asked about pensioners. The fact is that many of those affected are not servants of the Crown. I am sorry if that argument is disappointing, and I understand he will be disappointed for those concerned. There is no obligation under the Lancaster House agreement, which the Government made clear at the time. The Government are responsible for paying the small number of colonial pensioners now resident in Zimbabwe, who were recruited by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to serve on expatriate terms. We also pay British state pensions to some British citizens living in Zimbabwe.
We do not think that it is safe for refugees to return to Zimbabwe. I am involved in discussions with the Home Office about the letter that has been distributed.
In conclusion, although it can sometimes be frustrating, we must work through international institutions and with our international partners. It would be absolute folly for the UK to act unilaterally, and the Zimbabwean opposition groups are not asking us to. On the contrary, they recognise, as most sensible people do, that unilateral action by the UK would play straight into the hands of Mugabe and his henchmen—he would like nothing better. Indeed, he never tires of trying to blame the problems of his country on Britain, and we should not provide him with a further excuse for doing so.

A350 (Dorset)
11 am
Mr. Robert Walter: This debate is about the misery of the thousands of my poor blighted constituents who live along the A350 in Dorset. I wish to express my thanks to Dorset county council, the North Dorset Roads Action Group and various parish and town councils for helping me to prepare for this debate. I also wish to thank officials at the Government office for the south-west, who were always courteous but who were unable to give my constituents or me the answers that we sought. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his recent announcement to spend some £7 billion on new motorway projects. Unfortunately, once again, there are no funds for the south-west, but I welcome his realisation that the seven-year moratorium on road building has been short-sighted.
One of the reasons why motorways are so badly congested by short and medium-distance traffic is that far too many A-roads are inadequate. The problem must be tackled in parallel with improvements to motorways and public transport, but improvements to A-roads will benefit most people and will be infinitely more cost-effective than the other two aspirations.
An example of that is the A350 in Dorset, which runs through my constituency. It is an important route but a very bad road. It is of considerable local and strategic importance, but it is a terrible, inadequate, slow and dangerous road. The route provides the only northern link between the south-east Dorset conurbation around Bournemouth, which, with the port at Poole, is the second largest in the south-west, and the hinterland of market towns to the north and west. It connects the south coast and the continent, directly or via the A36 to the M4, the Bristol/Bath conurbation, south Wales, the west midlands, the north-west and even Ireland.
Every day, 10,000 vehicles use the road. Drivers tolerate insufferable road conditions, driving at an average of just 33 mph at best—half the speed that they should reasonably expect. They have no alternatives. There are no railways, and there is no way that traffic can be diverted—nor should it be, as a high proportion of it is local traffic, which includes the small-business economy of the south-west going about its everyday activities. Ordinary people use the only means of transport that is available to them—their motor cars—to go to work, to go shopping, to take their children to school and to conduct their lives.
The economy of the area is underachieving because of the run-down in agriculture and because companies are not investing there, largely because of inadequate infrastructure, including roads. Yet the Government are imposing an increasing housing commitment of some 5,000 houses on the north Dorset district. That is welcome, because lower-priced homes might offer the chance to local young people to slay and not have to emigrate from the area, but there is every prospect that already heavy traffic will increase dramatically and that the chaos of building will start years ahead of improved road infrastructure, for which there are no plans anyway.
Some of the major treasures in Dorset are its villages, which are set in spectacular scenery. They have the potential to attract tourism, but tourist visiting is low
24WH
because of poor access. Villages and some small towns such as Shaftesbury and Blandford suffer blight from traffic because the A350 road is so bad. Its alignment is 18th century: narrow, rarely more than 4 m in width, whereas the minimum for a modern A road is 6 m; and there are steep hills and blind bends. The road fails even to come up to the standard of a basic service road to a new housing estate. The Department for Transport condemned it 10 years ago as not only inadequate but not fit for on-line improvement.
Between Shaftesbury and Sturminster Marshall, 11 villages in a distance of 20 miles are polluted and afflicted by thousands of vehicles a day, including 42-tonne trucks with six axles, passing at 30-40 mph only a couple of feet from people's homes. Cottages and heritage-listed buildings alike are being shaken to bits. The A350 is so bad in parts that more than half the drivers—about 5,000 a day—find it more convenient to use the "rat run" of the C13, a country lane that fortuitously runs parallel to the main road. It is, however, no safer, and as a country lane it is, of course, inadequate for the size and weight of modern traffic.
The existing A350 road severs villages and prevents people from being able to walk to their neighbours and children from walking to their friends. Overall, the A350 renders these villages "non-communities" with no personal contact, very few amenities, and no or scant public transport. They are cold, empty dormitories. The noise and smells in these villages and small-town environments are horrific. The risk of accidents and damage to homes, for which there is no public recompense, is high and occurs weekly.
Fortunately or, at risk of sounding perverse, unfortunately, there have been few fatalities. There are overpowering traffic, economic, social and environmental reasons to invest in a new and improved road rather than in the existing A350 road. Let us therefore consider the case for a solution and the current state of the proposals. The case is clear: the volume, weight and speed of motor vehicles in the villages in the A350-B3081-C13 corridor between Shaftesbury and Sturminster Marshall are dangerous and damaging hazards to people and the environment.
There is a need for traffic control measures in the villages in the short term, but however successful they might be, they do not obviate the need for a series of properly designed and constructed bypasses that are sensitive to local needs and the environment. The impact on through traffic on existing communities in the corridor is unacceptable. Current Government policies concentrate development pressure within the principal urban areas, so existing problems are likely only to be exacerbated. The case for a proper, purpose-built bypass was first proposed by Dorset county council in 1933, when the volume of traffic was one twentieth of the current level and the weights of heavy goods vehicles were one tenth of what they are today.
The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole structure plan, which was published in February 2001, states that
"traffic in Dorset grew by 54 per cent. in the 15 years since 1983 and is forecast to grow by a further 29 per cent. by the year 2001".
We have passed that date. Two major road schemes have been proposed for this corridor. The first is the Melbury Abbas bypass. Dorset county council applied for planning permission for the C13 improvement and

25WH
the Melbury Abbas bypass in 1995. The main reasons given for the scheme were to promote regional economic development and to improve environmental conditions for people living alongside existing main roads.
The A350 is an important link in the primary road network between centres of economic activity in south Dorset and the national trunk network in the north. The A350 is narrow, tortuous and substandard for its purpose. A high percentage of heavy goods vehicles use the road, sections of which are too narrow for two-way traffic. In fact, two articulated lorries cannot pass at 35 points on that stretch of the road. Most of the length of the C13, which is the higher Shaftesbury road and the alternative route between Blandford and Shaftesbury, is of reasonably good standard, with the exception of the short section through Melbury Abbas village, which is narrow and has sharp bends and steep gradients. The combination of relatively high traffic flows and poor road alignments gives rise to accidents and environment nuisance to those living alongside the A350 and the C13-B3081.
Traffic levels have increased since 1995, and future planning policies are likely to focus more development in the south-east Dorset conurbation and exacerbate the existing problems. The National Trust and others objected to the application on the ground that the road scheme would be environmentally unacceptable. That was at a time when the structure plan was nearing adoption. The joint structure plan authorities decided to withdraw the proposed scheme for a Melbury Abbas bypass from the structure plan, as it was considered that, at the time, the scheme's environmental impact would outweigh its social and economic merits.
However, the authorities decided that for the structure plan period—up to 2011—it was appropriate to propose improvements on a smaller scale to those previously proposed, which could and should include a bypass. Importantly, however, longer-term options would depend on the outcome of the proposed multi-modal study on the routes between the south coast and the M4/M5, including the A350 corridor, which had been proposed at that time by the south-west regional planning conference.
South of Blandford is the equally important proposal for the Charlton Marshall, Spetisbury and Sturminster Marshall bypass. The issues concerning that bypass are similar to those concerning Melbury Abbas. This scheme, together with the northern section that I have described, is currently the county's second highest priority, and is contained in the structure plan, the north Dorset local plan and the east Dorset local plan. The environmental impact of this southern scheme is much less damaging than that of the schemes considered for Melbury Abbas, and although this scheme is in the approved plan, the current Bristol/Bath to south-coast study outcomes could prejudice its construction.
I am concerned that the Government office for the south-west believes that Dorset receives ample funding for highways and transport. The county has frequently argued with the office that it does not receive as much money as other authorities in the south-west. Although the office has increased the annual settlement for integrated transport in Dorset at a higher rate than for other authorities—for which we are grateful—Dorset remains the worst funded authority when comparing capital settlements on a per capita basis.
26WH
The current year's annual settlement for integrated transport in Dorset is £3.247 million. Funding comes in the form of credit approvals as part of a single capital pot. Unlike other authorities, however, the county can add money from its own resources, so the total capital budget is some £6.3 million. The county could raise its council tax to even higher levels than at present, but that would be politically unacceptable and perhaps would go wider than the debate. The county also has freedoms to transfer funds from other areas of its capital programme, but those are also in politically sensitive areas, such as education, which has its own history of underfunding.
It should be stressed that the integrated transport allocations made through the local transport plan are generally low or medium-cost schemes, identified in the plan for meeting Government-led targets on road safety, encouraging alternative forms of transport, and improving accessibility in rural areas. The funding is used to address the main issues raised through best value and local transport plan consultations.
Funding for major projects costing more than £5 million—such as the project in question—is different. Any improvement schemes in the A350 corridor would fit into that category. Conventionally, such schemes have been funded in the form of a 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant, and 50 per cent. basic credit approvals. Either way, the funding has to be bid for and allocated as part of the local transport plan process. In previous LTP rounds, local authorities were generally limited to one major scheme per authority, and Dorset already has the Weymouth relief road.
To achieve success in the bidding process, the project must meet Government criteria and have the support of the Government office for the south-west. That office has consistently failed to provide the policy context or support for schemes in that corridor. Will the Minister acknowledge the need for the scheme, abandon the arbitrary nonsense of allowing only one major scheme per county at any one time, and instruct the Government office for the south-west to move forward with Dorset county council to bring the scheme to fruition? That will give hope to the thousands of my constituents who live in daily misery along that road.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this debate on a matter that is important to his constituents. I have some familiarity with the road concerned, having travelled down it a few weeks ago. Although it is an attractive route, going north, I agree with him that it is not an ideal route for the throughput of traffic.
In his introduction, the hon. Gentleman welcomed the £7 billion that was announced last week in relation to the multi-modal studies for roads. He then said that there was nothing for the south-west. I also saw a headline in the Western Morning News last week saying that nothing had been announced for the south-west. However, that is because the announcement on the south-west was made six months earlier—late last year. For the record, so that no one will leave the debate believing that nothing has been done for the south-

27WH
west, I remind hon. Members of the substantial improvements to the A303 east of Ilminster, of the four local transport schemes around Bristol, and of the fact that Cornwall has benefited hugely from a couple of bypasses. There have been many other improvements. The south-west has not been ignored, but received its announcement earlier than other regions.
The hon. Gentleman said that there were no plans for better roads in his constituency. The majority of the roads in his constituency will be local, and Dorset county council has responsibility for those. Perhaps he should address some of the issues that he raised to his colleagues on the council. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the issue of bypasses along the route of the A350. Having travelled down the route, I can see that such bypasses would be attractive to a motorist. However, I am not sure that they would be cost-effective, and their environmental impact would be enormous. I did not study the road carefully as I travelled down it, but I would have thought that bypassing every village on the route would have an enormous impact on the environment. I believe that one of the reasons why the idea was dropped was the strong feelings locally about the environmental impact.
The Government are committed to sustained long-term investment to improve local transport as a key element of our 10-year plan for transport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in December 2000 we announced that £8.4 billion would be available to implement local transport plans in England over the, next five years. The local transport settlement announced just before Christmas last year gave details of the third instalment of that funding, with £1.5 billion being made available in the current financial year. That funding will help to deliver the Government's vision of a high-quality transport network that meets people's needs and offers more choice to individuals, families, communities and businesses, such as those about which we have heard today.
We are investing £348 million in 2003–04 to enable local authorities to implement major transport projects across England. Those schemes will help to deliver the targets and outputs set out in our 10-year plan for transport by reducing the environmental impact of traffic, improving air quality by reducing emissions, reducing noise and reducing congestion in large urban areas.
We are providing the investment to enable authorities to deliver a huge range of small-scale transport projects, from safety schemes, bus priority measures and park-and-ride services through to schemes to encourage cycling and walking. I have seen at first hand the impact of many of those schemes on the communities that they affect.
I would like to turn now to the issue of today's debate—the A350 between Blandford and Shaftesbury. I will also say something about the investment that we have made in Dorset. In 2000–01, Dorset county council was allocated £0.9 million prior to the publication of our 10-year transport plan. That has risen in the current financial year to £3.247 million. I think that the hon. Gentleman alluded to that. It is a substantial rise—certainly a threefold rise. We have a: the same time given the authority increased flexibility to determine its own
28WH
priorities within its local transport allocations. With that greater local discretion we not unreasonably look to authorities to reprioritise their allocations to meet changing demands, including increases in the costs of individual schemes.
In addition to other schemes that I announced earlier, we gave provisional approval in November 2000 to the Weymouth relief road, which would reduce congestion and improve access to Weymouth and Portland.
The A350, as the hon. Gentleman said, is part of the primary route network linking Blandford to Warminster in the north. In the wider picture, it links the Poole-Bournemouth conurbation with Bristol and Bath and the M4 to the north. As part of the primary route network that route should be maintained to allow all vehicles to use it, to serve this part of Dorset and parts of the county beyond. However, the road is a local road and it is for Dorset county council to manage it.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the A350 passes through attractive countryside, including Cranborne Chase and the West Wiltshire Downs area of outstanding natural beauty. The A350 between Blandford and Shaftesbury carries about 3,100 vehicles a day, of which 22 per cent. are heavy goods vehicles. Blandford is bypassed, but the road northwards to Shaftesbury is largely unimproved and passes through several villages. At points the road is steep and passes through some tight, narrow bends.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns about safety and the practical difficulties experienced by his constituents, given the number of heavy vehicles using the route.
Mr. Walter: I was perturbed by the figure that the Minister gave for the number of vehicles using the road, because even the Government office for the south-west acknowledges that the figure is in excess of 9,000 vehicles a day. That was what its representatives said when I had a meeting with them two weeks ago. Perhaps the Minister has picked a particular stretch to mention, but there are two roads, the A350 and the C13, which run parallel.
Mr. Jamieson: I was talking about the A350. The figure that I have been given is about 3,100. As the hon. Gentleman has questioned that, I shall request that we confirm the figure, and jot him a line about that. The figure for cars using the C13 is of course something in excess of that—about 5,000 a day. That may be where the hon. Gentleman's figure of 8,000 or 9,000 comes from.
No doubt matters would be worse without the parallel route of the C13, which I think is called the high road, locally. It carries fewer heavy goods vehicles than the A350, but I am advised that it takes about 5,200 vehicles a day, 10 per cent. of which are heavy goods vehicles. Heavy goods vehicles are advised not to use that route, because of the steepness of Melbury Abbas. That alternative route runs along the top of a prominent ridge that is visible for many miles, where there are fewer junctions than on the A350 and only one settlement—the Melbury Abbas settlement. Melbury Abbas is located at the northern end of the C13, at the bottom of the steep Spread Eagle hill, after which the road joins theA30 just east of Shaftesbury.

29WH
In the past, Dorset county council promoted a bypass for Melbury Abbas. That would provide the potential to remove traffic from the existing A350. I understand that for many years it was Dorset's wish to change the classification of the two roads following the implementation of that improvement, so that the C13 would become the A-road. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are difficult environmental constraints around Melbury Abbas, which would make the delivery of an off-line improvement very difficult and probably exceedingly costly.
Not only is the landscape in the area unspoilt and designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. but there are important wildlife sites nearby, including the Fontwell and Melbury Downs SSSI. Finally, an off-line improvement would be very expensive and would involve serious engineering challenges as it would have to rise up very steep gradients. I understand that, for those reasons, the scheme was withdrawn by Dorset county council some years ago and no longer appears in its structure plan nor in its local transport plan.
The hon. Gentleman knows that we decided that the A36-A46 to the north of this area should be detrunked, following our review of the trunk road network published in 1998. Local authorities in this part of the region have been actively supporting a study looking at the future of the A36-A46, which in part aims to ensure that additional traffic would not use the A350 in this part of Dorset. Dorset county council has been an active participant in that study, contributing both money and expertise. We welcome the support given to this study by Dorset and other authorities.
Dorset had hoped that the study might recommend a solution to the difficult traffic problems experienced on this route. I understand that it is disappointed that the local steering group has not been able to recommend
30WH
that the A350 in this area should be improved. The study concluded, based on detailed analysis of the traffic, that the majority of cars and light vehicles on the route are local in origin and therefore it is appropriate that Dorset should recommend local solutions to deal with that traffic. I know that some say that this traffic comes from the port of Poole to south Wales and beyond. Our evidence is that that is simply not true. The majority of the heavy goods vehicles come from a wide area across the Poole-Bournemouth conurbation.
The information provided by our study should allow both Dorset county council and the south-west regional assembly to develop appropriate solutions to the problems south of Warminster. In view of the recognised environmental constraints on the A350 and the C13 it is probably right that we do not identify this route for significant or regionally significant improvements. However, we recognise that measures should be put in place to ensure that traffic levels are not increased along this corridor. As a result there is a need for a rapid review of the policies and proposals contained in the current Dorset structure plan to address this point, particularly the distribution of new housing.
If Dorset wishes to promote a scheme to improve the route or to remove heavy goods vehicles, it can do so through its local transport plan. Any such scheme would have to be appraised in the light of our current guidance. We will, of course, look carefully and sympathetically at any such proposal. I hope that that answers some of the hon. Gentleman's points. I cannot give him any great comfort, except to say that as it is a local road, many of the solutions will have to come through his local county council and the local transport plan scheme, which I hope can bring some comfort to those people living along the route.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Antisocial Behaviour
2 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have done so once or twice before and look forward to doing it again.
I am grateful to hon. Members for showing an interest. I apologise for the late change in subject, which may have disappointed some members of the audience; I know that it disappointed one right hon. Member, who had come prepared to speak on another subject. The change was made because a statement on entitlement cards is due in the foreseeable future, and it seemed a little pointless to have an Adjournment debate on the subject before then.
I chose community support officers as the substitute subject because Broxtowe, in common with many other constituencies, expects to receive six community support officers in the near future; the first are expected at the end of August. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may correct me, but I believe that they have been active in a number of other areas for about 18 months. I know that, in general, early reports have been promising, but there have been various critical voices. Away from the argy-bargy of political debate, we are keen to draw on best practice. I spoke to a local inspector in north Broxtowe this morning, and he was keen that we should learn from this debate as to how other areas have found that CSOs can be most effectively deployed.
I worked hard to get CSOs deployed in Broxtowe, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) for his area. For those Members who have not had the inestimable pleasure of getting to know Greater Nottingham, the city is surrounded by three essentially suburban constituencies; Gedling, Broxtowe and Rushcliffe. They all contain a mixture of urban and semi-rural areas.
Although those Members familiar with Nottingham and its nightlife—I am sure that many Members go clubbing regularly—will know that there is a significant public order issue in Nottingham city when everyone spills out of the pubs and clubs. I have always stressed that the residential areas around the city also have a significant problem of antisocial behaviour. That needs to be addressed, not just for its own sake but because it affects the fear of crime.
In common with most parts of Britain, we in Broxtowe have experienced a decline in crime figures. As the Home Secretary remarked a few months ago, people do not believe that, because of a subtle reason. Most of us, fortunately, do not get burgled often enough to form a qualified opinion on whether the rates of burglary are going up or down. We read about horrific burglaries, rapes, muggings and so on in the newspapers, but we do not have a gut feeling as to the trend.
However, we have a gut feeling about the level of antisocial behaviour. In recent years, the level of antisocial behaviour has increased; there is no serious argument about that. People extrapolate from that; if they see youths on street corners getting drunk, shouting, being a nuisance to passers-by and breaking bus shelters, and those same people read in the tabloids
32WH
about horrific crimes elsewhere in Britain, they assume that that crime is getting worse. They do not dare to go out at night, because they believe that the antisocial behaviour that they see in their area is translated into large numbers of muggers and other troublemakers.
The other day, I was talking to a chief inspector in Dorset, who said that he knows of elderly ladies in villages who do not dare to leave their homes because they are convinced that the streets are full of muggers. That is partly the effect of the press, but also reflects that extrapolation from antisocial behaviour.
It is not realistic to believe that if we have more police, the problem will be solved. As we know, we now have more police than at any time in British history—certainly in Nottinghamshire, and I think that that is also the case nationally—and that has not solved the problem. One of the reasons for that is that the police are trained on a broad front; to solve murders, to investigate rape allegations or to control riots. They are trained to deal with all the law-enforcement issues that may arise. Antisocial behaviour in the community is one among many of those law-enforcement issues, and competes for the attention of the police with more serious crimes.
No one would suggest that a youth standing on a street corner drinking beer and shouting at passers-by is a serious crime compared with burglary and assault. However, the problem is that if someone lives near that street corner and sees the same youth out there every night with 20 of his mates, but the police always give priority to burglary, assault and rape, that person, and the youths themselves, will get the impression that that aspect of the law is not being enforced.
In preparation for the debate, I have carried out a fair amount of research into the deployment of community support officers. They are less expensive to train than police officers because they do not undergo the full training, and so more of them can be recruited. However, the essential point about community support officers is that their role is designed to be locally focused. That means that they should be able, in the tradition of community policing, to identify the key trouble spots and the habitual troublemakers.
CSOs are trained in giving evidence, because one of the major problems has been to persuade people to give evidence and to give credible accounts to the courts about whom they have seen. CSOs are also trained in the low-level enforcement that is often missing in our towns and villages. Even if they are not trained in or expected to take action on the major, headline-grabbing crimes, their training enables them to specialise to a much greater extent than police officers.
We should accept that, initially, the police had some reservations about the appearance of CSOs, perhaps because they felt that CSOs were designed to be a sort of cheap police force that would eventually replace them. However, as the concept has evolved, I understand that that attitude has largely been superseded by straightforward pleasure that issues that could not be addressed in the past are now being addressed.
I have talked to a couple of the officers involved in policing Nottingham city, where there have been CSOs for some time. They said that the level of low-level antisocial behaviour was sufficient that they could not get to it. Every day, they look at a long list of things that

33WH
they should follow up, and it is simply a relief if additional people can specialise in dealing with such behaviour and deter it.
There can be substantial drops in crime. For instance, in Kimberley in my area, crime is down by 55 per cent. in the last year. It is important to reinforce drops of that order with a strong message about antisocial behaviour. If people see that antisocial behaviour is being curbed, and if the figures show that the numbers of burglaries, muggings and so on have fallen substantially, they will feel safer in their communities. That is one of the most precious things that any Government and any political class, which is what we all are, can provide for their citizens. Indeed, the original contract between Government and the governed is that we will provide security of the immediate environment.
I am extremely keen to see CSOs in Broxtowe and spreading round the country, but I have several questions to explore. First, what experience has there been elsewhere of how CSOs are most effectively deployed? Obviously, one option is to send them out with experienced police officers. I imagine that that would be a natural introduction to their time in service. People should not just hand them a map and say, "Go and sort out this community." To make sense, presumably there must come a point at which they can operate independently in an area. I should be interested to hear about experience as to how quickly that point comes.
Secondly, when will a full assessment of the impact of CSOs be made? When I asked about that at Home Office questions yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety said that estimates of the impact of CSOs on antisocial behaviour had not yet been made. Given that they are a new concept, I hope that such an assessment will be made at some point. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary guided us on when we might expect that.
I am interested to hear about experience as to how large a community a CSO can optimally serve. Broxtowe is made up of numerous towns and villages, and it is unrealistic to expect that every little clutch of streets will get its own CSO. Obviously, that will not happen with six officers, but the alternatives are for, say, a pair of CSOs to be responsible for a huge area covering 25,000 people, or to concentrate on a small area where it is known that there is quite a lot of trouble and hope to get to the other areas later when the trouble has been dealt with. There is always a risk of displacing trouble.
It would be helpful to know what, according to experience, was an appropriate area for CSOs to deal with. It should not be so small that they are wasting their time or so large that they are accused, as the police traditionally are, of never being seen. When we get the six officers, the police authority and the local council would be grateful for more guidance on what has happened elsewhere.
The next question is the extent to which the role of a CSO differs from that of the community police. We all talk derisively about the need to get away from the "Dixon of Dock Green" concept, but a lot of people
34WH
think back wistfully to those days and would like a beat bobby to come round every few hours. The police in Nottinghamshire worked out that a beat policeman apprehends an offender every 24 years. In contrast, if officers are deployed on following and studying the habits of known repeat offenders, they arrest roughly two a week. That is a dramatic contrast. Most people, including myself, feel that the presence of beat officers deters crime. However, the difference between arresting two a week and one every 24 years shows that we must concede that the police have a case for deploying their most experienced officers on chasing routine repeat offenders and ensuring that they are caught as soon as they return to crime.
We must balance that work with a visible presence, and the police cannot do everything. I hope that community support officers will fill that role and give people the sense that, as well as the most experienced officers chasing hardened criminals, there is a local presence and somebody whom they can talk to informally. As MPs, all of us are familiar with the constituent who says, "Well, you know, I don't like to say so, but most of the trouble in this area is caused by the people in No. 17", and when asked why they do not report them, they reply, don't dare." An effective community support officer would know that to be the case and frequently would be seen in the vicinity of No. 17. People would know that an eye was being kept on their activities.
The community support officers do not replace the current beat patrols. We all know that the police are stretched, but every community in Broxtowe has a beat sergeant and a team of constables as, I assume, most other parts of the country do. I expect community support officers to work with beat constables and sergeants, and it would be helpful if we knew more about how that co-operation has worked in other areas. We must try to ensure that CSOs are not used by the police as dogsbodies to do things that they cannot be bothered with, and that they are not seen as competitors. The worst case would be if one person reported a crime and did not get a response whereas someone else found that the police and the CSO followed it up in succession.
There must be close co-operation and I want to talk about how that works in practice. What is the typical profile of a CSO, and whom should we encourage to apply? We all have constituents who say, "If they gave me the chance I'd sort things out", and we have tried asking them to become a special policeman. As a rule, they ask how much the pay is, we tell them it is not a lot and the interest diminishes. However, the more serious people who say that might be interested in applying for the CSO posts.
I shall not read aloud the job advertisement, but it would be helpful to know, for instance, whether a community support officer has a slightly older age profile due to the nature of the work, which is unlikely to be as strenuous and physically demanding as that of a policeman controlling a riot. However, the police could be looking for young people who might move on to the regular police force. That raises the question of the long-term career structure.
When I talked with Les Kominiak, the superintendent responsible for police in southern Nottinghamshire, he said that many CSOs, having gained extensive

35WH
experience in community policing, would be likely to move on to become fully fledged police officers. That is an option and an objective that he would like to be realised, although he would like people to stay in the job, with CSOs becoming more experienced and having a career and reward structure that reflects that experience. Do the pension arrangements for CSOs reflect those of the police force or are there separate arrangements?
To return to the original theme of the debate, I should like to draw on the response yesterday to my question about the powers of detention for CSOs. Interestingly, the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety replied that if CSOs have the power to detain people for half an hour, as they do in some areas, it is easier to identify those with whom they are dealing.
I shall not anticipate the statement, which we know is not too many months away, but this seems to be an area in which ID cards could make a significant difference. I am aware that the Government's view is that, although ID cards might become universal, it should not be compulsory for people to carry them to identify themselves when requested to do so.
The overwhelming majority of the people to whom I speak are extremely enthusiastic about ID cards. They feel that if somebody is behaving suspiciously, it should be possible for the police to ask that person to identify themselves; not for routine checks of the kind that became notorious in Brixton, but in cases of documented suspicious behaviour. There is more than one way to identify oneself and I do not say that people should be required to carry ID cards, but we should make it a condition that if a CSO or the police ask someone to identify themselves and if that person can produce their ID card, that would settle the matter. If they could produce another kind of ID and the police or the CSO were satisfied, that would be fine too.
I accept our commitment not to require people to carry ID cards at all times, but CSOs and the police should have the power to ask people to identify themselves if they are behaving suspiciously. Let me give an example; a CSO on Beeston high road sees someone wandering along at 11 o'clock at night, feeling the doors of buildings. It is not illegal to feel the door of a building to see whether it is open. If the officer goes up to him, as he might well, and asks what he is doing, and he says, "I am thinking of writing an article for the local paper on local security and I am doing some research to see how many doors are open", the officer can point out that what he is doing is a bit dodgy and might be misinterpreted, but he cannot arrest him for it. Nor can he ask him to identify himself.
The community support officer might walk on round the corner and the next morning it might be reported that a shop has been broken into, but it would not have been possible for the officer to have deterred that by identifying that it was John Smith—or Oliver Letwin, David Blunkett or whatever figure one might think of—whom he interviewed on the street the previous night.
If I were considering such a crime—although I do not do so frequently—and were stopped by a CSO, if I was identified unambiguously, which an identity card would do, I would probably decide to call it a night and go back
36WH
to bed. I might try again another night, but that would have acted as a deterrent. However, if I could just say that my name was, say, Letwin, it would be less of a deterrent. I might still be a bit worried that I might be recognised, but if I were wearing a hood and generally slickly dressed I would probably feel that it was quite likely that I would get away with it. When we come to debate ID cards in the coming months, I ask the Under-Secretary to consider seriously—although we should not go back on the pledge not to require people to carry them all the time—allowing the police to require people to identify themselves by whatever means they think appropriate.
If we made that obligatory, we would also need to require the police to log all such requests, with an indication of why they considered the behaviour suspicious. We must avoid a return to the stop-and-search culture that prevailed in Brixton, which ultimately led to riots. Basically, if someone was young and black, they were stopped. The Information Commissioner would have to be empowered to inspect the records of police forces to see whether any stood out as having an unusually high level of such inquiries; if necessary, the commissioner could look at individual records.
We all talk about too much bureaucracy, and a balance must be struck. If we get to the point where we allow community support officers and the police to require identification of some kind, we ought to document the circumstances under which that takes place so that we can verify that it is not being misused.
I return to co-operation between police and CSOs. There have been some press reports of forces in which CSOs have been frequently reported for apparently minor infringements of discipline. One interpretation of that is that officers have felt a degree of resentment towards the newcomers and have been eager to pick them up on any little infraction that, in a regular officer, would have passed almost without comment.
On the other hand, in the Metropolitan police in particular, reports are that co-operation has been very good and that the regular officers have greeted the reinforcements with some enthusiasm. So that we can benefit from the good examples rather than from any bad ones, I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary elaborated on what kind of training and advice needs to be given to new CSOs and existing officers to ensure that co-operation is optimal and that they see each other as partners rather than rivals.
At Home Office Question Time yesterday, the Minister of State said that the power to detain people for 30 minutes was proving successful in a number of areas. The issue is important when it comes to the credibility of CSOs. We all hear anecdotally of eight-year-olds who can quote the Human Rights Act 1998. If it became generally known that CSOs could tell someone off, call in the regular police and give evidence against people, but could not detain people until the police turned up, the more daring troublemakers would exploit that.
I am aware that there are reservations about allowing a new group of people the power of detention, but 30 minutes is not excessive. I was stopped for exceeding a speed limit the other day; it was a fair cop. I apologised and it took roughly half an hour to fill out the relevant forms, which I interpreted as part of the punishment. In

37WH
our everyday lives, most of us are accustomed to incurring half-hour delays because of the maintenance of public order or traffic problems. If someone gives a CSO reason to suspect that they are having a serious antisocial impact on their environment, it is not an excessive infringement of liberty to allow the CSO to detain that person for 30 minutes.
More cynical people might say that 30 minutes is not enough because the police normally take three hours to turn up, so CSOs would hang about for half an hour and then have to let the person go. Well, that is not the experience in my area. Sometimes the police reckon that the criminal has already escaped and that an urgent response will not change anything, so they turn up a day or two later, which causes irritation. However, when the police genuinely believe that an offender is still on the premises, they arrive quickly.
It is a basic requirement of the co-operation between CSOs and the police that we ensure that if CSOs have the power to detain people for 30 minutes, the police will virtually never fail to turn up within that time.
Mr. James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is touching on some matters to which I will return, but I want to challenge him about the issue of detention, which caused grave concern when the Police Reform Bill was in Committee.
As the hon. Gentleman described, the police have to give priority to burglary, robbery, rape and murder—the serious crimes—and CSOs are filling in on the less serious crimes. If a CSO detains a lout—I think that that was the word that the hon. Gentleman used—for an antisocial act in a large geographic constituency such as mine or that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), and the police are called out to a robbery or car chase, after 30 minutes the CSO has to say to the young hooligan, "Well, no copper has turned up. I am going to have to let you go." What does that do for the credibility of the system?
Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman is right; that is an essential feature of the arrangement. The expectation should be that in the overwhelming majority of cases the police turn up within 30 minutes. If that is not possible because of the intensive levels of rape and pillage in Somerton and Frome, for instance—without wanting to trivialise crime in that constituency—we need to consider whether the period needs to be longer, or whether a different power is needed to require the offender to come to the police station. I want to raise that issue with the Under-Secretary. I would be interested to know whether we find that in the pilot areas it is possible for the police to arrive within 30 minutes.
I make a distinction between the situation that I described at the start, to which the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred, and the one that he has just outlined. A hard-working police officer may well be reluctant to turn out for a slightly nebulous report of someone shouting in the street, or a report that someone has been seen throwing bottles. By the time he turns up, the offender might have escaped, and the offence may have been exaggerated anyway. If he has a burglary to follow up, he would put the first issue on one side.
However, if the same hard-working police officer has a burglary to follow up but gets a call from the CSO saying that he has an offender standing in front of him,
38WH
temporarily detained and ready to be arrested, he would be much more motivated to deal with the situation. If the police feel that CSOs are delivering offenders into their grasp for immediate arrest, that is a very different situation with regard to priority from the question of simply dealing with antisocial behaviour. There seems to be a strong prima facie case for the argument that the power of detention is desirable. Whether 30 minutes is enough, I do not know; I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's insights into the experience in other areas.
Without wanting to stray outside the limits of today's debate, we should also address the broader question of freedom compared with the crime enforcement carried out by community support officers. That challenge was raised in Hugo Young's article today, in which he suggests that the instincts of Government Members, such as myself, are illiberal. He suggests that where we have a choice between reducing crime and the fear of crime and reducing freedom, we invariably choose against freedom. I am paraphrasing, but that was the substance of his indictment. We have to take such a suggestion seriously because there comes a point where the considerations of freedom override the considerations of crime prevention.
We can all suggest extremes. If we were to intern all teenagers, we would end teenage crime; I have constituents who would favour that solution. However, a long way short of that comes a point where most of us would feel that we were interfering too much in the normal exercise of everyday life. When we consider the tools that CSOs might use, many of them are individually controversial such as evidence from CCTV cameras, evidence from DNA or identity cards. When we examine those, each can easily be justified on the grounds that the benefits of greater community safety outweigh the risks, but there is a slightly more serious case to answer when they are all put together.
Singapore is the most concrete example with which we are familiar. It is widely admired by tourists for the law-abiding behaviour of its citizens, the absence of chewing-gum on the streets and so on. People in that country know that they will be arrested and thrown into prison for offences. Most people believe that Singapore, admirable though it is, perhaps goes a little too far.
We are on solid ground with community support officers. Whereas we must be careful that the gravity of more serious crimes does not lead us into cutting corners in dealing with crime, for the relatively trivial offences of antisocial behaviour, it is widely perceived that there is a huge gap between what people would like to see in their community and what they actually see. My perception from talking to many constituents about the issue is that people would accept a significant increase in surveillance—I deliberately use that loaded word—if it meant a significant reduction in antisocial behaviour. Part of such surveillance is the presence of community support officers who can work with the community to identify the troublemakers.
We all realise that most offences are caused by a small number of people. A member of my own family burned down a beach hut when she was a teenager. I come from a respectable family, whose members do not often do that sort of thing. She went to a beach party with a group of about 20 people. When they got a bit cold,

39WH
someone asked, "Why don't we set fire to the hut?" Everyone laughed, and they set fire to it. My relative did not suggest it, but she did nothing to stop it.
We are all familiar with the idea of the community ringleader who causes trouble. Part of the job of community support officers is to know who those ringleaders are, to make them know that they are known and that an eye is being kept on them and to reinforce the confidence of others in the community that supervision is being maintained and that something will be done if they report acts, or even planned acts, of antisocial behaviour. Community support officers will also enable people like my relative to have the courage to say, "No, that might get us into trouble. A CSO might come along."
I wish to give the crowd of hon. Members who wish to speak on this debate a chance to speak, so I propose to conclude my remarks in the next few minutes. Communities will welcome the community support officers and are anticipating the role that they will play to the extent that we must be careful that we do not raise expectations too high, as community support officers will not be supermen or women any more than anyone else.
However, reinforcement by people who are based in the community and who are familiar with its troublespots and troublemakers has the potential to make a significant contribution to making our communities feel that we as a political class are delivering the secure environment that is the basic part of the social contract. Those things will be achieved only if we use the CSOs optimally, if we avoid friction with the regular police, if we ensure that the regular police and the CSOs are trained to work together and if we draw on the best practice from around the country. I hope that the areas, including Broxtowe, that are about to get CSOs for the first time can draw on the experience of others.
I am grateful for the chance to speak about the issue at greater length than I had anticipated and look forward to the rest of the debate.
2.45 pm
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on securing this debate and the one that he had intended to have, both of which concern pertinent subjects. I am sure that his suggestion that the Palmers are the scourge of the Nottinghamshire countryside with their speeding and arson was inadvertent. I am also sure that he inadvertently mentioned identity cards. His remarks were nevertheless illuminating because his example suggested that the substantive evidence that caused the officer to request the person's identity was that the person was out at night and was wearing a hood. We might have explored that argument had we been dealing with ID cards.
Dr. Palmer: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but I said that the person involved was trying the doors of shops along the high road.
Mr. Heath: I did not understand that the person was trying doors, which is an offence. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, for which I apologise.
40WH
Let us deal with the substance of the hon. Gentleman's contribution because the subject is important. There is a lot of common ground, despite the differences that sometimes occur in debate. It is common ground that antisocial behaviour is a serious problem in all sorts of communities and in all sorts of ways. During the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, the hon. Gentleman's county colleague, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), suggested that the mean streets of his constituency were the epicentre of crime in the country. I must say that that is not necessarily the case. Small village communities, such as those that I represent, market towns and the big conurbations all have problems with antisocial behaviour. Our constituents are rightly worried by antisocial behaviour and want solutions to be found.
The importance of the patrol function is the second area of common ground, and the hon. Gentleman spent some time discussing it. He rightly said that for a good many years chief police officers have taken the view that the patrol function is a marginal policing activity because it does not catch and convict criminals, and the evidence suggests that that is the case. That does not undermine the importance of the patrol function in keeping the peace, which is an important part of policing.
The patrol function does three things. It deters—it is possible to overstate that point—and undoubtedly acts to reassure communities that there is a police presence among them, which is desperately important. It is a truism that the fear of crime is almost as debilitating to a community as crime itself. It is appalling that members of the community, who are often elderly, fear even in a village to go out after nightfall because they have read lurid reports in tabloid newspapers that they are about to be knocked over the head by a ruffian. The fact that that is not the case is neither here nor there. They have a real belief that it is the case, and the presence of a uniformed officer is therefore important.
I agree with the hon. Member for Broxtowe that a patrol officer provides intelligence that feeds into deterring and investigating crime effectively. We have lost the direct communication between our police and communities that allows the police to understand what is happening in the community and respond to it, to know the individuals concerned and speak to them and to pick up on the indications of responsibility for crime or impending crime at an early stage. That loss is important.
In my involvement with police forces, I have always stressed the importance of intelligent patrol—making sure that uniformed officers are there at the right time and place to provide the maximum reassurance and deterrence. That means appearing on pensions day at a sub-post office in a small village, and being there at chucking-out time in the middle of a market town on Friday or Saturday night. Those are the times when people need to see a uniformed presence among them and working with them. There is broad agreement that community support officers have a role to play and that they are a plus rather than a minus.
More generally, and without wanting to sound too analytical or philosophical, there are three classes of people. There are, first, core criminals, about whom the community support officers will do nothing. They are the 20 per cent. of those charged with crimes who

41WH
commit 80 per cent. of crime. They have an extraordinarily high degree of recidivism, and a propensity for committing crimes almost irrespective of the punishment or deterrent set. Community support officers will not have an effect in that area.
The second class is the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, who we often forget, and classify—as the hon. Gentleman did in his humorous aside about locking up all teenagers—as a problem. Very often the view comes through that teenagers are a problem. They are not a problem; some teenagers are a problem, just like some 80-year olds are a problem. We do not do well when we class all young people as the reason for antisocial behaviour and place subsequently inappropriate restrictions on them.
The third class is those involved in antisocial behaviour and petty crime. That concerns the one-off criminal and rowdyism, which can be addressed, deterred and prevented. That is where community support officers, along with a range of sanctions and measures, can have an effect.
One of my worries with the Government—the worry is not new—is that they have addressed the problems of crime time and time again and have introduced 660 new laws during their lifetime. They have been less effective at dealing with the other part of the equation as set out by the Prime Minister in his famous dictum on the causes of crime. Were we to do a lot more about the environment, lighting, facilities for kids, skateboarding parks, recreational opportunities and the effective use of schools, we would reduce antisocial behaviour. Instead we blame anyone who happens to find themselves in a bus shelter at night because there is nothing else to do. We have not addressed some of those community and societal matters with sufficient energy and resources, so we have opened the way for more serious crime.
I was interested to read a series of reports in The Guardian in the last week or so—other hon. Members may have read them—one of which focused on Bristol, a city in which I have some interest, as I was once chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority. One of our great successes when I was chairman related to the serious criminals who formed the local gangs and were at the head of the drugs trade and every other sort of serious crime in Bristol—the Aggies, as they called themselves. We had a list of 10 top criminals and we had all of them behind bars. That was a huge success for the Avon and Somerset constabulary.
However, the consequence was that a few years down the track those same communities found themselves in the presence of a new breed of gang; the yardies came in and took over the territory. Resources had not been put into putting up barriers against that new invasion of criminal, so we had simply replaced one set of criminals with another. The Aggies have now finished their prison terms and there is gang warfare on the streets of Bristol. That is appalling, and very difficult for the police to deal with.
I say that not because I expect community support officers to do something about that level of crime, but to underline the need to put resources behind the front line
42WH
of patrol and policing in order to give the community the strength to resist the activities of criminals. There is now a new breed of officer and, although we have some criticisms of what the Government have developed, there will be advantages to community support officers having a common status with other uniformed presences, so that they can work together under common powers and commands, rather than in separate areas.
We understand the Police Federation's criticisms. It is worried that the measures simply allow policing on the cheap and are a substitute for providing police officers. I do not think that those criticisms are entirely justified, but the view of professional police officers is understandable.
We need to understand that community support officers are not police officers. They have a different function and are working at a different level. As the Under-Secretary's predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said, they extend the police family—a rather homely phrase, but it expresses what has happened. It is important that we do not expect them to do what they cannot and are not trained to do. As the hon. Member for Broxtowe says, that would undermine their function and their abilities.
It is also important that we select and train CSOs properly for what they do. There is evidence that that has not taken place in some of the forces currently taking on community support officers. I do not want to exaggerate, and I certainly share some of the concerns that the hon. Member for Broxtowe expressed about the experience in the Metropolitan force particularly, but let us be absolutely sure that CSOs are able and prepared to do the job that we want them to do.
One particular power under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that gives me great cause for concern is that of dispersal. The Under-Secretary knows that we have taken exception to giving that power to CSOs, not least because the Association of Chief Police Officers is worried about the power in itself. I quote from the deputy chief constable of Northamptonshire, Mr. Whitely, who has responsibility for the matter for ACPO:
"The initial reaction from forces suggests that it would not be enthusiastically used in the operational environment. The arguments against centre around street culture and the likely impact within socially deprived and minority areas. Such a power could, potentially lead to confrontation, disengagement and isolation of some elements of the communities".
If ACPO are worried about that happening with properly trained fully competent police officers, the risk of it happening with someone who is not as competent, trained or in the same position is even greater. Will the Government think again?
We should accept that community support officers can play a role in extending the patrol function, particularly to areas that would not otherwise be covered. They are not a substitute for extra, omni-competent police officers or properly trained special constables. They are also not a substitute for a category that I have wanted to see developed but that the Government have shown only occasional interest, which is that of retained, fully trained officers, analogous to our retained firefighters but giving an extra police presence in rural areas. Community support

43WH
officers have their place, but we must understand their limitations as well as the expectations that could so easily be put on their shoulders.
3 pm
Mr. James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I must admit that when we started, I did not believe that it would be at 3 o'clock, and I am anxious not to squeeze the Under-Secretary out of her time to reply.
I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on securing the debate. I am less sure that I congratulate him on the subject that he eventually chose, because I suspect—ungenerous as I may be—that the heavy hand of Government rested on his shoulder and they said that they did not want a debate on ID cards 48 hours before a statement. Nevertheless, community support officers and antisocial behaviour are important, and the hon. Gentleman addressed several issues.
Dr. Palmer: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I want to place on record that I was asked specifically by the Speaker's Office whether any pressure had been put on me to change the subject. I confirm today what I confirmed to the Speaker, that no pressure was put on me. I was simply told that there would be a statement on ID cards soon, and it seemed appropriate to me to change the debate.
Mr. Paice: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation; I simply claim in aid my natural cynicism after 16 years in this place.
The common ground that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned is shared with my party as well. As a Back Bencher the Under-Secretary spent some time in Committee on the Antisocial Behaviour Bill until she found herself propelled to the Front Bench. That happened before the Bill finished its progress, so she will have seen the issue from both sides. I am sure that she will agree that there was widespread agreement about the problem across the Committee. The disagreement was on the proposed solutions.
There is also common ground on the role of non-police officers in helping to address the problem of antisocial behaviour. From the outset of debate on what is now the Police Reform Act 2002, we emphasised that we want and believe in non-police officers aiding the police in their duties. We have seen neighbourhood and traffic wardens and the development of street patrols, and last week I was in Wandsworth, where the borough council employ a lot of street wardens.
Such people will have a vital role to play, and the area of debate—it is no more than that—is about giving non-police officers a range of police powers. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will increase the range of those powers. He mentioned one or two, and I will not go into the detail of them all, but it seems premature to extend the range of CSO powers when, as has been said, we will not receive the first evaluation of how the initial tranche of CSOs has settled down until September.
44WH
There is a more important aspect, which is that the more that the range of CSO powers is extended, the more the distinction between a CSO and a real police officer—a proper copper—is blurred.
I shall now discuss the financial aspects. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will claim it as a great success that the 27 police authorities that bid for CSOs in the first round wanted them despite the doom-mongers—among whom I include myself—who said that there was no demand for CSOs. However, the way in which the Government did it was bound to create demand, because putting in bids for CSOs was the only way that police forces would get any money at all. I remain of the view that if the Government had simply put that money into the policing "pot" and said that police forces could have either police officers or CSOs, most chief constables would have spent that money on police officers rather than CSOs. However, they were not given that option, and it is hardly surprising that there was demand, because it gave forces the opportunity to increase their overall resources.
It will be interesting to see the results of the evaluation in September. Although it is difficult to be precise, it appears that the pay of CSOs is almost in the same league as the bottom of the pay scale for a police constable. The starting pay for a constable is £18,666. I suggest that not many CSOs are earning considerably less than that, so the cost saving is probably much more marginal than the Government had originally anticipated. However, there is a financial saving in the training of CSOs; their training takes three weeks rather than 19 weeks.
Equally seriously, there are no national standards for CSO training—the training is all carried out in individual forces—whereas police officers are trained according to national standards and through Centrex. I am concerned that we are spending almost as much on paying CSOs and investing considerably fewer resources in their training, while extending the range of police powers that they are given. There seems to be a disjunction between the approaches that are being taken.
According to the Government's press release of 2 May, the next tranche of CSOs will receive only 50 per cent. funding. It remains to be seen whether the demand for CSOs will continue when forces are required to find their own resources to complement Government money.
I now turn to the issue of what I call neighbourhood policing, a concept that was central to the comments made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe. He mentioned apprehending a criminal once every 24 years. Policing, however, is not just about apprehending criminals; it is about ensuring that we all live in an orderly society, and that crime is prevented. In the ideal world, the police would prevent all crime and there would be no criminals, but although we would all love to inhabit such a world, we never will.
However, I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that neighbourhood policing has a vital role to play not only in deterring criminals and reassuring the population, but in preventing crime by low-level intelligence gathering in the community of which it is part. Neighbourhood policing also has a role to play in bringing communities together, and in

45WH
enhancing the physical environment by ensuring, as in New York—the broken windows theory—that things are done; that burnt-out cars and vomit on the street are cleared away, and that broken windows are repaired. If one broken window is left broken, the following week the next window will be broken. Action to prevent that is part of addressing the problems of antisocial behaviour and crime, and is a vital role for neighbourhood policing.
What concerns me is that if we expect CSOs to be playing that role—I believe that that was the nub of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, and it is certainly the Government's contention—that has two implications. First, we are saying that we have downgraded the role of neighbourhood policing and that it is not a job for a full-blown police officer but a slightly inferior role for a community support officer. That sends out all the wrong messages about neighbourhood policing.
In contrast, I think that neighbourhood policing should be a distinct, positive career path in the police service that needs to be enhanced. It should involve proper career prospects and there should be much less abstraction from neighbourhood policing for the "fire brigade" work of dealing with crime. The risk of using CSOs as replacements for neighbourhood police officers in that role is that we diminish rather than enhance the role of neighbourhood policing.
Secondly, although I may have unwittingly slightly undermined this point in my earlier comments about cost, I have a fundamental concern if CSOs are cheaper than police officers; if they are not, I cannot see why we have embarked on the scheme. I suggested that the saving may not be as great as was originally expected. I can foresee a day when a Chancellor says to a Home Secretary, "Well, I accept that you may want some more bodies in uniform on the street, but you can have 5,000 CSOs or 2,000 or 3,000 police officers. Which is it to be?" We would thus begin the gradual slide of reducing the professionalism of the police force. That would be a very serious trend to start.
I look forward to the evaluation results in September on the various aspects that I have described. The hon. Member for Broxtowe accepted my intervention on detention, and I am grateful to him for that. That gave rise to a great deal of debate during the Committee stage of the Police Reform Bill. I remain of the view that I expressed in my intervention. I am pleased that the Government accepted the need for some pilots to see how the scheme would work, and to see whether my worst fears were realised or unfounded or, as I suspect, somewhere in between; but I think that there are potentially real problems with the use of detention.
Following the hon. Gentleman for a moment down his other side-route on the role of identity and the ability to detain someone while checking their identity, he quite rightly demonstrated that unless someone is required to carry an identity card, one of the fundamental benefits that the public perceive from having them is completely destroyed. If one does not have to carry a card, one cannot be required to produce it. To tell someone that they must bring it to a police station in the next few days, as with a driving licence, is frankly absurd. If someone has given the wrong identity, the fact that they do not
46WH
turn up at the police station can never be followed up. It is complete nonsense to suggest that, although I have read that that is in part of the proposals.
Another issue is that this time next year there will be 25 countries in the EU, so the citizens of 24 other countries will have the free right to move around this country with just the passports of their native country. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and everyone else knows how easy it is to obtain a forged passport, particularly from some countries either in or about to become part of the EU. That, too, undermines whatever technology may be involved. If someone just produces a Portuguese passport and says that they are a Portuguese citizen—whether they are or not—they will have complied with the necessary legislation. However, the power of detention will not have achieved the fundamental objective—to ascertain or verify the identity of the individual who has been detained.
I shall not detain the Chamber much longer, because I want the Under-Secretary to have the opportunity to respond. I conclude with a completely different point on antisocial behaviour. It is on an issue that we did not debate on Report when debating the Bill because of the timetable, but the Government introduced a new clause on it. It is the problem of travellers. Although I strongly welcome the fact that the Government responded to the pressure that I and others put on them in Committee, I hope that they will consider the matter carefully and that the Under-Secretary will have a chance this afternoon to explain a little more of the background and why they have introduced their amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Requiring alternative sites to be available before the police use the powers that the Government are giving them drives a coach and horses through the enforceability of that legislation.
The Bill will be debated in the other place, and I am sure that their lordships will probe the Government on that, but it is a crucial issue. The Government clearly want to address the problem, and I respect them and congratulate them on their enthusiasm for doing so. But I am not sure that they have not unwittingly created a loophole that will completely nullify the benefit of the Bill.
I am grateful for an opportunity to address the Chamber on this issue, which will not go away. We look forward to the conclusions of the first evaluation. The best thing that I can say about CSOs at this stage is that the jury is out. We look forward to seeing how they settle down. I suspect that they are here to stay in one guise or another, but it is essential to study how they are settling down and how their powers are used if we are to make the most of their role in helping the police to combat crime.
3.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department(Caroline Flint): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on securing the debate, which is on an important issue. All hon. Members present will recognise that antisocial behaviour and the changing ways in which it affects our communities is probably one of the top two issues, if not the top issue, that they come across in their postbags. It has changed the face of law enforcement and the issues

47WH
that police officers have to deal with. I remember watching "Dixon of Dock Green" as a child. I was brought up in what seemed a rather happier time in policing, notwithstanding the fact that police officers also had to deal with serious criminal issues many years ago. Some of that has not changed, but other things certainly have.
It is increasingly recognised that certain crimes, because of their nature and seriousness, demand the attention of fully trained police officers. Indeed, that was reflected in the debate and acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Antisocial behaviour is not necessarily less serious. If the antisocial behaviour that starts in communities as an irritant is not checked, the people responsible can turn into the full-blown criminals whom our police officers have to deal with.
We must recognise that we need multi-skilled teams. This is not only about community support officers, but about working with local authorities and the health service. That is certainly the case in relation to drugs in the area that I cover. It is increasingly important that the police work alongside drug action teams and other people in that sphere. It is also important to work with community organisations, whether tenants and residents associations, neighbourhood watch or community partnerships. I was told a few weeks ago by a senior police officer in Bristol that where there has been serious crime on the streets, intensive police action has been required to deal with it and to reclaim the streets. The neighbourhoods and the community must be left strong enough to withhold future crime waves by gangs or whatever.
Mr. Heath: The Under-Secretary is right about the point that I made in my speech. Will she accept that dealing with serious crime such as we have in Bristol causes the abstraction of officers from the rest of the police authority area? In our part of the world, for instance, the whole of Somerset has lost officers because they are dealing with the gangs in Bristol. As a result, we are all losers.
Caroline Flint: I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that crime is decreasing in Avon and Somerset. The support from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the police standards unit has demonstrated that they have got a grip on their performance issues. Indeed, recent data show positive reductions in recorded crime. Of course, at local level—at force level—it is up to senior police officers to consider the situation throughout their communities and to decide where best to place their resources. There will be short-term and medium-term operations to deal with that, but it is important to recognise that different types of crime or activity, including antisocial behaviour, require different responses.
My major point is that we are trying to build capacity and strength in relation to communities. That is about policing, but it is also about building community partnerships so that local people can take back control of their neighbourhoods and so that a handful of families do not hold whole communities to ransom.
48WH
CSOs come into their own in relation to police presence. I do not agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) who said that it is just about police forces saying, "Well, that's where the money is. We're going to put in to have that presence in our community." There is demand from communities for that sort of support and those resources in their immediate neighbourhoods and that is reflected in the number of bids to increase the provision.
Mr. Paice: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Caroline Flint: I want to make some progress because I have only a short time in which to speak, but I will return to the hon. Gentleman if I have a few minutes at the end.
The primary role of CSOs is to provide high-visibility patrols in our communities and deal with lower level crime and antisocial behaviour. CSOs are fully integrated into forces, based in police stations and supervised by police officers. That goes to the heart of the point about teams and good relationships. The police are in control of the process. CSOs complement police officers to provide a better service. We are increasing numbers of police officers to record levels, and, at the same time, we are considering ways to improve the provision of police services to our communities by using mixed-skill teams of police officers and CSOs.
CSOs are not policing on the cheap. Their attributes—a low level of power and targeted training suited to their patrol function—lend them to being better at permanent community patrols. Unlike police officers, whose extensive skills base means that they are likely to be regularly abstracted from their core patrol functions, CSOs are likely to spend long periods without being removed from patrol, acting as the eyes and ears of the police service.
In the communities that I represent—I am talking not about a major town, but about satellite communities—police officers work in partnership with CSOs, with the local inspector. Police officers are still visible, but recognising the different contributions to different levels of crime and nuisance is important.
CSOs support police officers. They are fully trained and empowered by the Police Reform Act 2002 to undertake tasks such as staffing security cordons, carrying out administration at roadblocks or dealing with abandoned cars. Many such tasks do not utilise the full range of skills, or the training, of regular police officers. We hope that CSOs will free up police time so that the police can concentrate on tasks that can best be done by fully trained police officers.
On deployment, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned the size and nature of communities and asked how large a community was. Those are questions for chief officers to determine in consultation with members of their crime and disorder reduction partnerships and in relation to other patrols available in the area. Deployment should be consistent with the application of the national intelligence model, which will ensure the more efficient allocation of resource, where they are needed. We cannot put a blueprint on deployment from on high, at national level. Actively engaging with community partnerships, community

49WH
safety officers on local authorities and others will determine how best to fit patrols and resources to local needs.
On evaluation, it has been mentioned that we are learning from the process. We are seeing good results and there has been anecdotal evidence about how well supported CSOs are. Chief officers have had the power to designate their staff as CSOs since December last year, so the process is still young, but we have come a long way in seven months. For instance, 1,390 CSOs have already been recruited and a further 1,233 are to be part-funded by the Home Office in this financial year. There will be only five forces not employing CSOs by the end of this financial year.
Despite being in the early stages of the project, we are receiving lots of informal evidence from forces, local authorities, local papers and Members of Parliament that indicates that CSOs are having a significant impact on local communities. I am pleased to say that several forces have reported significant reductions in crime in areas in which CSOs are patrolling.
Anecdotal evidence is encouraging, but we need a more formal evaluation of the impact of CSOs in order to ascertain what works best. All forces that take on CSOs will evaluate their performance, and we will issue guidance to help to standardise the information across the 27 first-round forces. That is important because we want the results to stand up to rigour and provide an evidential base for further developments. We also want to be sure about best practice and that what we are recommending to other forces can be applied in those forces and other communities. It is important that the information goes beyond the professionals directly to the communities, so that they understand what is happening elsewhere and so that demands can be made from the bottom up. We expect to receive interim returns of evaluation findings in September, although it will take longer to collect more scientific evidence.
I was asked about pensions. For pension purposes, CSOs are treated in the same way as all police staff. Each force has different terms and conditions, which also extend to pensions. There is no bar to CSOs becoming police officers through the standard application process. Some forces—including, I understand, the Metropolitan police—are considering fast-tracking CSOs into the police service, as they will already have met some early requirements.
The nature of the training given to community support officers is a decision for their chief officer. It will depend on the role that they perform and the powers that they are designated to exercise. The evaluation is important because CSOs are employed differently in different communities. Once we have that information we will consider what training should be provided for them to carry out their functions. Centrex has provided forces with guidance, and many other forces have adapted the training package devised specially for CSOs by the Metropolitan police.
50WH
Generally, the emphasis in CSO training is on problem solving and dealing with low-level disorder and antisocial behaviour. They are encouraged to use their powers only if other approaches are ineffective. They are not trained to deal with more serious criminal offences and are advised to call for police assistance if there is any doubt about their safety or that of the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe mentioned friction between CSOs and regular police officers. Local police forces are engaging more and more with the new resource and getting to grips with how it works on the ground. It is important to make an effort to include front-line police officers in development so that they can also contribute to the debate. However, so far there is no evidence of friction. CSOs are trained and supervised by police officers, and they even patrol with them; they work closely together. That is an important part of the teamwork ethos.
Points were raised about ID cards. We will come to those considerations in due course and, depending on the outcome of that debate, we will consider whether CSOs or the police should have the powers that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe suggested. On the subject of public trust and reassurance, his suggestions for a log are interesting. CSOs can currently ask for the name and address of anyone that they suspect has committed an offence causing injury, harassment or alarm to any person, or loss or damage to property. As my hon. Friend will be aware, CSOs who have the detention powers that are being piloted can detain anyone whom they think has not provided the right details.
On the issue of the detention power, the time of 30 minutes was raised. As I said, the scheme is being piloted in certain areas and we are looking at the outcomes of those pilots as to whether they should be extended. A balance had to be struck between the role of the CSO, given their training and skills, and the need occasionally to detain someone for longer than 30 minutes. Parliament has decided that, in the vast majority of cases, 30 minutes would be long enough and that the role of the CSO would not be too enforcement-orientated at the expense of their other duties. We are entering a new area and will monitor that balance to see what works best. We do not yet have any formal analysis of the results of how those powers are exercised. The initial returns indicate that 30 minutes is proving to be enough in most cases, but that is an issue to which we must return.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridge shire referred to the sums of money. The starting pay of constables does not include significant allowances and progression is obviously much more rapid. It is important to note the difference between cost and salary because of equipment and the additional costs of officers. CSOs are less expensive. We have not conducted a detailed analysis—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order.

Leyla Zana
3.30 pm
Ann Clwyd: I was pleased to secure today's debate because it is two years since I saw Leyla Zana in prison in Ankara. She was waiting for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which was reviewing the sentence given to her nine years previously. I had arranged to see her beforehand, but there was a difficulty when I got to the prison because the staff did not expect me. There was a challenge at the main gate and it took some time to get into the prison. I sat in the prison governor's office for one and a half hours while he attempted to contact a Minister in the Turkish Government to obtain approval for my visit. The prison governor thought that Leyla Zana should not be in prison and that she should have been released.
I took Leyla Zana a birthday card because it was her birthday. The cards was in Welsh and was X-rayed before being handed over because the authorities did not understand the language and were afraid that it contained a subversive message. The only message it contained was to emphasise the point that it is possible for people in one country to live peacefully together despite differences in background and language.
The meeting with Leyla lasted about two and a half hours, and I was grateful to the prison authorities for allowing me that length of time. I had heard much about her and seen pictures of her. When she met me, prison officers escorted her. She is a young, attractive woman of great dignity. We sat down together and she said how grateful she was for the many letters that she had received from people in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. She said that although she did not speak English, the letters meant a great deal to her because they showed that people were thinking of her.
Bianca Jagger was to have accompanied me, but the Turkish authorities said that she could not come because they have strict regulations on who can gain access to someone in prison. Visitors must have a particular or family reason to see a prisoner. My reason was that I chair the all-party group on human rights. I am also a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Commission on Human Rights, where a committee with six members selected from all countries campaigns for the human rights of members of parliament, some of whom are unfortunately in prison, in detention or cannot carry out their mandates.
The prison was old and derelict, like most prisons in Turkey. Leyla told me that she was allowed access to television and could read books and newspapers. In the past few years, she had even been allowed her own small garden in the prison. She said that she had not received any visits from her husband for many years because it was too dangerous for him to come to the prison. When her son last visited her in the early 1990s, he was detained overnight, so she told him not to come again. I believe that both of her children now live outside Turkey. She said that she was expecting a decision from the European Court, which was taking a long time.
It was a great privilege to talk to Leyla because she is a woman of great determination and sincerity, and she has strong convictions. In the past, she was offered amnesty on the ground that she was sick, but she refused it because she believes that the other three Kurdish MPs
52WH
who were detained at the same trial should also be freed. It takes a truly remarkable person to make that sort of decision. She is young, wants to express her strong political views and has a young family that she wants to see grow up; yet she is still in prison.
After taking part of their parliamentary oath at the swearing in ceremony in Turkish and in Kurdish, Leyla and three other Turkish/Kurdish MPs were sentenced in 1994 to 15 years in jail. In May 1984, I swore my oath in the House of Commons in English and Welsh. There was no problem here, but there still is in Turkey.
At Leyla Zana's trial, she was accused of taking her oath in Kurdish and of wearing a hairband in the Kurdish colours: green, red and yellow. At her trial, she said that she had taken her oath in Turkish and Kurdish, and that she had said in Kurdish that she was swearing the oath for the sake of fraternity between the Kurdish and the Turkish peoples. Furthermore, she said that she had worn the Kurdish colours in protest against a legal provision that prohibited their use in the south-eastern part of Turkey in the late 1980s.
Leyla Zana was also accused of attending the funeral of a member of the Kurdistan Workers Party—the PKK. She explained that she was present at that funeral because the person in question was her cousin. Naturally, she could not deny her blood relationship with him and thus condemn her own family. She had also attended the funerals of members of the Turkish military forces.
Zana was the first Kurdish woman to be elected to Turkey's Parliament. She is a former candidate for the Nobel peace prize, and a winner of the Sakharov prize for freedom of thought, which is awarded by the European Parliament.
In July 2001, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the initial trial was unfair and called for her release or retrial. This January, the Turkish Government eventually passed legislation that required the retrial of any court cases that had successfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The four MPs obtained a retrial under that legislation.
Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were put on trial in December 1994 for membership of an armed gang and were sentenced to 15 years in prison. In July 2001, the European Court concluded that they had not received a fair trial and that article 6 of the European convention on human rights was violated owing to the presence of a military judge, the fact that the defendants were unable to defend themselves against a new charge that was introduced at the last hearing of the original trial, and the fact that the defendants and their lawyers were not allowed to question prosecution witnesses. Even so, it took until January this year for the Turkish Government to act. That was when the criminal procedures law was amended to allow for retrials in such cases. Yusuf Alatas, the defence lawyer for Leyla Zana and the other defendants, immediately applied to Ankara state security court No. 1 for a retrial, which was granted. However, his request that the defendants immediately he released until the trial was denied.
As a European Union candidate, Turkey must meet the criteria for membership that were agreed at the Copenhagen European Council in 1993—the

53WH
Copenhagen criteria—which deal with stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Turkey started working towards fulfilling the criteria in March 2001. The Copenhagen European Council of December 2002 stated that if Turkey met the Copenhagen criteria by the 2004 Council of Europe, it would recommend that accession negotiations commence. Therefore, current events in Turkey are particularly sensitive.
The first retrial was adjourned on 21 February 2003, the second on 28 March, the third on 25April 2003 and the fifth on 20 June 2003. The date of the next hearing is 18 July—this Friday. The defence lawyer's report concluded that:
"The re-trial of Leyla Zana, Orhan Dogan, Hatip Dicle and Selim Sadak is being conducted in a manner which violates both the principle of fair trial and the points determined in the decision of the European Human Rights Court, dated July 17, 2001. Until now, the practices of the Court have been far from being objective."
In addition, Mr. Alatas stated that
"the practice and decisions of the court at the hearing on May 23. 2003, clearly indicated that the court was not objective, that the trial was being conducted totally along the lines of the wishes of the prosecution, that none of the requests of the defence would be accepted, that a real trial was not being conducted, and the court would persist with its verdict taken in 1994."
A report by Paul Richmond, a British barrister, on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers was published in June. It presents even more damning evidence of the Kafkaesque nature of the retrial. It says that certain aspects of the right to a fair trial were respected, but that there are
"profound concerns that the principle of equality of arms between the defence and the prosecution was not observed and that the tribunal was neither independent nor impartial".
Let me give some examples of that. The prosecution was allowed to present 26 witnesses, but the defence was not allowed to call even one witness. The defence was prevented from directly asking relevant questions of witnesses for the prosecution. The prosecution failed to disclose material evidence against the accused, a witness for the prosecution whose first language was Kurdish rather than Turkish was not provided with an interpreter in the courtroom and the defence was denied the possibility of having its questions of witnesses and submissions to the court entered directly into the court record. I could go on. If that is Turkish justice, I would not be very happy about being tried by a court in Turkey.
Such clearly unjust procedures are reminiscent not only of Kafka but of a play by Harold Pinter called "Mountain Language", which hon. Members may have seen at the National Theatre, in which the mother of a Kurdish prisoner in a Turkish prison was allowed to speak with her son only in Turkish—a language that she cannot speak.
Although Turkey's recent constitutional reforms have improved the situation on paper regarding the Kurdish language, I am afraid that the reality is very
54WH
different. It is important to look not at the aspirations but at the reality. In its 2003 world report published this month, Human Rights Watch notes that the Turkish Parliament's August 2002 legislation lifted restrictions on minority language courses and broadcasting, including Kurdish, but the reforms were hedged with qualifications that could block effective implementation.
Most of us have been to Turkey on various occasions. I was at the Ilisu dam some years ago. I was driven there by a driver who had sold his only cow to buy a dish so that he could watch Kurdish language television. There are examples of such continuing attitudes to the Kurdish language.
Leyla Zana's lawyer has confirmed to us today that at the defence's formal request for a retrial the presiding judge refused and commented in open court that
"the deficiencies and mistakes identified by the European Court of Human Rights will not change the guilt of the accused".
The same judge presided at the initial trial in 1994 and remains the presiding judge in the current retrial. Obviously, comments such as that must cast doubts on the judge's and the court's impartiality.
The International Commission of Jurists also has misgivings about the independence of the Turkish judiciary. Although normally independent, it often responds to directives about threats to the state issued by the Government and the national security council. The report of the European Parliament ad hoc delegation to the retrial in April this year stated that
"there was little evidence that things had changed substantially since 1994."
In particular, those who compiled the report were unhappy that the defence lawyers were
"unable to put direct questions to the witnesses".
That practice had also been prohibited at the original trial. Members noted that the trial gave Turkey an opportunity to show the world that it was determined to implement its reforms, but so far there is no evidence that this was the case.
I would like to end with a quotation from Leyla Zana, from her original trial in 1994. She said:
"My worst crime, in the view of the prosecution, seems to be a phrase I spoke in Kurdish on the brotherhood of Kurds and Turks and their coexistence in equality and democracy when I took the loyalty oath in Parliament. Even the colour of my clothes seems to have been a 'separatist crime'. Furthermore, simply by mentioning the existence of the Kurdish people and Kurdistan, by peaceably demanding recognition of Kurdish culture and identity in a democratic system and within existing borders, I have supposedly defended the aims of the Kurdistan Workers Party…But that party is engaged in an armed struggle, while all my activity is aimed at silencing the weapons and seeking a peaceful solution to the Kurdish problem."
That is what she said in her defence at her original trial in 1994. It is an absolute disgrace that four of our fellow parliamentarians languish in a prison in Turkey for doing little more than using their own language and displaying the colours of the minority of which they are members. I hope that while Turkey continues to keep

55WH
these people in prison its route to accession will be obstructed by those who believe in human rights and democracy.
3.49 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for her speech and I congratulate her on obtaining the debate and on her continued interest in the case of Leyla Zana. In a statement in the House this morning, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary paid tribute to my hon. Friend's commitment to human rights and her work on Iraq. I wonder how many other Parliaments around the world have such a redoubtable champion of human rights. There is a saying that hard cases make bad law but, when it comes to human rights, it is only the individual who is the centre of our attention. The fact that my hon. Friend went and talked to Leyla Zana in prison means that she brings so much more to the debate than simply a factual report of the conditions of that sad case.
As my hon. Friend informed us, Leyla Zana and three other former Democratic party deputies, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak remain in prison in Turkey and are being retried by the Ankara state security court. That retrial is extremely important for the individuals concerned, and as a symbol of how Turkey is changing. The legislative reforms passed in August 2002 and February 2003 that made the retrial possible were a significant advance in the protection of human rights in Turkey.
Dr. Rudi Vis: I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the changes that have taken place, but I believe the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) far more. I spoke at a rally of Kurdish people that took place at 3 o'clock last Sunday, and most of them said that change has taken place only on paper, not in reality. That is the point that my hon. Friend makes. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a decisive answer to the last question that she asked? Will he say whether Turkish accession negotiations should be allowed to begin before these sorts of human rights violations are brought to a full stop?
Mr. MacShane: I shall answer the points of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. Her Majesty's Government, the European Commission and the European Parliament have always taken a keen interest in this case. In 1995, Leyla Zana received the European Parliament's Sakharov prize—an annual human rights award. I am glad that my hon. Friend continues to ensure that the case maintains a high profile. Leyla Zana is also a journalist, and her writings have been translated into English and published in the United States. PEN's writers in prison committee have adopted her, and I pay tribute to the important work carried out by PEN on behalf of writers in prison. There are still too many books that remain banned in Turkey.
Article 11 of title II of the draft constitution—I stress that it is a draft constitution and that nothing has been finalised—for the European Union on freedom of expression and information states:
56WH
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
It continues:
"The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected."
I welcome, as I think the House will, the standards laid down in the draft constitution.
It would not be appropriate for me as a Minister to comment on the conduct of an ongoing trial. However, I can fully support my hon. Friend's previous assertion, that
"as Members of Parliament, we should be concerned about Members of Parliament in other countries who cannot fulfil their mandates, perhaps because they have been sent to prison unfairly."— [Official Report, 2 May 2002; Vol. 384, c.1098.]
The Government have always maintained that the prosecution of democratically elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their views is wrong. My hon. Friend has spoken for all Members and Ministers. I will make sure that a copy of Hansard containing her speech is sent to the Turkish embassy. I will also ensure that Leyla's lawyer and family know of the concern that the British Parliament has for her case.
Successive Governments have monitored this case closely since 1994. Following the lifting of their parliamentary immunity, Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were tried with four other Democratic party deputies for treason under article 125 of the Turkish penal code. They were found not guilty of treason, but were convicted of lesser charges under article 168.2 of the penal code, which refers to membership of an armed society or band committed, inter alia, to destroying the territorial integrity of the state. They were sentenced to 15 years in prison. They appealed to the Turkish appeal court and finally to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of breaches of their right to liberty, to a fair trial, to freedom of expression and to freedom from discrimination on political and ethnic grounds in the enjoyment of those rights.
On 17 July 2001, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously found Turkey in violation of articles 6.3d and 6.1 of the European convention on human rights, and ruled that the deputies had been tried by a court that lacked independence and impartiality and that they had not enjoyed a fair trial.
Britain has played its part in the Council of Europe's Council of Ministers to help to ensure that the necessary measures are taken to implement this ruling. On 30 April 2002, for example, the Council urged the Turkish Government to comply with the Court's decision without further delay. We expect all member states of the Council of Europe to comply fully with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.
We also raised the case of Leyla Zana and her codefendants with the Turkish authorities at various levels, and regularly raise it with Turkish officials in Ankara, and at more formal events and proceedings, such as in the continuing human rights dialogue between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its counterparts in Turkey. From those contacts, I can report that the current Turkish Government, who came to power long after the events in question began, are as convinced as we are that the retrial should be a fair and

57WH
just process. We are both following the progress of the trial attentively, and will no doubt both have things to say about the outcome once the judicial process has run its course.
I can also report that we are monitoring the trial closely through the British embassy in Ankara and are co-ordinating with EU partners to ensure that all hearings are attended. For instance, a representative of the British embassy attended a hearing on 25 April, and we received a report of the most recent hearing on 20 June from representatives from the embassies of the previous and current EU presidencies of Greece and Italy respectively. British embassy representatives have also met Yusuf Alatas, Leyla Zana's lawyer.
The retrial is symbolic of a sea change in the protection of human rights in Turkey. Turkey has undergone significant reform since the far-reaching constitutional changes of October 2001. In part, that reform has been driven by Turkey's EU candidacy—a candidacy that the Government fully support. Human rights are a central element of the Copenhagen political criteria, which Turkey, like all EU candidates, must meet before it can begin accession negotiations. The criteria require that Turkey must achieve
"stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities".
They therefore require Turkey to address many of the problems highlighted by the case of Leyla Zana and her co-defendants. In this way, Turkey's EU candidacy reinforces the Justice and Development Party—AKP—Government's own reform agenda, but they have made it clear that they see the reforms not as a means to EU accession but as an end in themselves for the benefit of the Turkish people.
In the past six months, Turkey has made considerable progress towards meeting these criteria. It has passed four legislative packages of reform, each of which contains clear evidence that Turkey's political leaders are determined to align the country with EU standards and have brought about far-reaching change. Implementation remains the most difficult challenge, as the AKP Government have acknowledged, but there has been significant progress. Examples include: abolishing the death penalty; introducing better training for the judiciary; improving pre-trial detention and prison facilities; lifting the state of emergency where it remained; ratifying the UN international covenants on civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights; and, of course, allowing for and carrying out retrials in line with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Paradoxically, the case of Leyla Zana and her fellow deputies highlights the progress that Turkey has made since the mid-1990s, in particular in respect of freedom of expression, the rights of minorities, and the professionalism of the Turkish judiciary.
Implementation of the reforms is crucial, as Turkey's EU candidacy will ultimately be judged on that. Problems still exist and should not be forgotten, but the attitude towards human rights in Turkey is fundamentally different from how it was in 1994.

Fareham (School Funding)
4 pm
Mr. Mark Hoban: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter before the House rises for the summer recess—and, indeed, before the local schools' summer term ends.
The experience of head teachers in Fareham is that the increase in school funds this year has not met the higher salary costs that were incurred because of the Government's actions. As a consequence, teacher vacancies have remained unfilled, learning and support assistants' places are being cut, and school reserves are being used to maintain the status quo. Also, the prospect for the next financial year looks bleak.
All the schools that I have spoken to acknowledge that there has been a significant increase in school funding in recent years. In Hampshire, the Government spending per pupil has increased by £1,040 in the past six years. As a consequence of that funding increase, schools have been able to expand their teaching staff and recruit more learning and support assistants.
It would be appropriate to register schools' concerns about how that funding increase has been brought about. A good proportion of the increase comes from funds that schools have had to bid for to tackle particular issues. Schools have told me that they have concerns about that. Once the initiatives have been entrenched in the school and the funding streams have ended, they are left to meet the cost of those initiatives from their own budget. Schools have also found that the funding streams are unpredictable. Often, the bidding for additional funds takes place during the course of the school year, and schools have found it difficult to respond to that. However, I recognise that the Government have heard those messages from head teachers, and have listened to them. That is to their credit.
There should be increased certainty of funding for schools to enable them to budget to meet their priorities. Given that the Government have a three-year comprehensive spending review, they should be able to give schools an indication of their funding for that period. Yesterday, at the hearing of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, the Secretary of State suggested that that would happen. Fareham schools would welcome that.
Schools in my constituency face a funding crisis. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said that
"the funding of schools is a shared responsibility between national Government and local government…Local education authorities take decisions of various kinds—how much to distribute to individual schools, how much is operated centrally, and so on. I believe that both the national Government and local authorities should take responsibility for the effects of those decisions on the funding of individual schools."— [Official Report, 26 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 1187.]
Hampshire county council received one of the lowest financial settlements of any shire county this year; it was significantly—just under 4 per cent.—below the national average. That, of course, is a consequence of the redistribution of resources away from shire counties such as Hampshire. Despite that settlement, Hampshire

59WH
county council decided that it could not allow schools to suffer because of the redistribution of funding. In response to the findings of the Government's questionnaire, which tried— unsuccessfully, in my view—to pin the blame on LEAs, the county education officer wrote:
"The County Council, however, gives a very high priority to the education of its pupils and decided to exceed the pass porting target even though this was met from local resources and contributed to a council tax increase of 15%
. This increase flowed through to schools. Schools, therefore, received more than the Government specified."
Hampshire county council certainly recognises its share of responsibility together with the Government. Not only did it passport 105.1 per cent. of the target to schools, but it was one of only four councils in the southeast that increased the amount devolved to schools by a greater amount than the increase in the schools budget. That was a clear policy initiative by Hampshire county council.
It is fair to say, and I hope that the Minister will recognise it in his remarks, that Hampshire county council and council tax payers in Hampshire have fulfilled their responsibilities towards local schools. That is the background against which I shall set out my remarks.
I shall explain what head teachers in Fareham consider to be the cause of the funding shortfall and discuss their response to it. They have attributed their financial problems to significant rises in salaries and related costs. Those costs account for a significant proportion of their budget. One local secondary school said that salary and related costs accounted for 85 per cent. of its budget. Ten to 12 head teachers in my constituency cited four reasons for the increase in those costs.
First, head teachers cite the hike in national insurance contributions: in one secondary school, that accounted for about £27,000. Secondly, they cited the increase in contributions to teachers' pension funds: in the same school the increase was £105,000—a significant amount in a school of any size. Thirdly, heads have cited the funding of performance-related pay as a factor in the shortfall. They recognise that that factor will recur as teachers progress through the criteria for each threshold, improving their performance and becoming entitled to further performance payments, which must be funded. This year, head teachers felt that there was a shortfall in the Government's calculations of how much money should go to schools in Hampshire. Fourthly, the collapse of the nine salary grades into six has led to grade creep, in the sense that, in the new structure, if a salary point is not included in the grade below, teachers have had to move up to the next grade, with the consequent increase in salaries.
Together, such increases are significant: a primary school in my constituency said that the increased salary costs this year were £36,000. In another, much larger school, the increase is £98,000. From time to time, Ministers have blamed the decline in pupil numbers for the deficits of individual schools, but those deficits are despite flat pupil numbers in the first case and a rise in pupil numbers in the second.
60WH
What have the consequences been for local schools in tackling these deficits? I have received feedback from nearly half the schools in my constituency, and I base my comments on how individual heads and boards of governors have decided to balance the books.
In several schools the governors have used reserves to meet the shortfall, but that option is not cost free. Often, those reserves have been intended to contribute towards a building plan, and such plans have had to be deferred or cancelled to meet the funding shortfall. That is clearly a one-off exercise, as the piggy bank can be emptied once only. A continued squeeze on funding next year will have serious consequences in those schools. They will experience a double whammy: they will not only have to claw back the funding deficit from this year, which they met through reserves, but will have to cope with any funding decreases.
What other impacts have there been on schools that did not have reserves? Vacancies that have arisen because a member of staff has left have not been filled, or have been filled on a part-time basis, with other teachers increasing their teaching time to meet the shortfall. In a couple of schools, non-teaching positions have been converted into teaching positions, and the administrative work load has been shared among other staff members. Several teaching staff on temporary contracts have had their contracts terminated early or not renewed; again, their teaching time has been passed on to other staff members, increasing their former colleagues' work load.
Hampshire county council advises me that at least one primary school in my constituency is making 1.4 teaching staff redundant. Schools are trying to save money on supply teachers, and either the head or the deputy head fills in for lessons. That means that they spend less time giving the school the leadership that it needs and the staff the support that they need. Schools are cutting back on buying textbooks. One school has cut expenditure on textbooks by 65 per cent., and expenditure on staff professional development by 80 per cent., to avoid making teachers redundant.
We have seen the end of contracts for some learning support assistants, while others have had to reapply for fewer jobs. In one case, a school dropped from six to four LSAs.
The question from head teachers is: how can they implement the work load initiative if they are cutting back on the people to whom teachers should be transferring their work load? That is a problem that many will have to wrestle with this year and next. At another school, the senior teacher leading the learning support unit for children with particular education needs was redeployed to fill a vacancy elsewhere in the school, leaving the unit without a full-time leader. Schools are cutting back in other areas too, whether that is the maintenance of grounds and buildings or information and communications technology costs.
I have been impressed by the resourcefulness of heads and governors in trying to close the gap in their budget. Their primary focus is to avoid compromising the education of their pupils, and they are committed to maintaining the diversity and richness of the curriculum and carrying out some of the initiatives specified by the Government. I want to take the opportunity to thank them, teachers and parents for all their hard work to

61WH
mitigate the impact of the funding shortfall. They have done a sterling job, as have the county council and council tax payers, in trying to fill the gap left by the shortfall in Government funding.
Where do we go next? One chair of governors has written:
"The cuts we have made cannot be repeated in another year and will damage the life of the school…Smaller teaching groups, better support for less able pupils, inclusion measures to help disaffected pupils, stimulation for more able pupils…more administrative staff to reduce teacher workloads must all become unaffordable."
Schools in Fareham are concerned that this will be the first of several difficult years for school funding. That concern is shared by Hampshire county council, whose county treasurer wrote to me recently to say that if the general grant floor and schools formula spending share per pupil are both set at 2.5 per cent., there would be an estimated funding shortfall of £11 million next year, which is equivalent to 2 per cent. of this year's budget.
In the same letter, the treasurer pointed out that school spending nationally is set to rise by 5.2 per cent., so clearly some LEAs will do well if Hampshire is going to get only a 2.5 per cent. increase. In answer to an oral question by me last month, the Minister said:
"We are committed to ensuring that every school receives a reasonable per pupil increase for next year and the year after that."— [Official Report, 26 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 1195.]
My concern is about what the Minister views as reasonable, and whether he will agree with the view of heads, teachers and governors in Fareham schools. Will schools locally see a 5.2 per cent. increase in school funding, or will it be more like the 2.5 per cent. increase suggested by the county treasurer? Will they get a raw deal again next year?
Based on the Government's track record, Hampshire schools can expect to receive a below-average increase. Last year, the average national increase in spending per pupil was 6 per cent, while in Hampshire it was 5.2 per cent., and in the previous year national spending again increased by 6 per cent. per pupil, but in Hampshire the Government's contribution increased by only 5.5 per cent. Will the Government rectify that trend?
Where will the funding shortfall leave Fareham schools? The schools that have emptied their piggy bank this year will need to consider some of the same budget cuts that other schools have made, particularly in the largest element of costs—staff. The schools that have already made cuts may need to consider fresh cuts next year unless their funding position stabilises. Short-term measures such as saving on maintenance cannot continue indefinitely, and at some point they will need to be reversed. To reverse those cuts, cuts will be needed elsewhere. That is not scaremongering; those concerns have been expressed to me by head teachers and chairs of governors in my constituency.
The solution is in the Government's hands. As Hampshire has proved this year, authorities can increase the burden on council tax payers to protect school budgets, and the Government will need to consider by how much they are prepared to increase their contribution to Hampshire schools to protect the quality and diversity of their education. The closer the increase is to the national average increase of 5.2 per cent., the lower the risk that teacher and learning
62WH
support assistant numbers will need to be cut. The smaller the increase, the greater the likelihood that schools will once again have to consider more reductions in staff costs, putting at risk the quality and diversity of education in local schools. It is time for the Government to recognise that Fareham's schools need a fair deal on funding.
As the Secretary of State for Education and Skills said in the House in June, councils and the Government have to take
"responsibility for the effects of those decisions on the funding of individual schools."— [Official Report, 26 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 1187.]
Given the county council's track record on school funding, without a fair deal for Fareham schools next year the spotlight will be on the Government, who will be held responsible by parents, teachers and governors for their decision on the funding of schools.
4.14 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is conventional on these occasions to congratulate the hon. Member concerned on securing the debate. Today I do so sincerely, because the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) has made a thoughtful and serious speech. We have shared several debates in this Chamber, and I hope that I shall not do irreparable damage to the hon. Gentleman's political career when I say that his speech was the best use of an Adjournment debate in which I have been a participant. I may worry him even more when I say that I agree with much of what he said.
The hon. Gentleman explained matters with a fair degree of generosity to the present Government, and also assessed some of the difficulties in the system in a reasonably fair-minded way. As I have said, I do not want to end his political career, so it is just as well that not too many people are present to listen. I hope that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who has just arrived in the Chamber, will keep the secret. I hope also to give a serious response to the points that the hon. Member for Fareham made.
In the time available to him, the hon. Gentleman could not mention the progress that has been made in Hampshire schools. in both primary and secondary sectors. I am sure that he has seen that progress when he has visited schools. I was interested to dig up the statistics; there are statistics on everything, but these show that the percentage of children in Hampshire who are doing well at English at age 11 is above the national average. For maths the figure is at the national average, and for science it is above it.
For GCSEs, the performance of secondary schools is not, interestingly enough, as far above the national average as one might think. There are no doubt relevant educational issues that we could discuss at another time, but none the less there is clear evidence of teachers, heads, governors and the wider community working in a committed way to fulfil the potential of all pupils in Hampshire. The hon. Gentleman's remarks made it clear that he has great admiration for the work that those people do, and that is shared by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to refer to the increase of about 36 per. cent. in funding to Hampshire through the local formula over the past five

63WH
years. He made reference also to the increase in the school standards direct grant, which has been significant. He was not able to touch on the capital position, about which I asked my officials to find out. It is striking that Hampshire's capital budget for this year is £71 million, whereas it was £15 million to £20 million in 1998–99. I hope that that makes a long-term contribution to the education of pupils in his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman devoted a significant part of his remarks to analysis of the problem, and to his solution to the way in which the funding formula distributes money to Hampshire as a whole, and then raised points about how money is distributed from Hampshire local education authorities to schools. I shall deal with those matters. This has been a year of significant change in the schools funding system—notably with respect to the way in which central Government distribute grants to LEAs, and the way in which the LEAs distribute grants to schools. I shall deal with that topic.
I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the old system for the distribution of funds from the Government to the LEAs was fatally flawed. It was out of date; it was based on the 1991 census. It was even more complicated than the current system, and impossible to explain. It did not reflect the division of responsibilities between LEAs and schools. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the current system there is real clarity about the LEA block of funding and the proportion that is available to schools. I think that he would accept that that is a step forward.
Our aim with the new system has been to ensure that central Government will attach a similar amount of money to similar pupils in different parts of the country. That is why every LEA receives three blocks of funding for each pupil. First there is an entitlement for every pupil: just over £2,000 for a primary pupil and just over £2,650 for a secondary school pupil. Secondly, there is a top-up for deprivation and additional educational needs. Thirdly, there is recognition of higher costs for salaries, recruitment and retention.
The new system is based on the evidence that we have about extra costs arising from deprivation, and other extra costs. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in relation to additional educational needs, we have used a wider definition of poverty than has been conventional in the past. Instead of simply using the income support indicator to recognise poverty, we have ensured in the new system that the funding formula recognises families in low-wage work, and that should rebound to the benefit of Hampshire where employment is high but where there are significant pockets of low wage-work.
The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that the additional costs of education in London and the southeast notably impose particular pressures on schools. The new system recognises 99 authorities that face those additional costs, and we have tried to recognise that in the system.
The hon. Gentleman did not discuss sparsity, so I shall not dwell on that, but move to this year's funding difficulties. He started by talking about problems in areas where pupil numbers are falling, as is notably the case in the primary sector. Nationwide, there is a fall of
64WH
about 50,000 in the number of pupils in the primary sector. My back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that that is not a problem in Hampshire. It has an increasing population, which explains why its overcall cash increase of 5.9 per cent. translates into a 3.2 per cent. increase per pupil. That shows a significant increase in the number of pupils, which brings its own problems, and I have just completed a statutory instrument with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) about the way in which the system copes with rising numbers.
My constituency has the opposite problem, which also imposes its own burdens. The hon. Gentleman probably knows more about South Shields than many other hon. Members because of his former candidacy. He is not the only Opposition Member who has fought South Shields. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) cast a blazing trail in South Shields during the 1987 general election, so there are at least three of us who can testify to its joys.
I shall dwell on the situation this year, because it has been a uniquely difficult year for school funding. It has been unique for the amount of extra money that central Government have put in, but also for some of the costs that schools have faced. The hon. Member for Fareham referred to the increased cost of the teachers' pension scheme. It is important to put on the record that that cost has been taken care of separately from the per-pupil increases to which he referred. He will know from answers that I have given that those increases are conducted on a like-for-like basis. The cost of pension increases is factored into the system on top of that at, from memory, about £587 million nationally, and that has been fed into the system. He also referred to increased national insurance contributions, and it is true that schools have had to pay those increases for their workers.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the upper pay scale, which has risen in a number of contexts as a significant cost for schools. The upper pay scale is not just a cost that arises as a matter of course; it arises as a matter of choice. He will know that the pay system for teachers has two key elements in addition to the basic uplift. Recognition of competence—the so-called threshold agreement—pays an extra £2,000 to teachers outside London and an extra £4,000 to teachers inside London.
There is also an excellence element above the threshold—the so-called upper pay scale. There is a national scale, but the cost to each school reflects the decisions made by heads and governors on how many teachers to promote from one point to the next, and he will know that, nationally, about 90 per cent. of teachers progress from upper pay scale point 1 to 2, notwithstanding that the Government have argued strongly that the upper pay scale should recognise excellence rather than competence. That is why, when we submitted our evidence last week to the School Teachers Review Body for this year, we made new proposals to support the decisions of governors and heads in exercising their discretion over the upper pay scale points.
Many head teachers' associations have argued strongly that heads should be supported by stronger guidance from the centre, and we have made a commitment to provide that. We have also provided for every governing body to decide in April each year how

65WH
many teachers the head should promote up the upper pay scale. As John Dunford of the Secondary Heads Association said last week, the current progression up the scale is unaffordable, and it is important that we play our part in supporting the decisions of heads and governors.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of supply teachers. Of course that is a cost that we want to try to squeeze—not by having heads taking on those responsibilities, but by trying to minimise the amount of time that teachers have to spend out of the classroom, either on courses or through sickness. The extent to which we can squeeze that cost—which is a significant bill of, I think, about £950 million nationwide for the annual costs of teacher supply—releases money for other purposes.
Looking forward, we obviously need to reflect on and learn from the experience of this year. Perhaps I could address the hon. Gentleman's final two or three points by setting out how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to go forward. The hon. Gentleman will know that on 15 May my right hon. Friend set clear criteria for moving forward in 2004–05 and 2005–06.
The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the importance of a multi-year planning framework. It is certainly our intention and aspiration to move to three-year funding of schools, but he will know that we do not fund schools directly—we require local authorities to engage in that process. There is obviously a particular difficulty in the schooling area because of changing pupil numbers in any one school, which pose a particular burden on any planning framework. None the less, we want to move to a three-year planning framework, as he does. The decisions of the School Teachers Review Body are absolutely critical to that. We argued to the STRB last year that a three-year framework for school funding was essential. Unfortunately, no one else supported us, not even the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, and we were unable to make any headway with the STRB last year. This year, I am pleased to report that the 2Local Government Association and the two head teachers' associations have argued for a two-year deal to the end of the comprehensive spending review period, and I hope that that will make a difference.
We also need to get the balance right between money that goes direct to schools from the centre and money that is fed through the local government framework. The hon. Gentleman referred to the difficulties faced by some of his schools through the reduction in standards
66WH
funds. In this context, we face a clear dilemma. He and I would like to see more money distributed as necessary direct to schools through the LEA framework in a simple way that does not require any bidding and has no ring-fencing. That is what we have tried to do this year, but as he will know from his own schools, although many schools and LEAs argued for it, they do not like the way in which it has worked. We are carefully examining the stated plans for further devolution of funding and the reduction of standards funds grants, because there have been difficulties and turbulence in the system. I can assure him that we are looking hard at those plans.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the importance of earlier budget notification to schools. He may have more of a business background than I, but even someone who has not run a business will know that if one knows one's budget only in February or March, it makes things difficult for the start of the financial year in April. That system is clearly badly in need of reform, so that we get much earlier notification to schools of their budgets as well as having longer-term budget setting. We are strongly determined to do that, so that schools know earlier what money they have to play with.
It is also important—this is not a matter that the hon. Gentleman was able to dwell on—that the balance between out-of-school funding for special needs or other collective services and in-school money should be right. Although Hampshire has a laudable record in that area, as it has in others, other LEAs have struggled to contain out-of-school costs.
I hope that I have responded in kind to the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I felt in his speech a determination to seek greater funding for education because it is the most important priority for the nation. He will find no stronger supporter in that matter than me. The quantum of education funding that has been given to our schools over the past generations—the point applies to Labour Governments in the 1970s as well as Conservative Governments after them—has been too low. We must correct that in Hampshire, as well as elsewhere. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support as we try to argue the case for greater investment in our education system over the years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Connexions
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the performance of the Connexions service as a universal advice service for all young people. [123693]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are now 47 Connexions partnerships in operation covering all of England. 31 started during the financial year 2002–03. The last one started in April 2003. Ofsted have reported full inspections of six partnerships so far and initial indications are that Connexions partnerships are making progress at different rates with implementation of services. Performance was assessed as good in four of the partnerships, while the other two were rated as less effective. There is now a substantial programme of work developing performance in these two partnerships to address the concerns expressed by Ofsted.

  Among the findings from an independent survey of 16,000 young people who had been in contact with Connexion services were the following:
  91 per cent. said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the service;
  90 per cent. agreed that "Connexions has a lot to offer young people";
  86 per cent. felt that "Connexions helps me see all the options available to me";
  68 per cent. said Connexions had helped them make life-changing decisions;
  47 per cent. said that contact with Connexions had made them more confident;
  irrespective of the topic discussed, respondents were positive about the usefulness of the advice given—for example, 85 per cent. thought the advice on housing either very useful or useful.

  Connexions provides more than just advice on careers, jobs and training, with 21 per cent. of young people receiving advice on money and benefits, 11 per cent. on stress, 10 per cent. on alcohol and drugs, 7 per cent. on bullying and 7 per cent. on sexual health matters.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [124096]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Outlined are details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Pendle constituency and Lancashire LEA.
  142W
  Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)—East Lancashire Transport Pilot

  This is a pilot EMA area operating the transport variation. Young People receive a free travel pass to their place of learning. They can also receive up to three £50 bonuses a year plus a £50 achievement bonus at the end of their studies.

  Schools in Special Measures

  There is one school in Nelson—Maries Hill Pupil Referral Unit—which has been in special measures since February 2003.

  Extended School Pathfinder

  Lancashire is one of 25 LEAs that has received £200,000 in 2002–03 to run an extended school pathfinder (made available through the Standards Fund). An additional £25,000 was allocated to each of the pathfinders specifically for childcare provision. Overall the aim of the pathfinders has been to test out various approaches used by schools and authorities in the development of family and community facilities and services on school premises.

  The Lancashire pathfinder has built upon existing and emerging developments in community use of maintained schools in the County. The project has focused primarily on five specific areas in the county where serious issues of social unrest, lack of community cohesion, significant levels of deprivation and poor health have already been identified. One of the five areas is Pendle, where six schools have been involved (listed as follows)

  The six Pendle schools are:

  Nelson Walton High School

  West Craven High School

  Nelson Edge End High School

  Colne Saints John Fisher and Thomas Moore High School

  Brierfield Mansfield High School

  Nelson Marsden Early Excellence Centre

  Connexions

  Connexions is the Government's front line support service for all young people in England aged 13–19. It is a universal service, offering integrated information, advice and guidance and access to personal development opportunities, to help remove barriers to learning and progression and ensure young people make a smooth transition to adulthood and working life. The headline aim is to reduce the number of young people aged 16–18 years who are not in education, employment or training.

  Connexions Lancashire went live in April 2002. Its budgets were:

  £

  2002–03

  12,132,753

  2003–04

  12,666,525

  Note:

  A breakdown for Pendle itself cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.
  143W
  School Achievement Awards

  The following schools in Pendle have received School Achievement Awards since 2001:

  Round one awards announced March 2001

  Barnoldswick Church of England Controlled Primary School

  Barrowford School

  Colne Gibfield School

  Colne Lord Street School

  Holy Saviour Roman Catholic Primary School, Nelson

  Kelbrook Primary School

  Brierfield Mansfield High School

  McMillan Nursery School

  Nelson Bradley Primary School

  Nelson St. Paul's Church of England Primary School

  Nelson St. Philip's Church of England Primary School

  Nelson Whitefield Infant School and Nursery Unit

  Salterforth Primary School

  St. John Fisher and Thomas More Roman Catholic High School, Colne

  St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Barnoldswick

  Trawden Forest Primary School

  Round two awards announced March 2002

  Barnoldswick Church of England Controlled Primary School

  Barrowford St Thomas Church of England Primary School

  Bradley Nursery School

  Laneshaw Bridge Primary School

  Marsden Community Primary School

  McMillan Nursery School

  Nelson Whitefield Infant School and Nursery Unit

  Newjown Nursery School

  Park Primary School

  Reedley Primary School

  Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School, Colne

  Salterforth Primary School

  St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School, Barnoldswick

  Walton Lane Nursery School

  West Street Primary School

  Round three awards announced May 2003

  Bradley Nursery School

  Walton Lane Nursery School

  Newtown Nursery School

  McMillan Nursery School

  Barrowford School

  Blacko Primary School

  West Street Community Primary School

  Bradley Primary School

  Walverden Primary School

  Nelson Whitefield Infant School and Nursery Unit

  Kelbrook Primary School

  Colne Christ Church Church of England Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Nelson St. Philip's Church of England Primary School

  St. John Southworth Roman Catholic Primary School, Nelson

  Wheatley Lane Methodist Voluntary Aided Primary School

  West Craven High Technology College

  Nelson Edge End High School

  144W
  Capital Allocations (£000) for Lancashire LEA:

  Lancashire LEA have not bid for any capital funding for Pendle through any of the bidding rounds since 2001. The only funding going specifically to schools in Pendle (through Lancashire LEA) is devolved formula capital which started in 2000–01. The amount of devolved going to Pendle would only be known by the LEA.

  Since 1999 the LEA has received the following capital allocations:

  £000

  Capital allocation

  1999–2000

  3,5179

  2000–01

  38;021

  2001–02

  29,778

  2002–03

  44,303

  2003–04

  62,607

  School Attendance

  Lancashire is one of the Authorities that have been funded through the £11.25 million Capital Modernisation Funding project to provide funding for electronic registration systems in secondary schools with high levels of unauthorised absence which was initiated by the Department in 2001–02. Lancashire has received £444,340 towards setting up electronic registration in 23 secondary schools including two schools (Walton High School and West Craven High School) in the Pendle constituency receiving a total of £38,570. Independent evaluation has shown that, used effectively, electronic registration can significantly reduce levels of truancy within the first two years of implementation.

  Lancashire has also participated in the nationally co-ordinated truancy sweeps, for example in December 178 truants were found. Lancashire also conducts a termly programme of truancy sweeps. Truancy sweeps have not only been found useful in returning truanting children back to school and publicising the importance of school attendance, but also through them children who have been missing from the school system altogether have been identified.

  Exclusions

  Pendle district has two Pupil Referral Units: Maries Hill PRU (40 places), and Pendle PRU (24 places). The LEA has a well structured Pupil Referral Service with clear policies and procedures for admissions and exit.

  On reintegration of teenage parents into education

  Lancashire has received funding from the DIES Standards Fund since 2000 to help reduce the levels of conception for under 18 by half by 2010—and the social exclusion of teenage parents within the Authority. Details of funding are as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  137,400

  2001–02

  137,400

  2002–03

  163,847

  Lancashire has recruited five part time Learning Mentors to complement the work of the re-integration officer. For example, altogether they dealt with over 140

  145W
  secondary educational bases. 62 young girls and four young men were referred to the re-integration officer in the 2001–02 financial year.

  Beacon Schools

  There are currently two beacon schools in the Pendle constituency—they are Laneshaw Bridge Primary School and Walton Lane Nursery School. Laneshaw Bridge became a beacon school in September 2000 and has just has its beacon status renewed for a further year until September 2004. Walton Lane Nursery School became a beacon school in September 2001 and its beacon status also ends in September 2004.

  Newchurch in Pendle St. Mary's CE Primary School ceased to be a beacon school in September 2002.

  Pathfinder Young Community Champions Fund (PYCCF) Funding

  £45,000 shared between four Boroughs (February 2003—September 2004).

  Note:

  Pendle forms part of the Lancashire Partnership pathfinder community cohesion area (consisting of Lancashire county council, Burnley borough council, Hyndburn borough council, Pendle borough council and Rossendale borough council). The area will receive £45,000 to implement the PYCCF between February 2003 to September 2004.

  Higher Education (Elmet)
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils from the four high schools in the Elmet constituency progressed into higher education in each year since 1995. [123515]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]The numbers of students from the four high schools in Elmet accepted for entry through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK is given as follows:

  Applicants accepted through UCAS to full-time higher education from the four high schools1 in Elmet constituency

  Year of Entry

  Number

  1995

  226

  1996

  231

  1997

  249

  1998

  226

  1999

  254

  2000

  257

  2001

  239

  2002

  261

  1Includes Boston Spa Comprehensive School, Brigshaw High School, Garforth Community College and Wetherby High School

  Source:

  UCAS

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will reply to the Question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton of 30th April on the estimated number of entrants aged under 21 to modern languages courses at higher education institutions from 2003 to 2008. [121801]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 800W.

  Students (Home Towns)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the change in the proportion of students attending university in their home towns over the last five years. [110997]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not hold information on students studying in their home towns. However, several re search projects have looked at the influences on choice of institution. Comparisons from the Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES) in 1995–96 and 1998–99 show that there has been a slight increase of around 5 per cent. in the overall proportion of students living with their parents, especially among first years. Among the students surveyed in 1998–99, 18 per cent. lived with their parents.

  A student living survey carried out by UNITE/MORI in 2003 revealed that the ability to live at home during term time was a factor influencing the choice of university by 35 per cent. of those in the lower social classes compared with 26 per cent. of semi-skilled non-manual workers and 13 per cent. of those in professional and managerial social classes.

  A study completed by the Institute of Employment Studies found that the priority when choosing an institution is for the right subject of study and course, however non-traditional applicants, particularly mature applicants and ethnic minorities gave more emphasis to reputation and quality, location and nearness to 'home'.

  Universities
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the diversity of academic courses and research at universities in the UK. [125138]

  Alan Johnson
  Universities in the UK are independent, autonomous bodies and are responsible for deciding the range and mode of courses they offer, taking account of student demand and their institutional mission. The Higher Education Funding Council for England and its equivalent bodies in the devolved administrations allocate research funding selectively to universities according to the quality and volume of their research activity.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to promote the teaching and research of specialist and emergency subjects at universities in the UK. [125140]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) allocates teaching funding to higher education institutions (HEIs) in England through a formula relating to the number of students and the types of courses they are taking. The HEFCE has also allocated special funding for 'minority subjects' which it deems to be in national interest but which might otherwise be at risk because of the small number of students taking them.

  Research funding is allocated to HEIs according to their success in the Research Assessment Exercise. In addition to the main allocations, the HEFCE provides

  147W
  research capability funding to emerging subjects where the research base is not as strong as in more established subjects.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agricultural Consultants
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has undertaken of the impact of the Department and Business Link on agricultural consultants in the private sector. [125399]

  Alun Michael
  None.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants about the work of the Department and Business Link. [125400]

  Alun Michael
  I attended the Institute's annual lunch last year. I accepted a subsequent offer to me from the Chief Executive of the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants to assist with our work in developing a business support framework for rural areas and Defra officials are discussing this further with the Institute on my behalf.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department has spent in each of the past five years supporting the work of(a) Business Link and (b) the Farm Business Advice Service; and how many farmers have been advised in the past five years by the Department and Business Link. [125403]

  Alun Michael
  The following table sets out expenditure and delivery figures for the Farm Business Advice Service since it began in October 2000.

  Number of requests

  Number of initial visits

  Number of action plans

  Expenditure (£ million)

  2000–01

  4,120

  885

  6,352

  4.1

  2001–02

  2,393

  2,214

  2,101

  6.85

  2002–03

  4,067

  3,237

  3,058

  6.76

  2003–041

  1,085

  604

  339

  0.1

  Total

  11,665

  6,940

  11,850

  17.81

  1First two months of delivery

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the procedures for the screening of applicants to become Business Link advisers with the Farm Business Advice Service. [125432]

  Alun Michael
  The Farm Business Advice Service is managed by the Small Business Service (an agency of the DTI) and delivered through a network of Business Link advisers. The Service has adopted the Standards of Professional Competence for Business Link Advisory and Information Services. The Small Business Service intends to enhance the Standards of Professional Competence during 2003–04. Defra's Learning, Skills and Knowledge Programme involves a review of the accreditation requirements for publicly funded advisers, following a recommendation by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food.
  148W
  Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) individuals and (b) firms are registered as Business Link advisers with the Farm Business Advice Service. [125433]

  Alun Michael
  Across England a total of 522 advisers are contracted to deliver the Farm Business Advice Service. Of these, 43 are contracted directly to a Business Link, 79 are self-employed and 387 are sub-contracted and some of these are employed by agricultural consultancies. The recruitment of advisers is managed directly by Business Link organisations.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle were slaughtered because of bovine TB in each year since 1997 in(a) West Derbyshire and (b) Derbyshire. [124011]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of cattle slaughtered under bovine TB measures in Derbyshire, from 1997 to 2002, is given in the table. The data requested are not available for the parliamentary constituency of West Derbyshire. However, as a guideline, approximately 90 per cent. of confirmed TB breakdowns over the period have occurred in the western part of the county.

  Cattle slaughtered in Derbyshire under bovine TB control measures 1997–20021

  Number

  1997

  61

  1998

  57

  1999

  255

  2000

  59

  2001

  45

  2002

  370

  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 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 if she will update the statistics on her Department's bovine TB website and reconcile them to the data on the incidence of TB collected by the British Cattle Veterinary Association. [124315]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Each month Defra publishes provisional cumulative TB statistics for the calendar year on its website, including the number of TB tests carried out, the number of new TB incidents and the number of animals slaughtered in each State Veterinary Service region (SVS).

  There is a delay of approximately six weeks before the data appear, to allow sufficient time for data to be returned to the SVS and entered on the Department's computer system. The data are subject to revision over

  149W
  a period of several months as additional data are entered. The most recent statistics on the website are for January to April 2003.

  National statistics notices are also published on the Defra TB website each month. They are produced after a time lag of approximately three months, and therefore give a more complete and accurate picture than Defra's GB statistics.

  We have no plans at the present time to reconcile our data with the data collected by the British Cattle Veterinary Association.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the collection of data on the TB 99 epidemiological survey. [124317]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At 24 June 2003, a total of 703 TB99 case reports and 354 control reports had been entered on to the TB99 database for the badger culling trial areas. Defra is working hard to increase the number of reports e.g. by contracting ADAS Ltd. to assist the State Veterinary Service to complete TB99s. The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB has advised that it expects to have sufficient data to complete an initial analysis by the end of 2003.

  Carbon Sinks
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether wood used in wood products is assessed by her Department as a carbon sink; what research has been undertaken into the use of carbon sinks as an environmental measure; and if she will make a statement. [125117]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory submitted annually to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC) includes an allowance for carbon in wood products produced from timber harvested in the UK. This estimate is provided as part of the research sponsored by Government and the devolved Administrations on the use of sinks in helping to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The scientific evidence from this research, and that carried out in other countries, underpins UK policies and international agreements on the importance of protecting and enhancing carbon sinks as required by the UN-FCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes the Agreement on CAP Reform agreed on 26 June will have on Britain's(a) gross and (b) net contribution to the EU Budget. [124350]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 8 July 2003]The Government's latest forecast of the trend in the UK's net contribution to the EC Budget for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 were included in a footnote to Table C 11 of the 2003 Budget Report (HC 500). These figures were also shown in Table 3.3 of the 2003 Annual White Paper "European Community Finances (Cm 5800). Revised forecasts will be included in the pre-Budget Report and will take account of all of the latest factors, including those on CAP reform.
  150W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of how much of the budget for the planned reform of the Common Agricultural Policy contributes to(a) trade distorting and (b) non-trade distorting initiatives. [123961]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is not yet possible to make an accurate forecast of how the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget will be allocated between trade distorting and non-trade distorting measures since member states have discretion in implementing the various optional arrangements included in the reform agreement. Moreover decisions remain to be taken on reforms of the sugar, cotton, tobacco and olive oil regimes. However, the Government's initial estimates indicate that the EU is now close to meeting WTO demands for a 60 per cent. reduction in amber box subsidies and can fully meet the WTO proposal for a 50 per cent. reduction in blue box payments.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of how reform of the Common Agricultural Policy will affect agricultural producers in the developing world. [123962]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The reform of the Common Agricultural Policy should provide direct and indirect benefits to agricultural producers in the developing world. First, the decoupling of subsidy payments from production, together with reductions agreed in some market support arrangements, will reduce EU over-production and subsidised exports of surpluses onto world markets at prices which undermine developing country markets and economies. Secondly, the impetus which these reforms should give to a successful Doha trade round will help to bring about wider development gains, not least through global action on agricultural subsidies.

  The EU Commission will also bring forward proposals during the next few months for reform of the sugar, oil, tobacco, cotton and olive oil regimes, all of which are of importance to developing world producers.

  Dioxin Emissions
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of dioxin emissions from the cement industry was(a) in 1997 and (b) in 2001; what assessment (i) her Department and (ii) the Environment Agency has conducted of the reasons for changes in the level of emissions; and if she will make a statement on the safety of these emissions. [122758]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The National Air Emission Inventory (`NAEI') estimated emissions of dioxins produced by cement kilns as 2.829 and 5.684 grams in 1997 and 2001 respectively.

  Measurements of dioxins are subject to an uncertainty of up to 100 per cent. because of the complex nature of the sampling and analysis techniques and the very low levels of emissions being monitored. The amount of cement production is not the same every year and this will also affect the figures for dioxins. As a result the numerical difference may have no statistical

  151W
  significance. The Environment Agency is at present investigating better techniques for dioxin analysis to secure more accurate reporting of dioxins data.

  The Environment Agency has recently taken regulatory action to decrease dioxin levels, in particular at a single cement kiln site where a reduction from 2.2 grams in 2001 to 0.3 grams in 2002 is anticipated. The Environment Agency's own provisional estimate for 2002 is 1.5 grams of dioxins.

  European and domestic environmental regulations require that emissions limits for dioxins are set for cement production activities. The limits will reflect the benchmark values suggested by the European Commission and technical guidance produced by the Environment Agency. While excessive exposure to dioxins may be detrimental to human health, the Environment Agency aims to ensure that environmental exposures are too low for this to occur.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received following the annual report on the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. [118987]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Representation on the report has been received from the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group (FPAG).

  European Councils
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the outcome was of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 11 to 13 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [119888]

  Margaret Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement on CAP Reform on 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 7220.

  Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will make a decision on the appeal of Fats and Proteins (UK) Ltd. which was heard in 1998. [124999]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]The Secretary of State's decision has been made and a letter dated 7 July 2003 has been sent to the appellant. Copies of the letter have been sent to all interested parties.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which regions of the UK are involved in GM field trials; and how many sites for GM field trials there are in the UK. [125956]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table shows the location, by county or region, of the 38 field trials of GM crops that are currently in progress in the UK. This number includes 18 sites which are part of the remaining farm scale evaluation trials, and 15 sites where statutory trials 152W
  of seeds for UK National List purposes are taking place. Numbers in brackets indicate that there is more than one trial site in a particular county.

  Field trials of GM crops currently in progress

  Farm scale evaluation sites

  National seeds list trial sites.

  Other GM crop research sites

  Aberdeenshire

  Aberdeenshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cambridgeshire (2)

  Hertfordshire (2)

  Dorset

  Herefordshire

  Norfolk (2)

  Durham

  Herefordshire

  East Riding of Yorkshire (4)

  Lincolnshire

  Fife

  Norfolk (4)

  Hertfordshire

  North Yorkshire (2)

  Kent

  Nottinghamshire

  Lincolnshire (2)

  Oxfordshire

  Norfolk

  Worcestershire

  Oxfordshire

  Shropshire

  Tyne and Wear

  Warwickshire

  Littering
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fixed penalty notices were issued for littering in England and Wales in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [124940]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]In England for the period 2001–02, 11,500 fixed penalty notices were issued for littering. The figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Data collection on litter fixed penalty notices in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly. I understand that centrally held data are currently not available for Wales, although it is intended that the Assembly Government will start collating data on enforcement action for littering offences by local authorities.

  Nitrogen Dioxide Limits
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of people living in areas surrounding Heathrow airport where nitrogen dioxide levels exceed EU limits; and what estimate her Department has made of the number of such people in 2010. [122157]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  From our national air quality modelling, current forecasts suggest that we are unlikely to achieve the mandatory EU limit value for nitrogen dioxide set for 2010 around Heathrow. However, we do not have estimates for the number of people exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels in excess of the EU limit value at any airports at that point.

  The Future Development of Air Transport in the UK: South East consultation document (DfT, February 2003) showed predicted exceedences of the nitrogen dioxide objective for Heathrow based on. modelling carried out as part of the Government's SERAS study. That modelling predicts that there would be 35,000 people exposed in 2015 if a third runway were to be built. falling to 33,000 in 2030. If no new airport were to be built, 14,000 people are predicted to be exposed to an exceedence of the nitrogen dioxide objective. Further modelling for SERAS, which is also reported in the

  153W
  consultation document, based on a more optimistic view of improvements in engine technology and assuming positive action by the aviation industry to reduce emissions indicated that the figure of 35,000 in 2015 might fall to 5,000.

  OSPAR Meeting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcome of the recent OSPAR meeting in Germany; and what the implications are of decisions taken for Sellafield. [123667]

  Mr. Morley
  I made a written statement on 9 July about the outcome of the OSPAR meeting.

  The meeting agreed that the years 1995–2001 would be used to calculate the baselines against which progress in achieving the objectives of the 1998 strategy would be measured. The Ministerial statement agreed at the meeting included the following passage:
  "We note the concerns expressed by a number of Contracting Parties about discharges of technetium-99 from Sellafield and their view that these discharges should cease immediately. We welcome the recent initiative of the United Kingdom to request the operator of Sellafield to stop discharges from the MAC treatment process for the next nine months while further research and development of abatement technology is carried out. We look forward to the introduction of such technology to treat remaining MAC if it proves to be technically feasible."

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Chairman of BNFL shortly before the OSPAR meeting. Careful consideration will be given to BN FL's full response when it is received, and to any other representations the Department receives on this issue before any further decisions are taken on the future regulation of technetium-99 discharges from Sellafield.

  Recycling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to promote plastic recycling. [124491]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have set targets and provided funding for local authorities to ensure they increase their recycling capacity. It is for the local authority to decide which materials to collect.

  The Packaging Regulations contain material specific targets, including plastics. The quantity of plastic packaging which is recycled should increase as a result of current negotiations to revise the EU Directive on packaging.

  The Government have also established the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) a not-for-profit company, limited by guarantee with the aim of promoting sustainable waste management by creating stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products, including plastics.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to ensure that local authorities implement and promote doorstep recycling strategies. [124492]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have set statutory performance standards (targets) requiring all local authorities to double their recycling, compared with 154W
  1999–2000, by 2003–04 and to trebling their recycling by 2005–06. We have not specified how these targets should be met, however we would expect doorstep collection to play an increasing role in meeting the targets.

  The Government have supported the general principle of the Household Waste Recycling Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). The Bill addresses the issue of doorstep collection. It provides that where English waste collection authorities have a duty to collect waste they shall ensure, except in some circumstances, that by the end of 2010 they collect at least two recyclates separate from the remainder of the waste.

  The Government have also provided local authorities with substantial financial support to enable them to increase their recycling operations. Spending Review 2002 increased provision in the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block (which includes waste) by £671 million over the three years to 2005–06. We have also provided additional funding of £140 million for 2002–03 and 2003–04 through the ring-fenced Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's progress in allowing the introduction of home-based waste separation for recycling within the five-year timetable set by the EU. [124437]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]Under the revision of the Packaging Waste Directive, the European Parliament recently voted for increased recovery and recycling targets for packaging waste to be met by 2008. The Directive does not specify the method by which these targets should be met. To meet the increased targets greater quantities of packaging waste will have to be collected from the household waste stream. We would expect to see industry working together with compliance schemes and local authorities to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to meet these targets.

  Separately, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) has introduced the Household Waste Recycling Bill which addresses the issue of doorstep collection. The Government support the general principle of the Bill and it has now completed Committee stage in the Commons. The Bill provides that where English waste collection authorities have a duty to collect waste they shall ensure, except in some circumstances, that by the end of 2010 they collect at least two recyclates separate from the remainder of the waste.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what budget has been set aside for the next five years to promote(a) recycling and (b) waste separation in homes. [124438]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]The Strategy Unit Report 'Waste Not Want Not' recommended that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) take forward a programme of public education and awareness, which will include recycling and waste separation. The Government have accepted this recommendation and WRAP is now in the process of drawing up the detailed programme. The
  155W
  majority of the resources allocated to the programme, which will amount to £3 million in 2003–04, will support local authority education schemes.

  Budgets for the programme will be £10 million and £17 million in 2004–05 and 2005–06 respectively.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what percentage of biomass suitable for renewable energy generation was sent to landfill in the UK in 2002; and what the figure was for each other E U member; [124560]

  (2) what the latest calculation is that she has made of the percentage of biomass containing industrial and municipal waste suitable for renewable energy generation sent to landfill. [124561]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not made any detailed assessments of quantities of biomass along the lines requested.

  This is because the quality of the feedstock used in processes that generate renewable energy from biomass obtained from wastes varies according to the technology employed, and these wastes can also be treated by options not involving energy recovery.

  However, current estimates are that nearly 80 per cent. of biodegradable municipal waste goes to landfill.

  Rodenticides
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action has been taken to assess rodenticides residue in(a) domestic and (b) non-domestic animals customarily eaten by humans and potential implications for public health. [124636]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.

  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. All rodenticides are assessed prior to approval been granted to ensure they do not pose an unacceptable risk to man and the wider environment.

  Each approval is granted, by Ministers, subject to specific Conditions of Approval" which are legal requirements and must be followed. These conditions are recorded in the approval documents and are reflected on the product label. The label will inform the user what the product has approval for use against, how it must be used to be effective and essential risk and safety advice associated with the product. The directions for use and the precautionary phrases will give the user guidance on how to avoid exposure to domestic and non-domestic animals. When carrying out a treatment the label advice must be followed and the potential risks involved when using a product should be considered.

  Following approval of a product, the Approval Holder is under an ongoing responsibility to report adverse data associated with the product to the regulatory authority. Additionally, the Pesticides
  156W
  Residues Committee, a sub-committee of the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides, conduct a ongoing programme of testing to assess the residue levels of pesticides in food stuffs. The Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme looks at cases where domestic and non-domestic animals have been poisoned by pesticides. Information gathered from these monitoring processes are fed back into the approvals process and, if appropriate, action can be taken against products.

  Rural Transport Partnership
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding has been allocated(a) by the Countryside Agency and (b) from other sources for new Rural Transport Partnership projects for the financial year 2003–04; and whether these allocations vary from sums previously announced. [125857]

  Alun Michael
  A total of £12.3 million has been allocated by the Countryside Agency to the Rural Transport Partnership scheme in 2003–04.

  The Rural Transport Partnership grant scheme is run by the Agency on behalf of Defra and provides funding to Rural Transport Partnerships to help develop local transport schemes on a match funding basis.

  Transport Pollutant Emissions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of F-gas emissions are estimated to derive from the transport sector through vehicle air-conditioning and transport refrigeration; and what plans she has to control such emissions. [125333]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]The data presented in the table are taken from a study sponsored by my Department in 1999. The study estimated that in 1995, emissions from mobile air conditioning and refrigerated transport were responsible for 0.8 per cent. of total UK fluorinated gases (F-gases) emissions. This figure was projected to rise to 12 per cent. in 2010, due to the increasing use of air conditioners in new vehicles.

  Emissions in million tonnes of CO2 equivalent

  Mobile air conditioning

  Refrigerated transport

  Total transport

  Total all sources

  Percentage of UK total emission

  1995

  0.13

  0.01

  0.14

  17.5

  0.8

  2010

  1.31

  0.13

  1.44

  12.0

  12

  The Department has undertaken a follow-up study for emissions and projections of F-gases and this will be published shortly.

  We expect the European Commission to publish shortly a proposal on measures to reduce emissions of F-gases.

  Unsupported Crops Sector
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make an assessment of the impact of the European Commission's proposals for decoupling in the unsupported crops sector. [116486]
  157W
  Margaret Beckett
  Overall, the agreement reached at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 27 June is estimated to give rise to annual net economic benefits of about euro 0.6 to 0.8 billion in the UK. The agreement does not provide for direct payments to growers for land used only for non-supported crops in the reference period. However, land needed to qualify for a direct payment under the new arrangements cannot be used to grow fruit, vegetables and table potatoes, thereby removing a potential source of additional competition that the unsupported sector was concerned would arise from the Commission's proposals.

  Vital Villages Programme
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether(a) she, (b) Department officials and (c) the Countryside Agency gave instructions to suspend payments on the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme from 16 April to 1 June 2003. [125855]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency manages the Vital Villages programme on behalf of Defra. Day to day decisions on the operation of the scheme are a matter for the Agency.

  The Countryside Agency did not suspend payments under the programme but did call a temporary halt to making any new commitments while they considered how to target the programme for the remainder of the year. By May 2003 almost two thirds of the 2003–04 budget was allocated.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether there was variation between budgeted and actual expenditure in the period from April 2002 to March 2003 in the Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme. [125856]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency's Vital Villages programme budget allocation was £17.5 million in 2002–03 and the actual expenditure on grants was £17.25 million. Within the overall programme the Rural Transport Partnerships budget allocation was £8.2 million and actual expenditure was £9.9 million.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the trips made by senior Ministers, and the countries visited, where UK exports on the Military and Dual Lists were the main reason for the trip in each year since 2001. [125665]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am not aware of any overseas visits by senior DTI Ministers in the years since 2001 that have had as their main theme the export of Military and Dual List goods.

  The specific responsibility within this Government for the export promotion of UK military equipment lies with the Ministry of Defence (MOD), specifically the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO).

  BNFL
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the involvement of BNFL in nuclear weapons programmes. [119539]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]BNFL's Board ensures compliance with all UK nuclear nonproliferation obligations.

  In common with many other suppliers, BNFL has made an important contribution to the UK's effective and credible nuclear deterrent. Tritium continues to be supplied to the Ministry of Defence, but the production and separation of plutonium for weapons' use was stopped prior to 1995. Civil nuclear material at BNFL facilities is, like such material at other facilities in the UK, subject to Euratom Treaty safeguards and to the terms of the UK's safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Euratom.

  BNFL is a third joint venture partner in a consortium that manages the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston on be half of MOD.

  Canada-EU Trade
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken towards Canada agreeing a free trade agreement with the EU; and if she will make a statement. [125081]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At the EU-Canada Summit in Ottawa last December it was agreed that proposals for the negotiation of a Trade and Investment Enhancement Agreement would be submitted for the next Summit in Canada, in December 2003.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been given by her Department(a) in the form of Regional Selective Assistance and (b) under the Enterprise Grant scheme; and how much of this has been paid to industrial projects that have subsequently failed. [124730]

  Jacqui Smith
  Expenditure from 1 January 1997 to date was £662.1 million for Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) in England and £28.2 million for the Enterprise Grant scheme (EG) which was introduced in January 2000.

  £40.1 million and £0.2 million was paid to RSA and EG projects respectively where, to date, there has been some recovery or write-off action. Many of these projects will have involved some investment but not on the scale anticipated at the time of offer.

  Departmental Policy (Burma)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on(a) trade with and (b) investment in Burma by companies registered in the United Kingdom or their overseas subsidiaries. [125668]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 1042W, the British

  159W
  Government do not encourage trade with or investment in Burma while the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people. We offer no support for companies wishing to trade with Burma or for those who want to invest there. Representatives of British companies or their subsidiaries that inquire about the prospects, either for trade with or investment in Burma, are informed of this policy. I met the Chairman of British American Tobacco, Mr. Marlin Broughton on 2 July 2003. BAT are the only major British investor in Burma. They run a partnership with the business arm of Burma's military directorship, the Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings. I asked Mr. Broughton to consider withdrawing their investment.

  Electricity Generation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the UK's generation mix for electricity(a) is and (b) was in (i) 1973, (ii) 1980, and (iii) 1990, (iv) 2000. [125583]

  Mr. Timms
  The percentage of gross electricity supplied by fuel is set out in the following table.

  1973

  1980

  1990

  2000

  2002

  Coal

  67

  74

  69

  32

  32

  Oil

  21

  11

  7

  1

  1

  Gas

  —

  1

  1

  40

  40

  Nuclear

  10

  12

  20

  22

  22

  Renewables1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  Other2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Includes hydro natural flow.

  2 Includes coke oven gas, blast furnace gas, waste products from chemical processes and generation by hydro pumped storage.

  Sources:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics, UK Energy in Brief

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to ask the National Radiological Protection Board to review research on the health aspects of mobile phone masts and to report to her; and if she will make a statement. [125006]

  Mr. Timms
  The public health implications of mobile phone technologies in general were comprehensively assessed by the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart, in May 2000 (www.iegmp.org.uk). In respect of base stations the Group concluded that:

  The balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.

  Measurements undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Radiocommunications Agency have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international exposure guidelines and are published on the websites www.nrpb.org and www.radio.gov.uk respectively.

  The IEGMP additionally recommended that the issue of possible health effects from mobile phone technology should be the subject of a further review in three years time or earlier if circumstances demand it. In responding
  160W
  to the recommendations in the IEGMP report, the Government asked the NRPB to undertake this further review and the Board of NRPB requested its independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR) to carry this out. It is expected that this further report will be issued towards the end of 2003. Membership of AGNIR can be found on the NRPB's website (www.nrpb.org).

  Post Office
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) gross and (b) net marginal cost to the Government is of the opening of (i) 1, (ii) 100, (iii) 1,000 and (iv) 100,000 post office card accounts. [125278]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]I have been asked to reply.

  Our working assumption is around 3 million post office card accounts will have been opened by 2005. However, there is no cap on numbers and anyone who wants to open an account can do so. Present indications are that the final number will be significantly above three million. The precise cost at any given level of take-up is commercial in confidence to Post Office Ltd. and is not released in line with paragraph 13, part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which urban post offices in the North East of England(a) have closed in each of the last three years and (b) are being proposed for closure. [126063]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter that falls within the operational responsibilities of Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office Card Accounts have been(a) applied for and (b) opened in (i) Jarrow constituency, (ii) South Tyneside, (iii) the North East and (iv) the UK. [125728]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. National figures only are available.

  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that by 20 June 2003, 57,000 Post Office card accounts had been opened. By that date I further understand from the Department for Work and Pensions that 430,000 customers had opted for a Post Office card account.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will provide a full reply pursuant to the holding answer she gave on 18 June 2003 regarding post offices, ref 119723. [126154]

  Mr. Timms
  I replied in full to the hon. Member's question on 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 564.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies she has conducted into the comparative costs and uptake of renewable energy throughout the European Union. [124819]
  161W
  Mr. Timms
  The take up of renewable energy in the different states of the European Union is well documented (e.g. in the statistics compiled by the International Energy Agency). In addition, the European Wind Energy Association has recently published Wind Force 12, a report which assesses the current state of the European Wind Energy Market, and its potential growth. This report is available at www.ewea.org/doc/WF12.pdf. The Department has not carried out studies into the comparative costs of renewables in the different member states.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has held with(a) executives of Royal Mail and (b) other ministerial colleagues over the decision by Royal Mail to forego the use of rail transport for the carrige of mail; what assessment she has made of the decision; and if she will make a statement. [125985]

  Mr. Timms
  The department meets Royal Mail on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues including progress on the transport review. That review envisaged a continuing role for rail freight. Royal Mail has, following protracted negotiations with EWS, concluded that it cannot now proceed on the basis it originally intended, for reasons of cost.

  The Government regret the loss of business for rail freight but stands by its policy that Royal Mail must have the freedom it needs to operate genuinely commercially.

  Shareholder Votes
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what penalties she plans to impose on companies who mislay a significant proportion of shareholders' votes. [124731]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have no plans to impose penalties on companies. I regard the effective operation of the shareholder voting process as an essential part of the corporate governance framework. The process involves a number of parties and I am glad to see that they are working together to analyse the process in order to make it more efficient. The Department will be monitoring developments in this area closely.

  Shipyards (Assistance)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance is available from(a) the Government and (b) its agencies for shipyards in (i) England and (ii) Scotland competing for orders to construct ships. [125562]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]Financial support is available to help UK shipyards win new orders through my Department's Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme (HSCGS). The HSCGS provides soft credit finance facilities to UK resident purchasers of ships in the form of loan guarantees of up to 80 per cent. of contract value for the construction and conversion of vessels. The HSCGS is currently under appraisal, in line with the DTI's wider review of existing business support schemes.

  Timber
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirements there are on timber merchants to identify the source of timber imported into the UK. [125152]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None. The Timber Trade Federation operates a code of practice and organisations like the WWF 1995 Plus Group have been set up to encourage merchants and retailers to promote business methods that are consistent with sustainable forestry practices.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry from which countries the UK imports timber; what percentage of the total timber import comes from each country; what percentage is from unidentified sources; and what steps the Government takes to ensure the timber is from sustainable sources in each country. [125153]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Data on the UK's imports of timber are given in the following table.

  Statistics on UK imports of goods are compiled by HM Customs and Excise. The information is published on the basis of the country of consignment: which is normally the last country in which a commercial transaction takes place. Information on the country of consignment is comprehensive for countries outside the European Union (EU). Within the EU detailed information is collected from all but very small traders. Overall, small traders are estimated to account for 2–3 per cent. of the value of UK trade with the EU, or about half that for total UK trade in goods. HM Customs and Excise do not collect from importers information relating to the precise origin of the timber, ie. whether or not the timber was forested from a legal and sustainably managed source, other than the country of consignment.

  Comprehensive data, by country of origin are not available. The free flow of goods within the Single European Market means that information on the country of origin is not always available when goods are first imported into another European Union country and then consigned to the UK.

  The Government have shown leadership in its strong encouragement of the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process. This is part of the EU's wider objective to encourage sustainable forest management and ensure that timber entering the EU is sustainably sourced. The Government are broadly supportive of the Commission's recently published FLEGT action plan and will work with other member states to ensure the Commission is able to make rapid progress.

  UK imports of timber in 2002

  Country

  £000

  Percentage share

  Total Imports

  1,295,351

  100.00

  Sweden

  325,172

  25.10

  Latvia

  205,504

  15.86

  Finland

  193,389

  14.93

  USA

  75,570

  5.83

  Russia

  65,909

  5.09

  Canada

  62,164

  4.80

  Estonia

  52,680

  4.07

  Irish Republic

  43,462

  3.36

  163W

  UK imports of timber in 2002

  Country

  £000

  Percentage share

  Germany

  31,326

  2.42

  Malaysia

  26,536

  2.05

  France

  20,239

  1.56

  Netherlands

  19.813

  1.53

  Italy

  19,720

  1.52

  Lithuania

  14,144

  1.09

  Norway

  12,932

  1.00

  Cameroon

  12,851

  0.99

  Brazil

  12,575

  0.97

  Indonesia

  10,740

  0.83

  Belgium

  10,377

  0.80

  Denmark

  7,937

  0.61

  China

  7,931

  0.61

  Ivory Coast

  7,551

  0.58

  Czech Republic

  6,951

  0.54

  Ghana

  6,570

  0.51

  Poland

  5,080

  0.39

  Singapore

  4,096

  0.32

  Portugal

  3,726

  0.29

  Austria

  3,000

  0.23

  Chile

  2,955

  0.23

  Guyana

  2,424

  0.19

  South Africa

  2,258

  0.17

  Spain

  1,943

  0.15

  Slovakia

  1,528

  0.12

  Romania

  1,520

  0.12

  Thailand

  1,406

  0.11

  Australia

  1,259

  0.10

  Congo

  1,124

  0.09

  Honduras

  1,080

  0.08

  Taiwan

  1,074

  0.08

  Liberia

  1,012

  0.08

  Burma

  979

  0.08

  Hong Kong

  690

  0.05

  Ukraine

  600

  0.05

  Philippines

  510

  0.04

  Switzerland

  384

  0.03

  Hungary

  319

  0.02

  India

  314

  0.02

  New Zealand

  307

  0.02

  Serbia and Montenegro

  267

  0.02

  Turkey

  262

  0.02

  Zaire

  255

  0.02

  Tanzania

  223

  0.02

  Costa Rica

  210

  0.02

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  185

  0.01

  Zimbabwe

  171

  0.01

  Slovenia

  143

  0.01

  Gabon

  136

  0.01

  Papua New Guinea

  134

  0.01

  Bulgaria

  132

  0.01

  Cyprus

  129

  0.01

  Luxembourg

  121

  0.01

  Gibraltar

  114

  0.01

  Japan

  107

  0.01

  Nigeria

  95

  0.01

  Guinea

  84

  0.01

  Croatia

  79

  0.01

  Ecuador

  78

  0.01

  Central African Rep.

  77

  0.01

  Bolivia

  57

  0.00

  British Virgin Islands

  52

  0.00

  South Korea

  52

  0.00

  Algeria

  37

  0.00

  Greece

  37

  0.00

  Mozambique

  36

  0.00

  Jamaica

  35

  0.00

  Dominican Republic

  35

  0.00

  Belize

  34

  0.00

  Vatican City

  34

  0.00

  Peru

  31

  0.00

  Panama (inc. Former Canal Zone)

  27

  0.00

  Laos

  25

  0.00

  164W

  UK imports of timber in2002

  Country

  £000

  Percentageshare

  Antigua and Barbuda

  25

  0.00

  Surinam

  21

  0.00

  Syria

  18

  0.00

  Madagascar

  17

  0.00

  Macedonia

  16

  0.00

  Armentina

  15

  0.00

  Burundi

  14

  0.00

  Sharjah etc.

  12

  0.00

  Dubai

  12

  0.00

  Saudi Arabia

  10

  0.00

  Mexico

  8

  0.00

  Bahamas

  8

  0.00

  Malta

  8

  0.00

  Libya

  7

  0.00

  Israel

  6

  0.00

  Namibia

  6

  0.00

  Argentina

  6

  0.00

  Trinidad and Tobago

  5

  0.00

  Mauritius

  5

  0.00

  Swaziland

  4

  0.00

  Sri Lanka

  3

  0.00

  Gambia

  2

  0.00

  Note:

  Timber is defined as headings 247 and 248 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Rev 3 (SITC).

  Source:

  Compiled by DTI from HM Customs and Excise data

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Appointments
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps have been taken towards improving transparency in the public appointments process. [125459]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office fully supports the Commissioner for Public Appointments Code of Practice, which provides Departments with a clear guide to the steps required to ensure an open and transparent appointments process.

  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what age restrictions there are on public appointments. [125461]

  Mr. Alexander
  Generally, there are no age restrictions for people applying to be considered for public appointments. Appointments made by the Lord Chancellor to tribunals do have some restrictions.

  Central Office of Information
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement about the recruitment practices of the Central Office of Information. [125460]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Central Office of Information's recruitment practices follow the recruitment code laid down by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost was to his Department of mobile phones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [123147]
  165W
  Mr. Alexander
  Information on the cost to the Cabinet Office of mobile telephones supplied to Ministers and officials in each year since 1997 is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Widows and Orphans Pensions Schemes
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make it his policy to allow widows who married officers after they had retired from the service to benefit from the Widows and Orphans Pensions Schemes; and if he will make a statement. [125213]

  Mr. Alexander
  Before April 1978, the Civil Service pension scheme, in common with other public service schemes, paid pensions only to widows who had been married to officers at the time they left service. For service from 6 April 1978, in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, pensions have been paid regardless of when the marriage took place.

TRANSPORT

  Workplace Parking (Nottingham)
  Mr. Graham Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support he is giving to Nottingham city council's policy for a workplace parking levy; and if he will make a statement. [125445]

  Mr. McNulty
  I support Nottingham city council's development of an integrated local transport policy in which a workplace parking levy could play an integral part, but I cannot make any statement that would prejudge my decision should a scheme order be submitted to me for confirmation.

  Rail Network
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve the rail network in northern England. [125446]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan sets out investment priorities and describes how delivery of the key targets in our 10-Year Transport Plan will be achieved. The SRA is in the process of establishing two new franchises for the north of England, which will separate long-distance and local services to allow concentrated management attention within each market.

  Traffic Congestion (South-east)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to reduce traffic congestion in the south-east. [125447]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to this House on 9 July 2003 on transport investment. This announced a number of measures to be taken forward in our major transport corridors which will tackle traffic congestion, support economic growth and improve safety on our strategic road network, including the south-east.

  A46/A47 Link Road
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to visit Leicester to discuss the operation of the A46 to A47 link road. [125448]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. As the A46/A47 link road is a local road scheme, the responsibility for its operation rests with the local highway authority, Leicester city council.

  Royal Mail
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the impact of the decision by Royal Mail to withdraw its mail services from the railways on the Government's plans to develop an integrated transport policy. [125449]

  Mr. McNulty
  Royal Mail's decision is a commercial matter for the company. The Government's policy is to promote a competitive sustainable distribution industry that brings economic and environmental benefits for the country. We remain committed to rail freight, and are giving the railways the sustained investment they have never had before.

  Motorway Safety
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were(a) killed and (b) seriously injure J. in each of the last three years for which figures are available in crashes involving vehicles parked on the hard shoulders of motorways. [125450]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is available for the total number of those killed and seriously injured in road accidents involving vehicles parked on motorways for the three-year period from 1999 to 2001. The figures are:

  (a) 62 people killed; and

  (b) 118 people seriously injured.

  The figures are not available on a yearly basis.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what Government financial incentives there are to encourage freight on the railways in(a) England and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [125451]

  Mr. McNulty
  Grants are available from the Strategic Rail Authority and the National Assembly for Wales to enable companies to move freight by rail instead of road where this is justified by environmental benefits.

  Rail Services (Edinburgh)
  Mr. Lazarowiez
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the Strategic Rail Authority regarding long-distance rail services to and from Edinburgh. [125453]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers have regular contact with the Strategic Rail Authority over all aspects of their business. The Authority have recently announced that west coast trains will begin to serve Edinburgh from 2005. The Authority are also considering upgrade options for the east coast main line, on which they will consult later this year.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessments of the risk of bird strikes at London Heathrow airport his Department has made in the last five years; [126018]

  (2) how many incidents of bird strike have been reported at (a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted in the last five years; [126023]

  (3) what measures his Department undertakes to assess the potential risk of bird strike at UK airports. [126024]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for the licensing of civil aerodromes in the UK. Licensed aerodromes are required to take all reasonable steps to secure that the aerodrome and its immediately surrounding airspace are safe at all times for use by aircraft. As a licensing condition, aerodrome operators are also specifically required to have in place procedures for the control of bird hazards. The CAA maintains an oversight of the effectiveness of the bird hazard control activities at all UK licensed aerodromes and comments on this activity in the individual aerodrome's annual audit report.

  Although the Department for Transport has not conducted separate aerodromes bird strike risk assessments, it has organised, and currently chairs, a working group of representatives from relevant local authorities, private land owners, the CAA and Heathrow Airport Ltd. (HAL) to consider ways of expediting effective management of the bird population and habitat around Heathrow. This builds on HAL's on-going work with the Central Science Laboratory's Bird Strike Avoidance Team to develop and implement appropriate bird strike mitigation measures. It is anticipated that the results of the group's work will, in due course, be disseminated to other aerodromes around the country.

  The following table sets out the number of reported bird strikes at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted over the last five years.

  Heathrow

  Gatwick

  Stansted

  1998

  36

  32

  14

  1999

  56

  39

  16

  2000

  46

  39

  21

  2001

  59

  40

  28

  2002

  71

  51

  30

  Car Tax
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government is taking to reduce the number of people who are illegally avoiding paying car tax. [125954]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in co-operation with police forces, local authorities and other enforcement agencies already uses a wide range of measures to tackle evasion of vehicle excise duty (VED). These include on-street enforcement, wheelclamping and the use of roadside cameras. The enforcement programme successfully 168W
  actioned some 820,000 cases, recovering some £110 million in fines, out of court settlements and relicensing revenue.

  This programme is being strengthened by a range of new initiatives. These include combined operations with local authorities, police forces and fire services aimed at abandoned and unlicensed vehicles, wider use of police traffic cameras, and a new "hotline" facility to allow members of the public to report offences directly to DVLA, anonymously if they wish.

  On 22 May I announced proposals to introduce a form of continuous registration, starting in 2004. Under these proposals a vehicle's registered keeper will remain liable for licensing it until it is formally transferred to a new keeper. Enforcement will include the imposition of standard penalties, with more severe fines for determined evaders following prosecution. There will be consultation on the details of these proposals later this year.

  Bus Stop Clearway Orders (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the City of Newcastle upon Tyne requested approval of permanent bus stop clearway orders in respect of Osborne Road, NE2; and whether approval was granted. [125649]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is a matter for the Local Highway Authority, Newcastle city council.

  The Council made application to the Department (Government Office for the North East) on 3 May 2001 for 24 hour Bus Stop Clearways on Osborne Road, Newcastle.

  The Government Office responded on 13 July 2001. The Council were advised that it had the power to introduce the 24 hour Bus Stop Clearways by making the appropriate Traffic Regulation Order in accordance with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and then to erect a sign to Diagram 974 as prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 1994 (which were current at the time of the inquiry), reflecting the times the restriction is in force.

  Electric Trains
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage energy loss is in converting the primary energy source into electrical driving energy for the modern electric train. [125761]

  Dr. Howells
  In contrast to older electric units such as Mark Is, which lose up to 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the energy supplied to them when starting up and operating at low speeds, modern electric multiple units such as Networkers have electronic control systems designed to prevent any significant energy loss in the provision of traction.

  Eurostar Trains
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Eurostar trains are kept unused in sidings owned by Network Rail; and what annual rent is charged for their storage. [122114]
  169W
  Mr. McNulty
  There are currently no unused Eurostar trains. However, trains are redeployed between different operating companies and purposes, according to circumstances, from time to time.

  Foreign Seafarers (Employment Standards)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to bring forward minimum employment and safety standards for foreign seafarers serving on UK registered ships. [125452]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK will play a full part in the current International Labour Organisation initiative to consolidate its maritime conventions in order to improve global observance of the standards of living and working conditions in international shipping.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure the co-ordination of activity between the Highways Agency and regional bodies in order to deliver greater integration and cost-efficiency. [125516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is continuing to work closely with regional planning bodies, the Government Offices for the Regions, the Regional Development Agencies, the Regional Assemblies and local authorities to ensure the Highways Agency has awareness of, and input into, important regional policies such as Regional Planning Guidance, Regional Economic Strategy, and the Regional Transport Strategy.

  The agency has also built strong links with all other key regional and national transport stakeholders to support the delivery of sustainable transport solutions.

  M42
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision to open a hard shoulder on the M42 to ease congestion. [125515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The then Minister for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), announced on 27 July 2001 that the M42 between Junctions 3a and 7 had been chosen as a pilot site for Active Traffic Management (ATM). The pilot will provide useful data and experience about a range of existing and new traffic management measures. This will include part-time use of the hard shoulder as a running lane for traffic at peak periods and at other times when there has been an incident, but only under carefully controlled conditions.

  Motorway Speed Limits
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 8 July 2003,Official Report, column 689W, on motorway speed limits, if he will place the conclusions arising from this assessment in the Library. [125366]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on 14 July 2003,Official Report, column 27W.

  National Walking Strategy
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make funding and additional resources available to support the implementation of the National Walking Strategy; and if he will make a statement; [126214]

  (2) if he will establish a National Walking Authority to monitor progress of the National Walking Strategy and assist the Government in its implementation; [126215]

  (3) when the National Walking Strategy will be published; and whet her it will contain targets. [126216]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department issued a discussion document on walking on 30 June. "On the move: by foot" seeks views from all interests on how we might improve conditions for pedestrians and increase levels of walking. Responses to the document have been requested by 26 September and will inform our forward strategy in respect of resources, institutions and targets.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the running costs have been of Ministers' private offices in his Department in each year since 1997. [123110]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed on 29 May 2002. Thee estimated final outturn for the running costs of Ministers' private offices in 2002–03 is £1.3 million.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of rail safety recommendations by the Railway Inspectorate over the last three years. [125556]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the last three years the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have published recommendations as part of their investigation reports into the Hatfield and Potters Bar rail crashes. HSE intend to publish progress reports on implementation of these recommendations once legal proceedings are concluded or not proceeded with.

  The Health and Safety Commission progress report of July 2002 on implementation of the recommendations from the Southall, Ladbroke Grove and train protection public inquiries is in the Libraries of the House. A further report will be published later this summer.

  Roads
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which major road schemes in England have been given(a) provisional and (b) full government approval in each of the last three years; what their current status is; and what the (i) anticipated start date and (ii) completion date is in each case. [125709]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries of the House. A scheme at the M40 Junction 15 at Longbridge, was added to the Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI) today.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has conducted into the consistency with which speed cameras on trunk roads record speeding motorists. [124797]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Decisions on issues relating to speed camera operation and enforcement of speed limits are a matter for chief constables of police.

PRIME MINISTER

  Camp Delta
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has made to the US President concerning the future of the British detainees at Camp Delta. [124615]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy),Official Report, column 1152, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), Official Report, columns 1152–53, and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) Official Report, column 1155, at Prime Minister's questions on 9 July.

  China
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his forthcoming visit to the People's Republic of China. [123676]

  The Prime Minister
  I will arrive in China on Monday 21 July and will stay away until Thursday 24 July, visiting Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will use his forthcoming visit to the People's Republic of China (PRC) to express support for the Beijing talks mechanism for a peaceful solution to the North Korea nuclear issue involving the USA, North Korea and the PRC. [123679]

  The Prime Minister
  I will discuss the North Korea nuclear issue with the Chinese Government during my visit. We welcome the role that the Chinese Government has played in hosting trilateral talks.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposed new EU constitution upon the representative role of Her Majesty The Queen. [125990]

  The Prime Minister
  Her Majesty The Queen's status and role as Head of State of the United Kingdom, including any representative functions, would be unaffected by any of the proposals in the draft Constitutional Treaty.

  Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of(a) the costs arising from the recent Cabinet reshuffle and (b) the reorganisation costs of Government departments. [125042]
  172W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 792W.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek permission from the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee to allow publication of the source for the statement at page 6 of the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, published in September 2002, that Iraq has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa; and whether Her Majesty's Government provided the source material to the International Atomic Energy Agency. [123047]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not our practice to publish the source of intelligence reports. We asked the originators of our intelligence information to discuss the issue with the IAEA.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had on the use of oil revenues to fund reconstruction in Iraq in the manner outlined to the United Nations on 10 May. [125235]

  The Prime Minister
  UN Security Council resolution 1483, which the UK co-sponsored, stipulates that Iraqi oil revenues must be used for purposes benefiting the people of Iraq, including economic reconstruction. I have always made it clear in relevant discussions that Iraqi oil is owned by the Iraqi people and its revenues should be used for the good of the people, consistent with UN Security Council resolutions.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had regarding(a) extra funding and (b) international assistance for the Iraqi police force. [125248]

  The Prime Minister
  Government officials have discussed with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) how best the UK can contribute to the CPA's work to rebuild the Iraqi police service. The UK considers the restoration of the rule of law in Iraq to be a priority and will stay closely engaged with the CPA on issues of funding and assistance. In particular, the UK has deployed a senior police officer to Baghdad to assist with advising and training the new Iraq police service. In addition to this a further senior officer will deploy to Basra on 15 July to advise CPA (South). The CPA intends to hold a police contributor's conference shortly to garner support for a substantial international policing contribution and the UK is actively considering making a further commitment as part of this process.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. [125650]

  The Prime Minister
  The September dossier stated that"there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

  This assessment drew on intelligence from more than one source. The IAEA has confirmed that Iraq did acquire uranium from Niger in the early 1980s.
  173W
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on(a) the reasons for defining the defection of Iraqi Lieutenant General Hussein Kamal as important in the Government's dossier, Weapons of Mass Destruction, of 24 September 2002 and (b) the value of the General's testimony to UN weapons inspectors that all proscribed weapons had been destroyed on his orders. [125936]

  The Prime Minister
  Lieutenant General Hussein Kamal defected in 1995. As the dossier makes clear, following his defection Iraq released over 2 million documents relating to its weapons of mass destruction programmes and acknowledged that it had pursued a biological programme that led to the deployment of actual weapons.

  In his testimony to UN weapons inspectors, Kamal claimed that he had ordered the destruction of all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and missiles. We know that Iraq did not do this and continued to be in breach of UN Security Council resolutions. Intelligence obtained by the British Government, reflected in the September dossier, has reported on the possession and production of chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles by Iraq. Equipment related to Iraq's nuclear programme dating back to 1991 has recently been recovered from the garden of a scientist in Iraq.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister what the deterioration rates are of the(a) VX nerve agent, (b) Sarin and (c) botulinum toxin which he declared had been unaccounted for when UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998, during his statement to the House of 18 March 2003, Official Report, column 76W. [125937]

  The Prime Minister
  The stability of the materials quoted depends very much on the initial purity and the precise storage conditions. Their usable lifetime as chemical or biological warfare agents, can range from a few months to tens of years. Even partially degraded material may still pose a significant hazard.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his evidence to the Liaison Committee, 8 July, Question 186, (1) on what basis he calculated that(a) it was not true that 90 per cent. of the second dossier came from plagiarised material and (b) two of the three parts of the dossier were based on intelligence; [125968]

  (2) what proportions of the second Iraqi dossier were based upon the work of (a) Ibrahim al-Marishi in the Middle East Review of International Affairs of September 2002, (b) Sean Boyne in Jane's Intelligence Review of 1997, (c) Ken Gause in Jane's Intelligence Review of 2002, (d) Anthony Corderman in Key Targets on Iraq of February 1998 and (e) UK intelligence services. [125955]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the House on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 583W.

  The published memorandum from the Foreign Secretary and my Director of Communications and Strategy made clear that sections one and three were based on intelligence material and highlighted the relevant parts in section two that were based on intelligence material. The intelligence material was
  174W
  authorised by the relevant intelligence agency for use in the public in domain, in accordance with the procedures in place at the time.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first informed that the reports relating to attempts by the Iraqi regime to obtain nuclear related materials from Niger were(a) of dubious basis and (b) possibly based on forgeries; and what recent discussions he has had with the US administration on the reports. [126037]

  The Prime Minister
  In February 2003, the IAEA received a number of documents related to Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium. On 7 March 2003, Dr. el-Baradei announced that the IAEA had concluded that these documents were not authentic.

  I speak to President Bush regularly on many matters. It would not be appropriate to disclose the contents of those discussions.

  Korea
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the Republic of Korea. [123835]

  The Prime Minister
  I will visit Korea on Sunday 20 July where I will have my first meeting with President Roh in Seoul.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Consultations
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the consultation documents issued by the 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. [124573]

  Hilary Benn
  The information requested is not collated on a central basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a list of consultation exercises run by DFID is available at www.dfid.gov.uk.

  Departmental Strategies
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what measures are in place to ensure that account is taken of the concerns of aid agencies, human rights organisations and other non-governmental organisations in developing the Department's strategies. [124619]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has significant involvement with a wide range of NGOs and other civil society organisations. This includes meeting, discussing and consulting widely with them, at both ministerial and official level.

  Examples include: DFID's Information and Civil Society Department consult widely with the British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) network in relation to funding schemes, and have made improvements to funding procedures based on the views of BOND'S members; the International Financial Institutions Department holds regular official meetings with NGOs, particularly focusing on Poverty Reduction

  175W
  Strategy process; many of our Policy teams engage in wider dialogue with individual organisations on key policy and strategic areas; and a number of key NGOs made submissions to DFID White Papers and have responded to our Institutional Strategy Papers and Target Strategy Papers.

  EU Humanitarian Aid
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on implementation of humanitarian aid operations, (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. [110308]

  Hilary Benn
  The European Community's Humanitarian Aid Committee (HAC) does not have a fixed membership, but consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states. The HAC meets on average once a month, excluding August (and often December). In addition to this, each Presidency usually holds an informal HAC to discuss issues of substance in more detail. Including both formal and informal HACs there have been 19 meetings since January 2002.

  The Department for International Development usually sends one or two delegates to the HAC, drawn from our Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department or our regional departments.

  At the HAC meetings, member states review the Annual Global Plans (large scale humanitarian country strategies) and Decisions (less detailed, smaller scale humanitarian programmes) drawn up by the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) for ongoing humanitarian assistance to countries, regions, or specific population groups. ECHO also uses the HAC to inform member states of decisions taken under ECHO's own delegated authority both. on its smallest programmes, and on those taken under the Primary Emergency Procedures for rapid disbursement (recent examples include Iraq, Algeria and the Palestinian Territories). In November of each year, ECHO presents its overall strategy for the following year for discussion by member states. ECHO also presents at various times during the year procedural and thematic papers on various aspects of EC assistance for member state's information and comment.

  The role of the Humanitarian Aid Committee is to oversee the powers delegated to the European Commission by the European Council of Ministers. As with all Comitology Committees, documents circulated at the HAC are not routinely deposited for scrutiny under established scrutiny procedures, unless they are politically significant. Since January 2002 DFID has deposited for scrutiny the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office's Annual Report for 2001 (COM (2002) 322 FINAL).
  176W
  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 2003, ref 5060/03, COM(03)733.

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have 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.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what estimate he has made of the economic effect on developing countries which will arise from liberalisation of trade in services. [125180]

  Hilary Benn
  All countries involved in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) are responsible for conducting their own impact assessments as a part of the process of deciding which sectors to open to foreign competition. It would be neither desirable nor practical for either the WTO or developed country Governments to make an assessment of service-sector liberalisation on behalf of developing countries.

  However, we recognise that developing countries require support in this area. To this end, DFID is cooperating with UNCTAD and the World bank on a programme of work which will help inform developing country assessments.

  Iraq
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what requests the Department has received for medical drugs from health professionals in Iraq. [124678]

  Hilary Benn
  We have received no specific requests for drugs from health professionals in Iraq.

  The World Health Organisation's assessment is that there is no overall shortage of medical supplies in Iraq, although there are still shortages of drugs for some specific conditions. The drugs supply pipeline is funded until spring 2004.

  In Basra, an oxygen shortfall has resulted from production problems in local manufacturing plants. Immediate emergency needs have been met by importing oxygen from Kuwait. Work is under way to restore existing production capacity in Basra, and ultimately to install new production capacity which would also improve the quality of the oxygen supplied for medical use.
  177W
  DFID's assistance to health and nutrition in the current crisis is channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement. Save the Children Fund, CARE and a number of other non-governmental organisations. £12 million has been allocated specifically to health and nutrition activities (not including food aid); £35 million has also been allocated to humanitarian agencies, not earmarked to specific sectors, a proportion of which is being spent in the health sector.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment the Department has made of the rate of child illness in Iraq. [125234]

  Hilary Benn
  Before the recent conflict, the effects of mismanagement, war, migration of medical staff and economic sanctions had significantly weakened Iraq's capacity to protect the health of its children: almost a third of children in the centre and south suffered from chronic malnutrition; the prevalence of low birth-weight babies had increased more than five-fold over the previous 10 years; and the under-five mortality rate, at 131 per 1,000 live births, was very high. Immediately after the recent conflict, looting, insecurity and an initial breakdown of public services exacerbated existing problems. Increased levels of diarrhoea and vaccine-preventable diseases among children were reported.

  Subsequently, progress has been made in restoring health services and clean water supplies. UNICEF has re-started routine vaccination, including a catch-up campaign for children who missed immunisation during the conflict. Sufficient vaccines are now in Iraq for six to eight months of vaccinations. The Coalition Provisional Authority has announced that public health spending in the July to December 2003 budget will be US$210 million, including $125 million for supplies and equipment and $31 million for generators to supply power to hospitals in Baghdad.

  DFID's assistance to health and nutrition in the current crisis is channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, Save the Children Fund, CARE and a number of other non-governmental organisations. £12 million has been allocated specifically to health and nutrition activities (not including food aid); £35 million has also been allocated to humanitarian agencies, not earmarked to specific sectors, a proportion of which is being spent in the health sector.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment the Department has made of the state of Iraqi hospitals. [125246]

  Hilary Benn
  Hospital infrastructure was little damaged during the recent conflict, but the health care system was badly affected by the subsequent insecurity in which equipment and supplies were looted and water and electricity systems disrupted. The United Nations reported in June 2003 that Iraq's health system was functioning at only 30 to 50 per cent. of its pre-conflict capacity.

  Some progress is being made. All 240 hospitals in the country are in operation. The Coalition Provisional Authority is making considerable efforts to improve the
  178W
  water supply, sanitation, power and security difficulties. Coalition forces have been training Iraqi security staff to guard medical facilities. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been active throughout Iraq replacing missing equipment, and supplying water, power, and medical supplies. Regular salary payments to hospital staff have been resumed.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority has announced that public health spending in the July to December 2003 budget will be US$210 million, including $125 million for supplies and equipment and $31 million for generators to supply power to hospitals in Baghdad.

  DFID's assistance to health and nutrition in the current crisis is channelled through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, Save the Children Fund, CARE and a number of other non-governmental organisations. £12 million has been allocated specifically to health and nutrition activities (not including food aid); £35 million has also been allocated to humanitarian agencies, not earmarked to specific sectors, a proportion of which is being spent in the health sector.

  Kenya
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what agencies in Kenya received money from the Department in each year since 1997. [124479]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development funds a large number of civil society, private sector, and multilateral agencies in Kenya, including through umbrella bodies which channel resources to a wide range of organisations.

  A detailed breakdown of the total number of DFID partners is not held centrally, and is available only at disproportionate cost. A broad indication of the funds provided to civil society, private sector and multilateral agencies over the last three years is set out in the following table.

  £million

  Civil society agencies

  Private sector agencies

  Multilateral agencies

  2000–01

  11

  2

  9

  2001–02

  12

  2

  3

  2002–03

  19

  3

  0

  Liberia
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what action he intends to take in respect of the World Health Organisation's call for supplies and funds to combat the health crisis in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [125303]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 39WS.

  The World Health Organisation's appeal for supplies and funds to provide healthcare to Liberians is one of several urgent requests that we have received in recent weeks from the international humanitarian community.
  179W
  DFID has committed £1.5 million in response to the present crisis in Liberia, in addition to the £1 million we gave to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Medecins sans Frontieres in March 2003. We have allocated £500,000 to ICRC, £374,000 to Merlin and £316,000 to Save the Children Fund (UK).

  We shall commit the balance of the funding available to agencies that have access to those in need and continue to keep the situation under close review.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Liberia; and if he will make a statement on security conditions for aid agencies operating in Liberia. [125304]

  Hilary Benn
  Our information on the humanitarian situation in Liberia is provided by the United Nations and the other international humanitarian agencies that are maintaining a presence there. Although the UN has plans to return expatriate personnel to the country as soon as conditions allow, for now they are relying on information from their country staff and the international non-Government organisations. Only a few agencies have an expatriate presence in Liberia and this is limited mainly to the capital, Monrovia.

  The reports we are receiving describe the conditions as very poor. Humanitarian activities are severely hampered by looting of vehicles, fuel, medical supplies and food by all the main parties to the conflict. There are severe shortages, especially of food and clean water. Sanitation is virtually non-existent, and with around one-third of the population now located within Monrovia, the impact on an already over-stretched infrastructure is serious. We have little hard information on the situation outside the capital.

  Cholera cases are reported to be significantly above the norm. Hospitals (of which only one has been functioning recently) and health centres are finding it difficult to cope. It is vital that the present lull in the fighting continues to enable the international community to re-engage, with access to all areas.

  We have allocated £1.5 million in response to the recent deterioration in the humanitarian situation, in addition to £1 million that we allocated in March 2003. We are liaising closely with the principal agencies concerned. We and other donors will be joining with members of the UN and other humanitarian agencies at a meeting in Dakar, Senegal, on 17 and 18 July 2003 to discuss the situation across the west Africa sub-region, including Liberia.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the level of humanitarian aid reaching the people of Montserrat. [125322]

  Hilary Benn
  Our aid to Montserrat is in the form of development and budgetary assistance. Since the onset of the volcanic crisis, we have provided some 180W
  £180 million. A further £45.6 million is available for disbursement over the UK financial year period 2003–04 to 2005–06, representing a 50 per cent. increase over the sum originally available for that period. All of the money is used to maintain essential services and to improve the lives and livelihoods of the people of Montserrat.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on disaster relief to Montserrat. [125993]

  Hilary Benn
  We provided substantial emergency assistance for Montserrat in the immediate aftermath of the volcanic crisis in the mid-1990s. This included provision of housing, essential services and infrastructure which had been lost or seriously damaged. Increasingly, our assistance is now geared towards other productive activity, which will help Montserrat towards its goal of renewed self-sufficiency. For example, a new airport to replace the one at risk from the volcano is now under construction and should become operational next year.

  We were very concerned to learn about the recent volcanic events in Montserrat. DFID officials are in direct contact with the Montserratian authorities to assist in every possible way.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the provision of housing in Montserrat. [125996]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Montserrat's policy is to make housing assistance available for all those on the island who are deemed eligible for it. We have devoted substantial resources in support of this policy and for provision of associated infrastructure to help Montserratians affected by volcanic activity. We and the Montserrat authorities will continue to keep those needs under close and regular review.

  Performance Fund
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the(a) objectives, (b) targets and (c) main budgetary compartments are for the (i) Africa Performance Fund and (ii) Asia Performance Fund; and if he will make a statement. [122736]

  Hilary Benn
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 July 2003, c. 301 W] The budgeted figures given in the table for Asia for financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 were unfortunately not correct. The table and the text in the paragraph regarding Asia have therefore been revised as follows:

  Divisional performance funds were introduced from 2000–01 as reserves to be allocated in-year by directors, largely to reward good performance but also to respond to unforeseen demands and opportunities, including urgent humanitarian needs. They provide flexibility to allocate additional funds to those countries and institutions where progress on reform enables effective use of funds in pursuit of poverty reduction.
  181W
  The table shows the total amounts budgeted:

  DFID performance funds

  £ million

  Year

  Africa

  Asia

  2000–01

  57

  20

  2001–02

  10

  36

  2002–03

  14

  18

  2003–04

  35

  0

  2004–051

  151

  65

  2005–061

  289

  130

  1Includes amounts provisionally earmarked from Director General Performance Fund from 2004–05.

  In Africa in 2000–01 there were two payments, one of £29 million to assist copper industry restructuring in Zambia, and another of £28 million as programme aid to support economic reform in Kenya. In 2001–02, a smaller sum was available, of which £7 million was spent on humanitarian assistance: £5 million in the DRC (through the International Red Cross) and £2 million on humanitarian projects in the Sudan. A further £0.25 million was spent on AFRICAP, an African micro-finance investment fund. In 2002–03, £10 million was spent on programme aid to Ethiopia as our bilateral relationship strengthened, £3.2 million on humanitarian work (in Angola, Sudan and the Great Lakes region). and a further £0.8 million contribution to AFRICAP. Some £35 million is available in 2003–04, much of which will be needed for humanitarian work.

  In financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 Asia's performance fund was used for various purposes including transfers to programmes in the Middle East and Pakistan. Not all the funds allocated to the Fund were needed in these years; resources not required were re-allocated to other parts of the DFID's programme. In 2002–03, funds were used for Afghanistan and other humanitarian work. Asia does not have a performance fund allocation for 2003–04.

  From 2004–05 onwards, resources for performance funds rise significantly. These funds will be allocated in part before the year commences, although significant amounts will remain to be allocated in-year. They will be targeted at those countries that are currently performing less well or that are in or emerging from conflict. We are already planning high and stable levels of spending in countries with a clear commitment to, and capacity to deliver, poverty reduction.

  Street Children
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many street children there are in Asia; in which Asian countries they are located; and how many street children there are in each country. [123733]

  Hilary Benn
  It is difficult to provide accurate data on the overall numbers of street children in Asia or to provide a breakdown by country. Estimates are unreliable and coverage is patchy. According to UNICEF there are roughly about 25 million children estimated to be living on the streets in Asia. However there is no reliable information for many Asian countries. In India the Ministry of Social Welfare estimates that there are between 75,000 to 250,000 street 182W
  children in Calcutta alone. UNICEF estimate there are 15,000 street children in Vietnam and 16,000 in Sri Lanka.

  The fundamental cause of children living on the street is poverty. This is exacerbated by chronic hunger, lack of school places and family conflict. Between 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. of children in South Asia are malnourished. Despite improvements in education provision around 41 per cent. of children drop out of school before they reach the fifth grade. Between 30 per cent. to 55 per cent. of school age children are working. Many of these children are exploited through child labour or are involved in the sex industry. Unless these problems are addressed the problems of street children in Asia will continue to grow.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much aid his Department gives to tackle the problem of street children in Asia; who this money is given to; and what the money is spent on. [123734]

  Hilary Benn
  Urban poverty, homelessness, lack of education and the demand for child labour forces children to leave their families and live on the streets in Asia. It is important that these underlying problems are addressed as well as helping street children directly. Our bilateral programmes in Asia aim to alleviate family poverty more generally as a basis for addressing the needs of street children.

  Many of our programmes support NGO activities that advocate for the rights of children and work directly with street children. In Bangladesh we are supporting two NGOs to provide informal education to vulnerable working children in urban areas at a cost of £8 million. In Burma we have been supporting a street and working children project with World Vision a total cost of £450,000. In India we are supporting a local NGO to work with child street vendors and have several other small projects in the pipeline focusing on vulnerable working children in urban areas.

  We are providing £1.6 million to Save the Children to work directly with vulnerable children in the Mekong sub region. This project aims to prevent poor rural children being trafficked to urban areas in the region for purposes of sexual exploitation and under age employment. This helps to reduce the potential for these children to end up on the street.

  Other DFID activities also contribute indirectly to addressing the problems of street children. Improving basic education for every child is the main contribution that Asian Governments can make to reducing child poverty and indirectly to reducing the numbers of street children. Support to basic education is a major focus of our bilateral programme in Asia and in 2001–02 DFID committed £130 million to support this.

  Another example is the £12 million urban poverty reduction project in Cochin in India that has helped to improve basic services for poor families and their children.

  Water and Sanitation Programmes
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what proportion of the Department's funds have been allocated for water and sanitation programmes in each year since 1998. [126080]

  Hilary Benn
  Presenting accurate data on expenditure for the water and sanitation sector is not straightforward. Reporting years and methods differ, especially between DFID's multilateral and bilateral partners, but we are working with our partners to improve the quality and hence the reliability of these data.

  Over the last three years DFID has undertaken a detailed analysis of all projects to determine its total water related bilateral expenditure. This showed that total bilateral water expenditure was £82 million in 1999–2000, £91 million in 2000–01 and £87 million in 2001–02. This equates to 6.19 per cent., 6.43 per cent. and 5.77 per cent. respectively of DFID's total bilateral expenditure over this period. These amounts include bilateral expenditure on a 11 aspects of water including emergency assistance and international water
  184W
  programmes, but exclude expenditure that may be allocated to the water sector from direct budget support and from multilateral funding.

  We have only calculated figures using this method back to 1999–2000.

  In 2001–02, DFID channelled £1.3 billion through multilateral organisations. DFID's contribution to multilateral spend on water and sanitation is estimated at around £40 million per year.

  In 2001–02, DFID provided £296 million as general budget support to country governments (including sector support), which was 20 per cent. of our total bilateral programme and 10 per cent. of our entire programme. An internal exercise to allocate direct budget support notionally by sector concluded that only a small proportion (less than one per cent) went to the water sector.

  Much of the above information is included in the National Audit Office review of DFID's work in the water sector (NAO Report No. HC351, 31 January 2003). DFID publishes details of its aid expenditure annually. Statistics on International Development which is available in the Library, also provides details of the volume, type, purpose and destination of all UK development assistance.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Alcohol Advertising
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to restrict the advertising of alcohol. [125144]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, in close collaboration with other Government Departments, including the Department of Health, is currently developing the national alcohol harm reduction strategy. The Strategy Unit is due to publish an interim analysis paper in the summer and its final report setting out the cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy in the autumn. The final report will consider a wide variety of issues including the advertising of alcohol.

  British Overseas Territories
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what responsibilities her Department undertakes in connection with British Overseas Territories. [123899]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS has responsibilities under the UNESCO World Heritage Convention with regard to Henderson Island (South Pacific Ocean), Cough Island (South Atlantic Ocean) and the Historic Town of St. George, Bermuda, World Heritage Sites. This Department has also provided advice to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Gibraltar's draft legislation relating to the Television Without Frontiers Directive (89/552/EEC as amended by 97/36/EC).

  Civil List
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what functions have had funding transferred from the grant in aid budget to the Civil List since May 1997, broken down by the(a) function transferred, (b) date of transfer and (c) current annual sum involved. [122118]

  Mr. Caborn
  In April 2001 a transfer of responsibilities occurred between the Civil List and the Property Services Grant in Aid. The following were transferred from the grant in aid to the Civil List at a cost of £724,000, enabling the grant in aid to take over financial responsibility for the Court Post Office:

  congratulatory cards;

  Gentlemen-at-arms and Yeomen of the Guard;

  porter and non-domestic cleaners;

  the Separate allocation, which is available to the Sovereign for use at her discretion for such things as furnishings; and

  St. James's Palace state apartments.

  The information on current costs is not readily available, but I shall write to the hon. Member and place copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff of her Department were redeployed out of London and the south-east in the last five years. [125359]
  186W
  Mr. Caborn
  No staff within the Department have been redeployed out of London and the south-east in the last five years.

  IT Contracts
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many outsourced IT contracts have been signed by her Department in each year since 1997; how much each of these contracts is worth; with whom they are signed; how many have been renegotiated; how many are still in place; and if she will make a statement. [126205]

  Mr. Caborn
  DC MS has signed no IT outsourcing contracts since 1997.

  Royal Palaces
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what definition applies to the terms(a) occupied and (b) unoccupied in respect of royal palaces. [125330]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]An occupied royal palace is an official residence where members of the royal family live and carry out official duties. The unoccupied royal palaces were previously, but are no longer, used by members of the royal family.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what authorisation process is applied by the Department for the occupation of a royal palace. [125331]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]The occupied palaces arc owned by the Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation. How the properties are used in fulfilling the requirements and functions of the Head of State is a matter for Her Majesty the Queen, although proposals are discussed with this Department wherever appropriate.

  Sport England
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on staffing levels in(a) Sport England headquarters and (b) its regional offices in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [125323]

  Mr. Caborn
  Details of Sport England's staff numbers in 2002–03 are as follows.

  1 April 2002

  31 March 2003

  Headquarters

  276

  231

  Regional offices

  183

  177

  Total

  459

  408

  By 30 September 2003, there are expected to be 116 staff in headquarters and 150 in regional offices.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sports in receipt of World Class lottery funding. [125219]
  187W
  Mr. Caborn
  The following sports are currently in receipt of World Class lottery funding:

  archery;

  athletics;

  athletics-disability;

  badminton;

  boccia;

  boxing;

  canoeing;

  cricket;

  cycling;

  diving;

  equestrian;

  fencing-disability;

  goalball;

  golf-ladies;

  golf-mens;

  gymnastics-rhythmic;

  gymnastics-sports acrobatics;

  gymnastics-womens artistic/trampolining;

  gymnastics-mens artistic;

  hockey;

  ice skating;

  judo;

  karate;

  modern pentathlon;

  netball;

  orienteering;

  paraplegic shooting;

  powerlifting-disability;

  rowing;

  rugby league;

  rugby union-mens;

  rugby union-womens;

  sailing;

  skeleton;

  skiing;

  snowboarding:

  speed skating;

  squash;

  swimming;

  swimming-disability;

  table tennis;

  table tennis-disability;

  taekwondo;

  target shooting;

  trampolining;

  triathlon;

  waterskiing;

  weightlifting;

  wheelchair basketball, and

  wheelchair rugby.

  Tourism
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage tourism contributed to the gross domestic product of England in each of the last two financial years. [125098]
  188W
  Mr. Caborn
  It is not currently possible to calculate the percentage which tourism contributed to the gross domestic product of England in the last two financial years, due to delays in the production of National Statistics' Regional Accounts. However, the equivalent figure for the contribution of tourism to the UK's GDP in the calendar year 2001 was 4.5 per cent., and the proportion for England can be expected to be of a similar magnitude.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much she spent advertising each of the regions as a tourist destination(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) internationally in the last two financial years. [125099]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 2001–02, this Department allocated to the English Tourism Council (ETC) £3.8 million from the Reserve to assist the domestic recovery of tourism from foot and mouth disease; over half of that amount was then passed to the 10 regional tourist boards (RTBs) in England and much of it used for promotional activities. In addition, of the sums granted by the Department to the Greater London Authority (GLA) to promote tourism, £500,000 was used for domestic marketing in 2001–02 and £100,000 in 2002–03.

  In 2001–02 and 2002–03, the British Tourist Authority (BTA) was responsible for marketing Britain overseas as a tourist destination. It did not allocate funds for individual regions of Britain, but promoted Britain as a whole in a way which maximised the impact of its campaigns in individual markets overseas. DCMS allocated the following amounts to the BTA in the last two years:

  £ million

  BTA

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Baseline grant in aid

  35.5

  35.5

  Additional sums from Reserve to assist recovery

  14.2

  19.0

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much she spent advertising the UK as a tourist destination in the last two financial years. [125100]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 2001–02 and 2002–03, the British Tourist Authority (BTA) was responsible for marketing Britain overseas as a tourist destination. DCMS allocated the following amounts to the BTA in the last two years.

  £ million

  BTA

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Baseline grant in aid

  35.5

  35.5

  Additional sums from Reserve to assist recovery

  14.2

  19.0

  The BTA's statutory role has been the overseas promotion of Britain, rather than the UK, although it had powers to encourage people to visit Northern Ireland by agreement with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB).

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage tourism contributed to the GDP in the north-east in the last two financial years. [125119]
  189W
  Mr. Caborn
  The only figure for tourism's contribution to GDP in the north-east is for the calendar year 2000. This was derived from "Tourism Impact—a Pilot Study for the North East", which was published in September 2002. This estimated tourism's contribution to the GDP in the north-east to be 3.5 per cent. This study was jointly funded by the regional development agency, ONE, and the Department.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many international tourists visited(a) England and (b) the north-east in 2001 and 2002; and what percentage of international tourists to the UK this represented. [125120]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows the number of staying visits (visits which included a stay of at least one night) to the north-east, England and the UK in 2001 and 2002. The figures for 2002 are provisional.

  2001

  2002

  Staying visits (thousand)

  Percentage of all staying visits

  Staying visits (thousand)

  Percentage of all staying visits

  North-east

  440

  2

  520

  2

  Total England

  19,320

  93

  20,390

  92

  Total UK

  20,980

  100

  22,120

  100

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, National Statistics.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  EU Institutions (Visits)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Leader of the House what percentage of hon. Members have used the facility of a visit to an EU institution in each of the years for which figures are available. [124996]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my predecessor on 21 October 2002,Official Report, column 106W. I understand that the percentage of Members who used this facility during 2002–03 rose to 24 per cent. This includes visits to national parliaments as well as to EU institutions.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Leader of the House what discussions he has had with Foreign Office colleagues regarding using the visits by hon. Members to EU institutions. [125177]

  Mr. Hain
  I have as yet had no discussions with Foreign and Commonwealth Office colleagues regarding the Members' European travel scheme, which allows up to three visits each year to national parliaments of EU member states and those of candidate countries, as well as to EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg.

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Leader of the House what steps he is taking to ensure that all Bills will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny. [124976]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government have never proposed that it would be possible to make all bills available for pre-legislative scrutiny. Some nine Bills will be published this session for pre-legislative scrutiny, a considerable 190W
  increase on last session. I hope that we will be in a position to publish a similar number or more during the course of next session.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Leader of the House what progress he has made in enabling pre-legislative scrutiny to be carried out on-line. [124977]

  Mr. Hain
  Whether to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny on-line is a matter for decision by the Committee concerned, and the provision of facilities and funding for it are a matter for the House authorities. The Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill found its on-line for um extremely useful, and I hope that other Committees will also choose to make use of the opportunities which Information Technology provides. I welcome work being done by the Committee Office to identify and promote good practice in this area.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) size and (b) duration of British military patrols outside Kabul in Afghanistan. [125008]

  Mr. Ingram
  The main body of the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) began to deploy to Mazar-e-Sharif on 10 July 2003 and is still in the process of establishing itself in the city. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence explained to the House on 8 May 2003,Official Report, columns 38–40WS, the PRT will be active across the five surrounding provinces of Balkh, Faryab, Jowzjan, Sar-e-Pol and Samangan. In preparation for that role, advance teams have recently visited sites across these provinces at irregular intervals.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions took place at the recent NATO ministerial meeting in Madrid concerning the EU decision at Copenhagen to assume the NATO peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia; and whether(a) NATO and (b) the United States has accepted that decision. [124362]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Union has not taken a decision to "assume the NATO peace-keeping mandate in Bosnia". The Conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council of 12/13 December 2002 noted "the European Union's willingness to lead a military operation in Bosnia following SFOR". This would of course require a prior decision by NATO to terminate its mission, as was the case when the EU took over the stabilisation role from NATO earlier this year in Macedonia. The transition of the much larger mission in Bosnia will require extensive discussions between the EU and NATO. There was a brief informal discussion of this issue, as part of the wider discussion of EU/NATO co-operation in the Balkans at the NA TO Foreign Ministers' meeting in Madrid.

  CBRN Emergencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training of Territorial Army personnel has taken place in 2003 in respect of dealing with CBRN emergencies; and if he will make a statement. [125617]

  Mr. Caplin
  All Territorial Army personnel are expected to undertake training in respect of dealing with Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear attack, initially as part of their recruitment training, and annually as one of their Individual Training Directives (ITDs).

  In order for an individual to be considered either for operational deployment, or inclusion within a Civil Contingency Reaction Force, they must have completed the relevant ITD in the last 12 months.

  Cluster Munitions
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has commissioned on the number of civilians(a) killed and (b) injured by cluster submunitions by (i) the International Red Cross and (ii) other agencies in Iraq. [116813]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]We recognise that unexploded cluster bomblets, and indeed all unexploded ordnance, is a matter of humanitarian concern and we are fully committed to work towards the clearance of unexploded ordnance.

  No research has been commissioned by the Ministry of Defence on casualties caused to civilians by cluster munitions.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reviews have been undertaken by his Department regarding the civilian casualty figures caused by unexploded cluster submunitions in the post-conflict regions of(a) the Gulf, (b) Kosovo and (c) Afghanistan; and what assessment he has made of the impact of these bomblets on Iraqi civilians in the future. [116818]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]No such reviews and assessments have been undertaken by the Ministry of Defence.

  Conflict Prevention
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his budget in(a) 2002–03 will be and (b) 2003–04 was spent on conflict prevention. [125240]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's outturn for 2002–03 will not be finalised until publication of the Departmental Resource Account in the autumn. However, based on provisional outturn, the proportion of the 2002–03 budget spent on conflict prevention operations and activities is as follows:

  Percentage

  Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)

  6.56

  Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)

  5.22

  It is not possible to estimate at this stage the
  192W
  proportion of the 2003–04 budget that will be spent on conflict prevention, as this will depend on the demand for military involvement in each theatre of operations.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [124089]

  Mr. Caplin
  The purpose of the Ministry of Defence is to provide the capabilities needed to defend the United Kingdom and Overseas Territories, and protect British people and interests, as well as act as a force for good by strengthening international peace and security. Defence is a national activity and as such policy initiatives and spending are characterised as in the regions rather than for the regions.

  While the MOD makes a positive contribution to the community through the management of a Cadet Hut at Butts Yard, Barnoldswick, there are no other Defence establishments in the constituency. Some of our policies may have an indirect effect on people and organisations in Pendle, e.g. recruitment to the armed forces or the MOD from this area, or the presence in Pendle of defence suppliers, including their sub-contractors and employees. However, this regionally based information is not held centrally by the Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Diego Garcia
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vessels are moored in British waters off Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [125568]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  In accordance with our various agreements with the US, a number of US merchant vessels, chartered by the US Government, are at any time moored in Diego Garcia waters. From time-to-time US and other visiting warships also moor there, as do fishing vessels which have been brought in on suspicion of illegal fishing in British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) waters, vessels engaged in scientific research in the waters of the Territory and the BIOT Fisheries Protection Vessel.

  Drummore Harbour
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Drummore harbour will next be dredged. [125736]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans for dredging Drummore Harbour at this time.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials in the Department serve on EU committees or working parties. [116094]

  Mr. Ingram
  The highest military body established in the Council is the EU Military Committee, which is comprised of Chiefs of Defence Staff who meet at least once every six months. At other times, the EUMC and its Working Group are serviced by five Brussels-based United Kingdom military staff working for the UK
  193W
  Military Representative to the EU, who also functions as the UK Military Representative to NATO. Two Ministry of Defence civilian officials are also based in Brussels to support ESDP aspects of the work of the Political and Security Committee and its preparatory groups. From time to time, specialist staff based in the UK also attend working group meetings in Brussels, for example to plan crisis management exercises or for detailed work on force development. These meetings generally do not have a fixed membership, and the numbers attending vary depending on the subjects under discussion, but the total number of UK-based MOD staff involved is about 20.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects that the EU will be able to deploy forces of Corps level under the provisions of the European Security and Defence Pact. [125608]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no "European Security and Defence Pact". Responding to the Headline Goal established under the European Security and Defence Policy, European Union member states have together already offered to make available for ESDP operations forces of greater than corps size. The General Affairs and External Relations Council in May agreed that the EU now has operational capability across the full range of Petersberg tasks, albeit limited and constrained by recognised shortfalls, which particularly affect speed of deployment and level of risk for larger, higher-intensity tasks. The number of forces which could be deployed for any particular ESDP operation would depend on the operational scenario and what member states and other countries decided to contribute.

  Expenditure Approvals (Iraq)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many urgent operational requirements in excess of £500,000 his Department has approved(a) since 27 January and (b) since 1 November 2002; and what the total value is of such requirements in connection with operations in Iraq. [121452]

  Mr. Ingram
  About 110 Urgent Operational Requirements for in excess of £500,000 have been approved since 1 November 2002 as part of preparations for, and the prosecution of, decisive operations in Iraq. These have had a value in the region of £483 million, and include 19 measures approved since 27 January 2003. In addition, a small number of measures are being approved to support the continuing presence of UK armed forces in Iraq.

  Forces Pensions
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 141W, on the interest payable on tax incorrectly deducted from armed forces pensions, whether he has made a decision on whether a further payment should be made. [125540]

  Mr. Caplin
  As my predecessor, Dr. Moonie explained in his answer of 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 141W, where it has been confirmed that Service pensioners have paid tax incorrectly, they have received
  194W
  from the Inland Revenue a refund of tax, and, in appropriate cases, the statutory repayment supplement. A decision has yet to be made on whether it would be appropriate to make any further payment to compensate for the consequences of the error. We are still working to bring this to a conclusion as soon as possible.

  Iraq
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether cluster bombs have been used in Iraq since the declaration of the end of the war. [123604]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 July 2003]Since1 May 2003—when it was declared that major combat operations were over—the United Kingdom has used no cluster bombs.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which RAF units remain in the Gulf region in support of Operation Telic; and what plans he has(a) to deploy further units and (b) to replace those in theatre. [123651]

  Mr. Ingram
  In support of Operation Telic the United Kingdom currently retains II Squadron (Tornado GR4—replaced by 14 Squadron from 1 August); elements of 10 and 101 Squadrons (VC10); elements of 24 and 30 Squadrons (C130); elements of 22 Squadron (Chinook); elements of 32 Squadron (HS 125); elements of 120, 201 and 206 Squadrons (Nimrod MPA); elements of 26 and 34 Squadrons RAF Regiment; Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment Squadron (replaced from 15 July by 15 Squadron). Standard practice is to route Squadrons every two months.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which ships remain in the Gulf region in support of Operation Telic; and what plans he has(a) to deploy further units and (b) to replace those in theatre. [123652]

  Mr. Ingram
  In support of Operation Telic the United Kingdom currently has HMS Chatham—to be replaced by HMS Kent on 10 July—and HMS Sutherland, RFA Diligence, RFA Brambleleaf, and HMS Triumph in the Gulf region. Frigates and Destroyers are replaced every four months. RFA crews are rouled on a rolling basis while the ship stays in theatre. HMS Triumph is currently committed to Operation Telic and we will review this deployment when necessary.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made regarding the restoration of law and order in Iraq; what area of Iraq UK troops are responsible for: and how many civil disturbances have occurred since the end of the war. [123839]

  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition forces hold the maintenance of law and order as a high priority. Coalition forces continue to patrol robustly, often alongside members of around 30,000 Iraqi police who are now operational across the country. Coalition forces are empowered to arrest individuals suspected of criminal offences, and their patrols have had an effect in controlling the lawlessness and looting that in some areas immediately followed the collapse of the Ba'athist regime. United Kingdom forces are currently responsible for security and stability in the southern provinces of Basrah and Maysan. We do not hold figures for the number of civil
  195W
  disturbances across Iraq, but the Coalition will continue to work hard to reduce such instances, and to improve life for the Iraqi people.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the effects of 24-hour media coverage of the recent military action in Iraq on ensuring that families of casualties are informed before details are made public. [124465]

  Mr. Hoon
  The introduction of 24-hour media coverage and the development and use of technology have changed the way that wars are reported. During the coalition, broadcasters were able for the first time to report in real time from the battlefield, and incidents which previously might have gone unreported for several hours, were in many cases seen by the embedded journalists and reported back to their news desks. And in some cases, images were broadcast live.

  These changes have caused the Ministry of Defence to keep under review its incident reporting and casualty handling procedures. While our primary aim is always to protect the interests of families involved, it was no longer feasible to delay announcing that an incident had occurred until all the next of kin had been informed. Thus, while our first task was always to inform the next of kin of those families affected. we simultaneously released information on incidents, subject to operational security, in order to limit the 'circle of worry' of non-affected families who would be aware from media reporting that an incident had occurred. However, incident and casualty reporting is a very difficult area and all decisions were taken on a case-by-case basis.

  We did not publish the names of fatalities until we had confirmation that the next of kin, and in some cases the extended family network, had been informed. Our Casualty staffs worked closely with media staffs to ensure that the families involved were protected from any media intrusion.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the HVM Starstreak system was deployed in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [111815]

  Mr. Ingram
  The HVM Starstreak system was deployed to Iraq but was not used. The system has not been tested on operations but has met, in trials, all performance criteria against the original defined user requirements.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sets of clothing were issued to soldiers serving with Seventh Armoured Brigade in Basra. [112027]

  Mr. Ingram
  Seven Armoured Brigade have been issued with the following desert combat clothing: 16,578 desert lightweight jackets, 14,623 pairs of trousers, 8,392 hats, 8,556 helmet covers, and 8.014 pairs of desert combat boots, since deploying to Theatre, in addition to the clothing and equipment they were issued with prior to deployment.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the former members of the Iraqi regime who have either surrendered to or been captured by Coalition forces; where they are being held; and whether the British authorities have regular access to those individuals to question them. [114893]
  196W
  Mr. Ingram
  The following list shows the members of the former Iraq regime who have either surrendered or been captured by Coalition Forces as of 6 July 2003. They are being held at Baghdad International Airport and both United Kingdom and United States personnel are conducting a co-ordinated series of interviews with senior officials of Saddam Hussein's former regime.

  Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti

  Aziz Salih al-Numan

  Muhammad Hamza al-Zubaydi

  Kamal Mustafa abdallah Sultan al-Tikriti

  Muzahim Sab Hasan al-Tikriti

  Ibrahim Ahmad abd al-Sattar Muhammad al-Tikriti

  Hamid Raja Shalah al-Tikriti

  Latif Nusayyif al-Jasim al-Dulaymi

  abd al-Tawab abdullah Mullah al-Huwaysh

  Jamal Mustafa abdallah Sultan al-Tikriti

  Taha Muhyi al-Din Maruf

  Tariq Aziz

  Walid Hamid Tawfiq al-Tikriti

  Hikmat Mizban Ibrahim al-Azzawi

  Ayad Futayyih Khalifa al-Rawi

  zuhayr Talib abd al-Sattar al-Naqib

  Amir Hamudi Hasan al-Sadi LTG

  Amir Muhammad Rashid al-Tikriti al-Ubaydi

  Hussam Muhammad Amin al-Yasin

  Muhammed Mandi al-Salih

  Watban Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti

  Barzan Ibrahim Hasan al-Tikriti

  Huda Salih Mehdi Ammash

  Samir abd al-Aziz al-Najim

  Humam abd al-Khaliq abd al-Ghafur

  Sayf al-Din al-Mashhadani

  Fadil Mahmud Gharib

  Uglah Abid Saqir al-Kubaysi

  Ghazi Hammud al-Ubaydi

  Adil abdallah Mandi al-Duri al-Tikriti

  Husayn al-Awadi Bg

  Sad abd al-Majid al-Faysal.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the clearance of unexploded ordnance in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [116948]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave on 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 811W to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd).

  Low Frequency Sonar
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of global research regarding the impact of low frequency active sonar on(a) mammals, (b) fish and (c) humans. [124536]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr. Lewis) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 511W. The Ministry of Defence monitors global research to ensure that our

  197W
  Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are based on the best available information. The EIA undertaken for Sonar 2087, a Low Frequency Active Sonar, covered fish and humans as well as marine mammals. The conclusion of the EIA, that the sonar had the potential to have an adverse impact, applied to each of these categories. The range of mitigation measures proposed will be also capable of being adapted to each.

  MARS Project
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is intended that all vessels for the MARS Project will be built in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [103101]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is our policy that all warships should be built in the UK. The Ministry of Defence is in the early stages of considering how best to meet future requirements for Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability. Once the content of the programme is better defined it will be possible to consider questions such as method of acquisition and location of manufacture. These matters will be clear by the time the Main Gate decision point is reached around the middle of the present decade.

  Mazar-e-Sharif
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military staff make up the UK-led provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif. [124912]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]The structure of the UK-led Provincial Reconstruction Team currently deploying to Mazar-e-Sharif is not yet fixed. On current plans, we expect the total number of UK civilian and military personnel eventually deployed to be two and about 50 respectively.

  Military Burials
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what grants are available to families of servicemen wishing to give a family member a full military burial. [125620]

  Mr. Caplin
  Full military burials are organised and arranged by the parent Service of the deceased if requested by their next of kin; in such circumstances, a grant is not paid as the full costs are met by the Department.

  Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the United States defence authorities on their proposals to develop missile defence systems; and if he will make a statement. [120530]

  Mr. Hoon
  Missile defence is an important bilateral topic which regularly features in my discussions with the US Secretary of Defense and others. In addition, the Ministry of Defence keeps in close touch with the US Administration on possible future developments in missile defence.

  NATO Reaction Force
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the UK's contribution is to the NATO reaction force; and when he expects this force to be operational. [125609]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom has made it clear that we are keen t0 make an early and substantial contribution to the NATO Response Force (NRF).

  The NRF is planned to reach Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by October 2004 and Full Operating Capability (FOC) no later than October 2006. SACEUR is working towards establishing an interim capability to be ready later this year.

  The force generation process begins later this month. I am withholding precise details of the UK and other nations' offers of forces in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) strategic and (b) sub-strategic roles of Trident missiles. [124740]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government set out its nuclear deterrence policy in the Strategic Defence Review. I particularly refer my hon. Friend to Chapter Four and Supporting Essay Five.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he plans to conduct negotiations to amend or renew the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America for co-operation on the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes, on 3 July 1958, treaty series No. 41 (1958), Command 537; and if he will make a statement; [124744]

  (2) if the Government proposes to extend article III bis to the Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters, of 3 July 1958, treaty series No. 41 (1958), Command 537 when it expires in.2004. [124743]

  Mr. Caplin
  Discussions are now under way between the United Kingdom and United States Governments on the renewal of the 1958 Agreement For Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes. Subject to the outcome of those discussions, we expect to lay any amendments before the House in accordance with normal procedures for Treaty renewals.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States on their proposals to(a) reduce the test readiness of their nuclear weapons laboratories and (b) fund research into low yield nuclear weapons. [124745]

  Mr. Caplin
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no such discussions.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 915W, on scientific exchanges, which United States departments and establishments were visited by AWE personnel; from which departments and

  199W
  establishments the US visitors to AWE came; and how many (a) AWE staff visited the US and (b) US officials visited AWE. [124788]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 9 July 2003,Official Report, columns 807–08W. 313 AWE personnel visited the United States in 2002 under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement and 485 US personnel visited AWE.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1019W, on nuclear weapons, what assessment he has made of when a successor to Trident will be necessary; and what consultation would be undertaken in advance of a decision that a replacement for Trident was necessary. [124863]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no current plans for a replacement for Trident, and no decisions on any possible successor system are yet needed.

  Private Sector Medical Treatment
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel have been treated, and how much has been spent on treatment, in the private sector since April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [121369]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]According to centrally held records, 3,334 referrals were made to private healthcare providers between April 2002 and June 2003, and expenditure on private healthcare treatment over the same period totalled £3.8 million.

  RAF Coltishall
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements there were per month at RAF Coltishall in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 2000, (e) 2002 and (f) so far in 2003. [125291]

  Mr. Ingram
  Historical data about the number of aircraft movements at RAF Coltishall prior to 1997 is not retained by the Department. Figures are available from 1997 onwards, and are listed in the table.
  200W

  1997

  2000

  2002

  2003

  January

  2,215

  1,707

  2,070

  2,163

  February

  2,189

  1,449

  1,744

  2,477

  March

  1,534

  1,741

  2,229

  1,931

  April

  1,663

  1,224

  2,129

  2,374

  May

  1,743

  929

  1,837

  1,913

  June

  1,580

  1,622

  1,848

  1,855

  July

  4,100

  2,112

  3,416

  —

  August

  507

  2,640

  1,697

  —

  September

  614

  2,456

  2,005

  —

  October

  1,560

  1,991

  3,165

  —

  November

  830

  2,078

  1,633

  —

  December

  709

  1,386

  1,302

  —

  Total

  19,244

  21,335

  25,075

  12,713

  Service Personnel (NHS Treatment)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are on NHS waiting lists; how many have had to pay for their own treatment; and if he will make a statement. [123572]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 4 May 2003]The Department only maintains records of the numbers of Service personnel awaiting treatment at the NHS hospitals which host the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM) and the MOD Hospital Units (MDHUs). Information on the numbers of Service personnel awaiting treatment at other NHS hospitals is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. As at 31 March 2003, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 967 Service personnel awaiting in-patient treatment at the RCDM and MDHUs, plus 1332 awaiting day-case treatment and 3,349 awaiting out-patient appointments.

  Service personnel are not required by the Department to pay for their own medical treatment. Information on the numbers who may have chosen to pay for private medical treatment, either themselves or through medical insurance, is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Services Training
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average cost is of(a) phase one and (b) phase two training per recruit for each of the three services and the Royal Marines. [123946]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 3 June 2003,Official Report, columns 298–99W, by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans (Dr. Moonie) to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements are being implemented to improve recreational facilities in each of the three services. [123947]

  Mr. Ingram
  Trainees already have access to a range of recreational facilities, including playing fields and other sports amenities, and traditional NAAFI facilities, including games and social rooms with TV and video. A number of improvements are being made, including to sporting facilities and the introduction of Quiet Rooms, Juice Bars and Internet Cafes. User views
  201W
  on recreational facilities are being sought through surveys and focus groups to identify further candidate enhancements.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the average supervisory ratios of staff to trainees in initial training establishments for each of the three services. [123948]

  Mr. Ingram
  Average figures for the classroom environment vary from 1:3 to 1:40 according to the nature of the training being undertaken. Outside the classroom, ratios vary greatly depending on local circumstances such as age, maturity of recruits, geography of establishments etc, and an average ratio is therefore neither collated nor meaningful. Individual establishments are charged with ensuring that supervisory ratios outside the classroom are appropriate for duty of care in each of these circumstances.

  Sigma Aerospace Contracts
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 July, ref 123650, how long is left of the unexpired period on the Sigma Aerospace Ltd. contracts(a) to repair and overhaul TS6 Hercules engines and (b) to provide second line servicing on the Allison engine fitted C130J Hercules. [124928]

  Mr. Ingram
  The present contract with Sigma Aerospace Ltd. for the repair and overhaul of the Hercules C-130K T56 engines is due to expire on 30 September 2003. The Ministry of Defence has placed an entry in the Defence Contracts Bulletin requesting expressions of interest for the replacement contract.

  Servicing of the Hercules C-130J Allison engines is currently undertaken as part of the Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) arrangement with Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the Hercules C-130J. This CLS arrangement is due to finish in June 2005.

  Submarines
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to deploy low frequency active sonar to detect quiet submarines; and what the timescale is for its deployment. [124534]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 516W, 12 May 2003, Official Report, column 47W, to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) on 13 May 2003, Official Report, column 159W. The only low frequency active sonar currently planned for deployment with the Royal Navy is Sonar 2087. It is expected to enter service from 2006 onwards. It will be fitted to the Type 23 Frigates as part of their normal refit programmes.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he is undertaking into the effects on the UK marine environment of the use of low frequency active sonar. [124535]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 69W, by my right hon. Friend
  202W
  the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). The Ministry of Defence has a programme of research into the effects of active sonar generally, rather than Low Frequency Active Sonar in particular, and this is ongoing. This work is intended to inform Environmental Impact Assessments on marine environments in which sonars might be used by the United Kingdom, rather than in the specific context of UK territorial waters.

  Suicide Rates (Female Personnel)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 467W, on suicide rates, what the estimated rates for female personnel were; and what percentage of female personnel this represents. [125566]

  Mr. Caplin
  There has been one female suicide/open verdict death over the period 1993–2002, which equates to a rate of 1 per 100,000 strength.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many planning applications have been made to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Department. [124811]

  Mr. Caplin
  Since August 2001 when the current planning regulations on mobile telecommunications masts came into force, there have been 43 applications and seven applications for prior approval to site mobile telecommunications masts on land owned by the Ministry of Defence.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity have been undertaken by British forces near Basra; and if he will make a statement. [115325]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom Forces in Basra are preserving any evidence found of legacy war crimes or crimes against humanity thought to have been carried out by the Iraqi regime for possible future investigations by an appropriate authority. UK military police are currently investigating a number of incidents that occurred during recent operations involving UK forces. It would be inappropriate to comment on on-going investigations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Angling
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the value of angling to the Northern Ireland economy; how many tourists participated in angling in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and what his latest estimate is of how many Northern Ireland residents participate in angling in Northern Ireland. [123469]

  Angela Smith
  No assessment has been made of the value of angling to the Northern Ireland economy. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board estimates that the value
  203W
  of trips which included an angling element was £4.88 million in 2002. In the five-year period 1998 to 2002, the estimated numbers of tourists participating in angling in Northern Ireland based on rod licence sales are as follows:

  Number

  2002

  3,894

  2001

  3,666

  2000

  3,855

  1999

  5,254

  1998

  4,807

  The estimated number of Northern Ireland residents participating in angling in Northern Ireland based on rod licence sales is 23,125. This figure does not include a small number of anglers participating in sea angling as no licence is required for sea fish angling.

  Car Accidents (Deaths)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of the PSNI about the measures to reduce deaths through road traffic accidents(a) in Northern Ireland and (b) in North Down. [125812]

  Angela Smith
  In November 2002, I was joined by the Assistant Chief Constable with responsibility for road traffic policing in launching the Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy 2002–12. The strategy provides a major step forward in outlining the partnership approach between the main agencies: Department of the Environment (DOE), the Department for Regional Development (DRD) and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), in addressing the main causes of death and serious injuries, which are speed, drink-driving and failure to wear seat belts.

  Officials in the relevant Departments and agencies, including PSNI, have been liaising closely to implement the objectives outlined in the strategy. The strategy provided for the establishment of a Road Safety Steering Group, which will oversee and monitor progress towards the delivery of the strategic objectives and targets and consider new initiatives. The Steering Group involves senior management in each of the three main organisations responsible for the delivery of the strategy.

  Actual delivery of the activities and initiatives set out in the strategy will be co-ordinated by the Road Safety Review Group, which is chaired by a senior official in the DOE and includes representatives from Roads Service and PSNIs Road Policing Development Branch.

  Since the launch of the strategy there have been five joint launches involving the DOE and PSNI, including the launch of the new anti-speeding campaign where the Assistant Chief Constable and I reaffirmed our commitment to road safety and to influence positively the attitudes and behaviour of all road users through education and enforcement.

  Officials from the DRD Roads Service have regular liaison meetings with PSNI to discuss any relevant issues to do with traffic management and road safety from an
  204W
  engineering perspective. Roads Service officials have also met recently with PSNI to discuss road safety on the A2 Belfast to Bangor road in North Down.

  As part of a major initiative on use of fixed and mobile safety cameras throughout Northern Ireland, four sites on the A2 Belfast to Bangor Road have been selected for enforcement by safety cameras and new signing for these sites was erected on 1 July 2003, superseding earlier speed camera signing. This again was undertaken by PSNI in conjunction with Roads Service and was as a result of the close liaison between the two organisations.

  The hon. Member may be interested to note that although the number of fatalities (87) to date this year is higher than the comparable period in the last two years, the numbers of killed and seriously injured (KSI), which are the recognised road safety indicators throughout the UK, have shown a steady decline. In the first five months of this year (the last full period for which comparative figures are available) the KSI total is 581 compared with 682 for the same period in 2002 and 701 in 2001.

  There will continue to be positive and constructive discussions not only between the DOE, DRD and PSNI, but also with all its partners in road safety to ensure safer roads for everyone in Northern Ireland. However, it is incumbent upon all road users to take personal responsibility for their action when using the roads.

  Electoral Identity Card
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of those eligible to vote in each constituency of Northern Ireland have(a) applied for and (b) received an electoral identity card. [120889]

  Mr. Spellar
  No record is maintained of applications made for the electoral identity card by constituency because of the validation procedures set up involving the electoral register. All accurate and complete applications, however, will result in the issue of the card. The number of cards issued at 3 July 2003, along with the percentage of the electorate having applied in each of the 18 Northern Ireland constituencies, is as follows:

  Constituency

  Number of cards issued

  Percentage of electorate issued with cards

  Foyle

  6,847

  10.5

  East Londonderry

  4,194

  7.5

  North Antrim

  4,921

  7.0

  East Antrim

  3,183

  5.7

  Mid Ulster

  4,318

  7.2

  West Tyrone

  5,165

  8.9

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  5,217

  8.1

  Upper Bann

  3,840

  5.6

  Newry and Armagh

  3,887

  5.6

  South Down

  4,175

  5.9

  Lagan Valley

  4,097

  6.0

  Strangford

  3,743

  5.6

  South Antrim

  3,465

  5.4

  North Down

  2,853

  5.0

  Belfast East

  3,555

  6.8

  Belfast South

  3,323

  6.5

  Belfast West

  6,154

  12.1

  Belfast North

  5,545

  10.8

  Total

  78,482

  7.1

  Post Offices
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the post offices, and their locations, which have been closed permanently in Northern Ireland in each year since March 1998. [125307]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 June 2002, Official Report, column 75W. This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many staff in his Department were on long-term sick leave in each of the last five years; [109254]

  (2) how many staff in the Department have been on long-term sick leave in each of the last two years. [115857]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The number of staff in the Northern Ireland Office who were on long-term sick absence is as follows:

  Long-termsickness absence—Northern Ireland Office staff

  Number

  1997–98

  1—

  1998–99

  1—

  1999–2000

  1—

  2000–01

  147

  2001–02

  143

  1 Figures for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 could be provided onlyat disproportionatecost.

  Long-term sickness absence—Northern Ireland prison civilian staff

  Number

  1998

  30

  1999

  33

  2000

  30

  2001

  46

  2002

  46

  The Northern Ireland Office considers 20 consecutive days (28 for prison civilian staff) to be long-term absence.

  Sick absence statistics for the 11 Departments within the Northern Ireland Administration are analysed by financial year as opposed to calendar year. The information sought is readily available only for the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Long-term sick leave in the NICS is defined as those sick absences lasting more than 20 working days. Published statistics for Northern Ireland Departments for the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 are accessible on the Department's website at: www. dfpni.gov.uk.publications

  The following table identifies the number of staff who were on long-term sick leave during the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.
  206W

  Number

  1999–2000

  2,690

  2000–01

  2,804

  2001–02

  3,029

  The level of sick absence has been a matter of concern over recent years and a range of corporate and departmental initiatives have been, and are being, taken forward to reduce the current levels of sick absence. Northern Ireland Departments have now set individual targets for reduction in sick absence.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Feroz Abbasi/Moazzam Begg
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stone of 10 July 2003, ref 124822, what response she has received from the United States Administration on why Mr. Feroz Abbasi and Mr. Moazzam Begg have been detained; and what discussions she has held with the Crown Prosecution Service on whether the information received is adequate to found a criminal prosecution in the UK against Mr. Abbasi and Mr. Begg. [126038]

  The Solicitor-General
  The US Administration confirmed to the Attorney-General that its view is that all the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, including Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, have been detained as enemy combatants under the laws of armed conflict. It is not the policy or practice of the CPS to comment on whether a prosecution is likely to be commenced in individual cases.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to the published statement of the Attorney-General immediately prior to the war in Iraq, on legal aspects of military action in Iraq, if she will make a further statement on how the length of the military occupation of Iraq impinges on those legal aspects. [126036]

  The Solicitor-General
  The written answer given by the Attorney-General on 17 March 2003 in the House of Lords related to the legality of the use of force against Iraq. Since then, the United Nations Security Council has adopted Resolution 1483 of 21 May 2003. This Resolution, together with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations, now governs the conduct of the United Kingdom and the United States as occupying powers in Iraq. The Resolution calls upon the occupying powers to work towards the creation of conditions in which the Iraqi people can freely determine their own political future.

TREASURY

  Airport Passenger Tax
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Airport Passenger Tax is designed to produce environmental benefits. [R] [124761]
  207W
  John Healey
  Air passenger duty (APD) was introduced in 1994 as a measure whose principal purpose was to raise revenue from the aviation industry but with the anticipation that there would be environmental benefits through its effect on air traffic volumes.

  The Government are currently discussing with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments to ensure the aviation industry takes account of, and where appropriate reduces, its contribution to global warming and local air and noise pollution. A Government discussion document, Aviation and the Environment: using economic instruments, was published in March 2003.

  Aviation Tourism
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the balance of payments in aviation tourism was in each of the last three years. [124252]

  John Healey
  The precise information requested is not collected centrally although "The UK Balance of Payments—The Pink Book 2002" states that the total deficit for all forms of overseas travel (business and tourism, by air, sea and rail) for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 was £8.87 billion, £10.94 billion and £13.75 billion respectively (page 45). It should be noted, however, that the UK runs a significant surplus in overall services trade.

  Page 39 of the Pink Book 2002 states that in 2001, 58 million UK residents travelled abroad and 23 million foreign nationals visited the UK with the comment that
  "the sharp fall in the numbers of overseas visitors to the UK in 2001 is thought to be partly due to events such as the foot and mouth crisis deterring people from travelling to the UK".

  Biofuels
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take in respect of(a) fuel duty rebates and (b) other measures to ensure that the UK meets the EU guidelines for biofuel use at the end of (i) 2005 and (ii) 2010. [125854]

  John Healey
  I refer to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Clark), of 10 July 2003,Official Report, column 928W

  Drug Seizures
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many kilograms of(a) heroin, (b) cocaine and (c) cannabis were seized by HM Customs and Excise whilst being imported into the UK in each of the last five years; and what percentage of each substance was seized at the Port of Liverpool. [121623]

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in each of the last five years(a) firearms, (b) drugs and (c) other dangerous goods were intercepted at Royal Mail sorting offices in the London area. [124942]

  John Healey
  For information on HM Customs and Excise's seizures of drugs, firearms and other dangerous goods, I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and 208W
  Bermondsey on 30 June 2003, Official Report, column 50W. The more detailed information requested is not available; exemption 4 (law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code applies.

  Economic Consultancies
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which economic consultancies have been commissioned by HM Treasury in(a) 2000, (b) 2001, (c) 2002 and (d) 2003; and in each case what the cost was of each consultancy. [123664]

  John Healey
  Complete information for all the periods requested could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. The following consultancies have been identified from information readily available:

  Taxation of Farming.

  Identifying the drivers of regional productivity.

  The effects of uncertainty on investment.

  Correlation of business cycles in the UK with other major economies.

  Shocks that have influenced economic cycles.

  Why EU R and D is lower than US levels.

  Economic impact of EU enlargement.

  Productivity in the EU and the US.

  EU/US trade. (Jointly funded study with Dutch Finance Ministry).

  Regional Performance.

  Analysis for HMT's Productivity in the UK series.

  Update the UK's generational accounts.

  Britain's relative productivity performance.

  New "Green Book" guidance on appraisal and evaluation in central Government.

  Relationship between wages, employment and the participation rate.

  Team based incentives.

  Public service productivity.

  Equilibrium exchange rates.

  EMU cyclical convergence and shocks.

  Exchange rate economics.

  Housing market and monetary policy transmissions.

  US as a monetary union.

  Monetary policy transmission.

  Export market performance of OECD countries.

  Labour market issues.

  Location of financial activity.

  Monetary union and trade.

  Fiscal stabilisation in EMU.

  Impact of EMU on business sectors.

  Minimum benchmarks under the EU Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Policy Frameworks.

  Prices and competition in the EU and USA.

  Transatlantic Relations (Jointly funded study with the Dutch Finance Ministry).

  Trademarks exhaustion.

  The specific costs of individual consultancies cannot be disclosed for commercial reasons. Total expenditure on the projects above was £413,000.

  EU Advisory Committee
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU advisory committee on value added tax, (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. [110284]

  John Healey
  The EU Advisory Committee on value added tax consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states. The UK is represented by officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  The Committee has met six times since January 2002, on 20 March 2002, 19 June 2002, 20 November 2002, 8 January 2003, 10 March 2003 and 4 June 2003.

  The agenda items considered by the Committee related to questions on the application of the Community provisions on value added tax. The Committee has no legal power to take decisions. The Committee's role is to examine the application of the Community provisions on value added tax, and to serve as a forum for an exchange of views in order to reach guidelines on a uniform application of those provisions. Some provisions of EU VAT law require member states to consult the Committee before acting.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on excise duties, (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. [110283]

  John Healey
  The EU Committee on Excise Duties consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 European member states. The UK is represented by officials from HM Customs and Excise.

  The Committee has met six times since January 2002. On 16/17 May 2002, 7/8 November 2002 and 3/4 April 2003, it considered questions relating to the interpretation and application of Community provisions on excise duties and procedures. Meetings on 7 October 2002,28/29 November 2002 and 16 December 2002 dealt specifically with the development of the EU computerised system for movement and control of goods subject to excise duty (EMCS).

  Under its powers in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EEC, the Committee approved a minor amendment to an existing Commission Decision on the product to be used as a fiscal marker for gas oils and kerosene, as well as the EMCS project management plan. Additionally, the Committee agreed an administrative arrangement for the operation of the electronic early warning information exchange system for intra-EU movements of excise goods.

  Accountability and transparency to Parliament is ensured by the regular EU scrutiny process documents which fall within the Scrutiny Terms of Reference are
  210W
  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 working 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.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Customs Code Committee on counterfeit and pirated goods, 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. [110503]

  John Healey
  The Customs Code Committee on counterfeit and pirated goods, consists of delegates drawn from each of the 15 member states. The UK Government are represented by officials from HM Customs and Excise. Since January 2002 there have been four meetings of the Customs Code Committee (Counterfeiting)—6 March, 3 September, 4 October 2002 and 3 March 2003.

  The Customs Code Committee (Counterfeiting) discusses matters relating to intellectual property rights and in particular measures concerning the entry into the community, export, re-export from the community of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights. The main item under discussion by the Committee during the period in question has been a proposal to overhaul these measures and this has now been completed.

  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.
  211W
  The Commission is obliged to publish an annual report on the working of the Committees. The latest report (Com (2002)733 final, dated 13 December 2002) has been published and deposited with both Houses.

  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.

  Financial Services (Fines)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the fines levied against financial services companies in each year since the creation of the Financial Services Authority by company,(b) amount and (c) reason for fine; and if he will make a statement on the use of the money raised from these fines. [125831]

  Mr. Boateng
  The FSA is a private company, which operates independently from the Government. It has the power to develop its own rules, which have the force of law. and determines, the level of lines that are levied when those rules are breeched.

  The Financial Services and Markets Act (Schedule 1) stipulates that any amounts received by the FSA through the levy of fines should be applied for the benefit of authorised persons.

  Information on fines levied by the FSA is available from their website.

  Incineration Tax
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much annual revenue would be raised from a tax on the incineration of municipal waste at £35 per tonne for(a) all existing municipal waste incinerators and (b) all municipal waste incinerators for which planning applications have been made. [125128]

  John Healey
  Given current levels of waste disposed of by incineration, a tax on the incineration of municipal waste of £35 per tonne would be expected to raise about £90 million per annum. However, it is unlikely that this level of revenue would be generated, as a tax on incineration at such a rate would be expected to lead to more waste going to alternatives such as landfill. The current level of landfill tax is £14 per tonne rising to £15 next year, and will be increased by at least £3 per tonne each year from 2005–06 until it reaches a rate of £35 per tonne in the medium to long term. These increases will help encourage reductions in the quantities of waste disposed of to landfill. No estimate has been made of the projected levels of incineration which would result from the building of all municipal waste incinerators for which planning applications have been made.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has held with representatives of local government on the potential for an incineration tax to support the waste hierarchy; and if he will make a statement. [126158]

  John Healey
  The Government have had discussions with representatives of Local Government on a range of waste related issues, including incineration. The Government have also commissioned a review of the 212W
  environmental and health effects of all waste management and disposal options and aims to report on the findings later in the year.

  Meat Imports
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made since the new arrangements have been in place to intercept illegal importation of meats at ports. [125624]

  John Healey
  Since Customs took over responsibility for tackling illegal inputs of meat products from third countries from April 11, they have undertaken a number of initiatives designed to help them tackle this problem more effectively. These include: a recruitment drive for new anti-smuggling teams and dog handlers; re-deploying existing anti-smuggling staff to target these illegal importations; transferring "meat" dogs and their handlers from Defra to Customs; instituting a programme of awareness meetings with senior Government officials from targeted risk countries, undertaking a series of training seminars for Customs staff and developing new publicity posters and leaflets for ports and airports in the UK.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of money that has been laundered through British businesses in each year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [124733]

  Mr. Boateng
  The true scale of money laundered in the UK cannot be measured directly. Global money laundering has been estimated by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the equivalent of between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of world input.

  The UK has recently taken steps to strengthen its anti-money laundering regime, including through the Proceeds of Crime Act, the money laundering provisions of which came into force earlier this year. The Government intends to lay Regulations before Parliament shortly that will implement the provisions of the 2nd EU Money Laundering Directive.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of monetary policy in economies with housing markets characterised by high levels of fixed rate mortgages. [125047]

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

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

  Professor Miles will deliver an interim report by autumn and a comprehensive report and recommendations to the Chancellor by Budget 2004.
  213W
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with members of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee concerning(a) the effectiveness of monetary policy if the ratio of fixed to variable rate mortgages were to rise and (b) the likely level of interest rates corresponding to an annual inflation target of 2 per cent. on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices. [125048]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor regularly meets with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a wide range of issues. The Treasury representative to the MFC and other Treasury officials also regularly discuss economic issues with counterparts in the Bank of England.

  The Chancellor has asked David Miles, Professor of Finance at Imperial College, to undertake a review of the UK's fixed rate mortgage market. This will involve an examination of whether there has been any market failure that has held back the market for fixed and long-term fixed rate mortgages and a consideration of associated opportunities, risks and potential costs. Professor Miles will deliver an interim report by autumn and a comprehensive report and recommendations to the Chancellor by Budget 2004.

  The inflation target is 2.5 per cent. for RPIX inflation. In his statement on EMU on 9 June, which he reaffirmed on Thursday, 10 July, the Chancellor said that, subject to confirmation at the time of the pre-Budget Report, he intended to change the inflation target to one set on the consumer prices definition at that time.

  ONS (Information)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the categories of information and statistics sought by the Office for National Statistics for business and individuals by way of requirements for information. [126072]

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

  Department

  Staff numbers

  Staff costs (£ million)

  HM Customs and Excise

  Spring Report 2000(Cm 4616)

  Inland Revenue

  Spring Report 2002(Cm 5428)

  1,174

  See accompanying booklet "The Government's Expenditure Plans 2002–04"

  HM Treasury

  2002 Departmental Report (Cm 5425)

  2000 Departmental Report (Cm 4615)

  Office of National Statistics

  2003 Departmental Report (Cm 5931)

  68

  Government Actuary's Department

  91

  4

  OGCbuying. solutions is an Executive Agency of the Office of Government Commerce and came into operation on 1 April 2001. For the year ended 31 March 2002, the agency had 177 employees and the cost of their employment including National Insurance and superannuation was £5.1 million.

  Staff numbers and costs for the other Chancellor's departments are as follows.
  214W
  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Cable, dated 15 July 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the list of categories of information and statistics sought by the Office for National Statistics for business and individuals by way of requirements for information. (126072)
  I have arranged for details of the data requested from businesses to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  For individuals and households, the Social Survey Division Annual Report gives the information requested. The latest published version available is for 2001/02, a copy of which can also be found in the House of Commons Library.
  The 2002/03 version is currently in draft and is expected to be published at the end of August 2003. A copy of the report will be placed in the House of Commons Library once published.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible had in each year since 1997; and what the cost of those staff was in each of those years. [122250]

  John Healey
  Information on the number and cost of staff from the financial year 1998–99 can be found in the following 2003 Spring Departmental Reports:

  Department

  Command number

  Reference

  HM Customs & Excise

  5,924

  Tables 5 and 6

  Inland Revenue

  5,925

  Annex 3 and Table 5

  HM Treasury1

  5,922

  Annex B5 and B6

  Office of National Statistics

  5,931

  Tables 2 & 4

  Government Actuary's Department

  5,923

  Tables 6 and 7

  1 Includes the Office of Government Commerce (core) and Debt Management Office

  Prior to 1998–99 the requirement was to supply figures for "running costs" only which included the paybill figures. Consequently, the information requested for 1997–98 is not available in a standard format but can be found in the following publications:

  The valuation office

  Financial year

  Staff numbers

  Staff costs (£ million)1

  1997–98

  4,346

  103

  1998–99

  4,063

  101

  1999–2000

  4,016

  103

  2000–01

  3,948

  103

  2001–02

  3,814

  103

  1 Valuation Office staff costs do not include early departure costs

  215W

  The Royal Mint

  Financial year

  Staff numbers

  Staff costs (£million)

  1997–98

  1,014

  24

  1998–99

  994

  24

  1999–2000

  1,171

  28

  2000–01

  1,138

  31

  2001–02

  1,008

  28

  National savings and investments

  Financial year

  Staff numbers

  Staff costs (£ million)

  1997–98

  4,241

  73

  1998–99

  4,009

  75

  1999–2000

  121

  6

  2000–01

  122

  6

  2001–02

  118

  6

  In April 1999, following a competitive tendering exercise, the operations part of National Savings and Investments was outsourced to Siemens Business Services.

  Staff numbers in the tables above are based upon Civil Service Full Time Equivalents and Casual staff years but do not include overtime staff year effort.

  Staff costs relate to paybill including early departure costs, unless otherwise specified.

  Final staffing figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the document The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02, what percentage of gross incomes was paid in indirect taxes by income decile for(a) retired and (b) non retired households; and if he will make a statement. [124448]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 15 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the percentage of gross incomes paid in indirect taxes by income decile for (a) retired and (b) non retired households. (124448)
  Estimates for indirect 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 th 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 (EPS). Due to the sampling variability of each measure, sample sizes are only sufficient to allow a breakdown to be given by quintiles for the ratio of indirect taxes to gross income, and not by decile.
  A retired household in the analysis of "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" is defined as one where the combined income of 'retired' members amounts to at least half the total gross income of the household. A 'retired' person is defined as anyone in the EPS survey who is over minimum NI pension age and is 'unoccupied' or 'sick or injured but not intending to seek work,' or who describes themselves as 'retired'.
  216W
  The following table shows the estimated indirect taxes as a proportion of gross income for retired and non-retired households in the UK for each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. The table also shows the lower hands of the equivalised disposable income quintiles, which have been calculated separately for the retired and non retired households. For example, the lower bound of the 2nd quintile for the retired households is the income below which one fifth of all retired households are estimated to lie and similarly for the non-retired households. Since indirect tax tends to be a higher proportion of income for lower income bands, using different quintile points for retired and non-retired households affects the relative percentages for each quintile.
  Estimates of indirect taxes are imputed using household expenditure given in the EPS. One drawback of comparing the incidence of indirect taxes on households at different levels of income is that, by whatever measure used, on average, recorded expenditure exceeds income apparently available for it by significant amounts at the bottom of the distribution.
  Income and expenditure data recorded in the EFS are not fully compatible because they are recorded in different ways. Indeed, measured expenditure exceeds measured income for households in the lower half of the distribution.
  There are a number of possible explanations for this. Some households with low incomes may draw on their savings or borrow in order to finance their expenditure. In these cases, expenditure is not being met from current income. Some types of receipts are not included as income in the EFS e.g. inheritance and severance payments.
  In some cases, the information given on expenditure is not consistent with that on income received, possibly because of timing differences.

  Indirect taxes as a percentage of gross income for retired and non-retired households, 2001–02

  United Kingdom

  Household type

  Boundary point between equivalised disposable income quintiles (£ per year)

  Indirect taxes (as percentage of gross income)

  Retired

  Bottom

  —

  26.2

  2nd

  9,026

  19.1

  3rd

  11,354

  18.1

  4th

  13,878

  17.3

  Top

  18,465

  13.0

  Average for all retired households

  16.7

  Non-retired

  Bottom

  30.4

  2nd

  11,604

  19.5

  3rd

  17,038

  17.1

  4th

  22,711

  14.1

  Top

  31,321

  9.9

  Average for all non-retired households

  14.6

  Source:

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

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the document "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02", (1) what percentage of gross incomes was paid in
  217W
  customs duties by income decile for (a) retired and (b) non-retired households; and if he will make a statement; [124450]

  (2) what percentage of gross incomes was paid in stamp duties on house purchases by income decile for (a) retired and (b) non retired households; and if he will make a statement. [124451]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Matthew Taylor, dated 15 July 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions asking for the percentage of gross incomes paid in Customs duties (24) and additionally in stamp duties (25) by income decile for (a) retired and (b) non retired households. (124450, 124451)
  Estimates for indirect 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 (EPS). Due to the sampling variability of each measure, sample sizes are only sufficient to allow a breakdown to be given by quintiles for the ratio of customs or stamp duties to gross income, and not by decile.
  A retired household is defined as one where the combined income of 'retired' members amounts to at least half the total gross income of the household. A 'retired' person is defined as anyone in the EPS survey who describes themselves as 'retired' or anyone over minimum NI pension age describing themselves as 'unoccupied' or 'sick or injured but not intending to seek work.'
  Customs duties are estimated from customs receipts and are allocated to households in proportion to expenditure data recorded in the EPS. Stamp duty on house purchases for owner-occupier households has been estimated in proportion to the hypothetical duty payable on buying their current dwelling (estimated from EPS data) multiplied by the probability of a household of that type moving in a given year (estimated from the General Household Survey).
  The following table shows the estimated Customs duties and stamp duties paid as a proportion of gross income for retired and non-retired households in the UK for each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. The table also shows the lower bounds of the equivalised disposable income quintiles, which have been calculated separately for the retired and non retired households. For example, the lower bound of the 2nd quintile for the retired households is the income below which one fifth of all retired households are estimated to lie and similarly for the non-retired households.
  Since indirect taxes tend to be a higher proportion of income for lower income bands, using different quintile points for retired and non-retired households affects the relative percentages for each quintile.

  Tobacco and alcohol receipts

  £ million

  Tobacco

  Alcohol

  Duty

  Estimated VAT

  Estimated total tobacco revenue

  Duty

  Estimated VAT

  Estimated total alcohol revenue

  1997–98

  8,356

  1,750

  10,105

  5,742

  4,430

  10,170

  1998–99

  8,207

  1,770

  9,980

  5,966

  4,620

  10,590

  1999–2000

  5,684

  1,805

  7,490

  6,429

  4,940

  11,370

  2000–01

  7,648

  1,765

  9,415

  6,663

  5,060

  11,720

  2001–02

  7,755

  1,760

  9,940

  6,955

  5,290

  12,250

  2002–031

  8,055

  2—

  2—

  7,300

  2—

  2—

  218W
  One drawback of comparing the incidence of indirect taxes on households at different levels of income is that, by whatever measure used, on average, recorded expenditure exceeds income apparently available for it by significant amounts at the bottom of the distribution. Income and expenditure data recorded in the EPS are not fully compatible because they are recorded in different ways. Indeed, measured expenditure exceeds measured income for households in the lower half of the distribution.
  There are a number of possible explanations for this. Some households with low incomes may draw on their savings or borrow in order to finance their expenditure. In these cases, expenditure is not being met from current income. Some types of receipts are not included as income in the EPS e.g. inheritance and severance payments. In some cases, the information given on expenditure is not consistent with that on income received, possibly because of timing differences.

  Customs and stamp duties as a percentage of gross income for retired and non-retired households, 2001–02

  United Kingdom

  Household type

  Quintile

  Boundary point between equivalised disposable income quintiles (£ per year)

  Customs duties (as percentage of gross income)

  Stamp duty on house purchase (as percentage of gross income)

  Retired

  Bottom

  0.2

  0.4

  2nd

  9,026

  0.2

  0.2

  3rd

  11,354

  0.2

  0.2

  4th

  13,878

  0.1

  0.2

  Top

  18,465

  0.1

  0.3

  Average for all retired households

  0.1

  0.3

  Non-retired

  Bottom

  0.2

  0.4

  2nd

  11,604

  0.1

  0.3

  3rd

  17,038

  0.1

  0.3

  4th

  22,711

  0.1

  0.3

  Top

  31,321

  0.1

  0.3

  Average for all non-retired households

  0.1

  0.3

  Source:

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

  Tobacco/Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was generated through tax on(a) tobacco and (b) alcohol since 1997. [125143]

  John Healey
  Excise Duty and estimated VAT receipts for tobacco and alcohol products are:
  219W
  1 Provisional:

  2 Estimated VAT figures for 2002–03 are still being processed

  Note:

  Due to rounding there may be an apparent discrepancy between the total and the sum of its constituent parts.

  This information can be found in the HM Customs and Excise July 2003 'Tobacco Factsheet' and 'Alcohol Factsheet' Pages 1, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Unemployment (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many jobs have been created in Merseyside in the last five years. [124203]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 15 July 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of jobs that have been created in the last five years in Merseyside. (124203)
  There are no figures for jobs created but an indication can be obtained by comparing the annual surveys of employee jobs. The Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) gives an estimate of the number of employee jobs in December of each year; the latest year for which figures are available is 2001.
  The ABI was preceded, prior to 1998, by the Annual Employment Survey. This inquiry had a different structure to the ABI and so direct comparisons cannot be made between the AES and ABI at a regional level.
  Between 1998 and 2001 the AB 1 data shows a net increase in the number of employee jobs in Merseyside of 21,000.

  Water Charges (Household Income)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value is by income decile of the water charges element of the local taxes line of the average income tax tables contained within the document, The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02. [125193]

  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. Norman Baker, dated 15 July 2003
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the value is by income decile of the water charges element of local taxes. (125193)
  Estimates for local taxes, which includes water charges, 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 (EPS).
  The following table shows the estimated average water and sewerage charges paid in 2001–02 for all households in the United Kingdom and by each equivalised disposable income decile. Payments for water and sewerage charges are not collected separately within the EPS and only a combined estimate can be given.
  220W

  Water charges element of local taxes by equivalised disposable income decile, 2001–02

  United Kingdom

  Decile

  Boundary point deciles between equivalised disposable income deciles(£ per year)

  Water charges paid (£ per year)

  Bottom

  8,271

  221

  2nd

  10,412

  225

  3rd

  12,456

  211

  4th

  14,751

  226

  5th

  17,249

  226

  6th

  20,085

  229

  7th

  23,831

  230

  8th

  28,640

  238

  9th

  37,544

  241

  Top

  —

  249

  Average for all households

  —

  230

  Source

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

  Working Family Tax Credit
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average time taken to provide full responses to correspondence from Right honourable and honourable Members in respect of working family tax credit applications to the Inland Revenue has been; and if he will make a statement. [123370]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's Tax Credit Office does not keep information about the average time taken to answer right hon. and hon. Members' letters about the working families tax credit.

  The TCO aims to answer 80 per cent. of all letters, including those from right hon. and hon. Members, within 15 working days of receipt. In the year to 31 March 2003 the TCO exceeded this target and answered 84 per cent. of all letters within 15 working days of receipt. They will measure their performance in the current financial year and report against their aim in due course.

  World Bank
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the UK policy was in respect of US attempts to block proposals to increase the influence of developing countries within the World Bank; and if he will make a statement. [123402]

  John Healey
  The UK Government are committed to making the voice of developing countries in the World Bank and the IMF more effective. In the 2000 Department for International Development (DfID) White Paper, HMG committed to"work with others to build a stronger, more open and accountable international system, in which poor people and countries have a more effective voice."

  DfID have lead responsibility for issues related to the World Bank, and the Treasury has been working closely with them on this issue.
  221W
  The Development Committee at the spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in April 2003 requested the boards of the bank and fund to
  "consider and elaborate upon options with a potential for broad support, taking account of shareholder and institutional implications"
  for discussion at the next meeting of the Development Committee.

  An issues paper which sets out the various options in this area is now being discussed by the board of the World Bank. The US are one of 24 members of the board, and have made a statement outlining their view. The UK Government position remains that further action is required to enhance the voice of developing countries in the World Bank and IMF, and we will continue to support discussions in this area with the aim of reaching agreement on institutional and structural measures to enhance that voice.

HEALTH

  Alcoholism
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Government's strategic plan on combating alcoholism. [121260]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit are undertaking a project to develop an alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. In my previous role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health I was the Sponsor Minister for the project and I am pleased to continue in this role.

  The cross-governmental alcohol harm reduction strategy for England will be set out in a report planned for publication in autumn 2003.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the costs of health screening for asylum seekers; and what tests health screening would include. [125958]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government's aim is for all asylum seekers to receive initial health assessments in induction centres prior to dispersal. This is to address public health concerns and to start treating any health problems. Each assessment takes the form of a general medical check and recording of health history, along with screening for tuberculosis. Referrals for other tests can be made if appropriate, including HIV.

  When the induction centre network is at full capacity, annual costs for health assessments will be approximately £3 million, based on current intake. There will though be resultant savings in dispersal areas.

  Blood Donor Records
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national database of blood donors which includes details of individuals' medical records. [124881]
  222W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Service has no plans to introduce a national database of blood donors which includes details of individuals' medical records.

  Blood Transfusions
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Blood Service education programme for transfusion medicine will be published. [123385]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Blood Service (NBS) has no plans to publish an education programme for transfusion medicine.

  The NBS provides training for scientific and medical staff in hospitals and has recently identified the need to train hospital nurses and midwives in various aspects of transfusion medicine. NBS is currently discussing these training requirements, which will include training on the appropriate use of blood.

  The NBS is also establishing a network of transfusion liaison nurses who will facilitate training in collaboration with similar staff in national health service trusts. This initiative is part of the NBS response to Health Circular HSC 2002/009, "Better Blood Transfusion—Appropriate Use of Blood", which is available at: www.doh.gov.uk/publications/coinh.html

  Cancer Nursing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what calculations his Department has made of(a) current and (b) projected demand for cancer nursing within the NHS. [123248]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Cancer networks should work in partnership with workforce development confederations and strategic health authorities to put in place a sustainable process to assess, plan and review their workforce needs and the education and training of all staff linked to local and national priorities for cancer.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS cancer nurse posts are(a) pump-primed and (b) part-funded by the voluntary sector; and if he will list the voluntary sector organisations. [123251]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Marie Curie and Macmillan Cancer Care both pump prime cancer nurse specialist posts. Information on the number of posts is not collected centrally by the Department of Health.

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what written directions his Department has given to the strategic health authorities to ensure the methods for calculating and presenting cancer allocation data in local delivery plans are transparent and nationally consistent; and when these directions were given. [124346]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Strategic health authorities were sent guidance at the end of April 2003 detailing information needed to monitor the cancer investment element of local delivery plans. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Library.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to strengthen the rights and protection of residents in elderly persons' care homes from eviction; [125634]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact on life expectancy of residents of (a) care home closure and (b) eviction from a care home. [125635]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department of Health recognises that moving between care homes can be difficult and stressful for any long-term resident, particularly vulnerable older people. Such moves, including ones made as a result of care home closures, should be handled as sensitively and appropriately as possible. Proper arrangements should be made for the safe and satisfactory transfer of all residents to other suitable homes. There should be adequate time for this to be done, in a way that allows both residents and their relatives a choice in where they are to move to, and which creates the minimum possible discomfort to all concerned.

  For each resident supported under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, councils should agree a contract with independent care homes that includes a statement of terms and conditions covering matters such as fees and period of notice. This is in accordance with Standard 2 of the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People. Councils should play a part in facilitating transfers from one home to another as and when appropriate. With respect to supported residents who are transferring, councils should ensure that residents' needs are re-assessed and alternative and appropriate accommodation is arranged promptly, with due regard to the Choice of Accommodation Directions 1992.

  With respect to residents who fund their own care, Standard 2 of the National Minimum Standards for Care Homes for Older People also states that contracts agreed by the residents and care homes should cover fees payable, the period of notice and other matters. If, when homes close or residents transfer for other reasons, self-funding residents require advice on other homes to enter and how to go about it, councils should provide this advice. If self-funding residents lack the capacity to make their own arrangements, following an assessment of their needs, councils should take over the arrangements.

  Carers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of ill and disabled people who are dependent on care from more than one carer or from a changing pattern of carers. [125960]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the scale of fees to be paid in different cases 224W
  and different classes of case will be under clause 83(3) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [122931]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It would be for the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) to determine any scale of fees to be paid under clause 84 (formerly 83) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. Before making any such provision, CSCI must consult such persons as appear to it to be appropriate.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria the Government have set for the right of entry to be considered necessary or expedient under clause 86(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; and if personal records inspected under the right of entry will be protected under the Data Protection Act 1998 under clause 85(1)(a). [122953]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection will determine what conditions will be considered necessary or expedient under clause 87(1) (formerly clause 86(1)).

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the CSCI will be required to give notice where it requires a person to provide it with any information, records or other items under clause 87(1) of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill; where a person is required to provide the CSCI with any information or records (including personal records), whether these will be protected under the Data Protection Act; and where the CSCI requires a person to provide it with information, records and other items, whether the Government will put in place safeguards to ensure that only records, with particular reference to those held on computer, which are relevant to an investigation are requested and that an individual's right to privacy is protected. [122965]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We expect that Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will normally obtain information by agreement. Where it exercises the power in clause 88 (formerly clause 87) 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 common law duty of confidentiality and the Data Protection Act 1998. Under clause 88 (1)(b), CSCI may only request information and documents which it considers necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of chapter 5.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to hold a referendum before new schemes for fluoridation of the public water supply are implemented. [124192]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Amendments to the Water Bill agreed on 9 July in the Other Place provide for regulations to be made on the local consultations that strategic health authorities will be required to undertake before making any arrangements with a water undertaker to have their water fluoridated. In drafting
  225W
  the regulations we shall carefully consider the range of options available for assessing public opinion. This House will debate the Water Bill in due course.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners working in the

  General medical practitioners1 by age-band for specified primary care trusts—England, as at 30 September 2002

  Number (headcount)

  Primary care trusts

  Mendip

  North Devon

  Somerset Coast

  South Somerset

  Taunton Deane

  PCT code

  5FX

  5FQ

  5FW

  5K1

  5K2

  All practitioners

  87

  125

  112

  108

  81

  of which

  under 40

  29

  44

  31

  31

  35

  40 to 54

  45

  65

  70

  64

  41

  55 to 64

  13

  16

  11

  11

  5

  65 +

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  of which

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)2

  63

  105

  94

  92

  74

  of which

  Under 40

  15

  28

  22

  21

  30

  40 to 54

  38

  61

  63

  59

  39

  55 to 64

  10

  16

  9

  10

  5

  65 +

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1 All practitioners includes UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS other and GP retainers.

  2 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principles, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the lifting of the EU ban on biotech foods, and the move to replace the ban with rules for clear labelling of all genetically modified products. [124820]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no ban in the European Union on foods developed using biotechnology. Measures have been in place for a number of years to permit the placing of such foods on the market subject to rigorous safety assessment procedures and appropriate labelling.

  Agreement to further EU measures tightening up the legal requirements for the approval and labelling of genetically modified food and feed and for the traceability of genetically modified organisms is likely to be reached by September.

  Hepatitis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State
  for Health what the incidence of(a) hepatitis A, (b) hepatitis B and (c) hepatitis C was in each year since 1997. [122448]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information available on the incidence of hepatitis A and B in England from 1997 to 2002 is shown in the table.226W
  (a) Taunton Deane, (b) South Somerset, (c) Mendip, (d) Somerset Coastal and (e) North Devon primary care trusts are aged (i) under 40, (ii) 40 to 55, (iii) 55 to 65 and (iv) over 65. [124434]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Laboratory reports of cases of acute hepatitis A and B in England reported to the Health Protection Agency Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, 1997–2002

  Hepatitis A

  Hepatitis B

  1997

  1,272

  621

  1998

  1,058

  806

  1999

  1,355

  687

  2000

  1,010

  652

  2001

  773

  526

  2002

  11,326

  1738

  1 Provisional data

  Laboratory reports of antibody to hepatitis C do not distinguish between incident (new), chronic (long-term) and previous resolved infections and most often identify individuals with chronic hepatitis C infection. Therefore, such data cannot be used to estimate the incidence of hepatitis C infection.

  Hospices
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the funding arrangements for(a) children's and (b) adult hospices; and if he will make a statement. [122683]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 June 2003]: National health service primary care trusts (PCTs) play a pivotal role in funding services for their resident population, including hospice care. Voluntary healthcare providers, such as hospices, are important players and partners in the planning and development of

  227W
  these services. They should engage fully with PCTs in discussing the level and type of provision which addresses local needs.

  The New Opportunities Fund has allocated £48 million to support over 130 palliative care projects for children. Successful bids have largely been predicated on partnership working between the NHS and service providers. The national service framework for children, which is currently being developed, will set the standards for service providers in this area.

  The NHS Cancer Plan pledged to increase NHS investment in adult specialist palliative care, including hospices, by £50 million per year by 2004. Ministers have set up a central budget of £50 million per annum for specialist palliative care for the three years from 2003–04. Funding will be allocated by a joint NHS/ voluntary sector national partnership group, which will approve local specialist palliative care plans.

  In-patient Survey
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the results of the NHS inpatients survey; what plans he has to make changes in policy as a result of the survey; and if he will make a statement. [124794]

  Ms Rosie Winterton: The results of the 2002 patient surveys have been compiled into comprehensive national reports, which have been made available widely within the Department. The Department is using these results to monitor progress in delivering its Public Service Agreement target to,'enhance accountability to patients and the public and secure sustained national improvements in patient experience, as measured by independently validated surveys'.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on mental health provision in(a) England and (b) Essex in each year since 1990. [124870]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows details of expenditure on Mental Health Services from 1992–93 to 2001–02. Data for 1990–92 is not available.

  It is not possible to provide figures by English county, so the table shows total expenditure by health authorities and primary care trusts in England and for health authority areas within Essex.

  Mental health services expenditure

  £000

  Essex health authorities area

  England

  1992–93

  54,043

  2,331,497

  1993–94

  67,995

  2,350,548

  1994–95

  71,537

  2,371,146

  1995–96

  79,234

  2,511,431

  1996–97

  80,113

  2,648,191

  1997–98

  81,352

  2,767,036

  1998–99

  89,255

  2,925,934

  1999–2000

  111,580

  3,408,660

  2000–01

  122,568

  3,951,618

  228W
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patient beds were available for mental health patients in(a) England and (b) Essex in each year since 1980. [124871]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of in-patient beds between 1980 and 2001–02 for England is shown in the table. Information by geographical area is not available.

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector; NHS Trusts in England

  Available beds

  Mental illness

  1980

  87,396

  1981

  85,436

  1982

  83,831

  1983

  81,786

  1984

  78,911

  1985

  75,866

  1986

  72,402

  1987–88

  67,122

  1988–89

  63,012

  1989–90

  59,288

  1990–91

  55,239

  1991–92

  50,278

  1992–93

  47,308

  1993–94

  43,532

  1994–95

  41,827

  1995–96

  39,477

  1996–97

  37,640

  1997–98

  36,601

  1998–99

  35,692

  1999–00

  34,173

  2000–01

  34,214

  2001–02

  32,783

  Source:

  SH3/KH03

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the NHS budget has been spent on mental health care in each year since 1980. [124872]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows how much was spent on mental health care as a percentage of total hospital and community health service expenditure from 1980 to the present.

  Percentage of total HCHS expenditure

  1979–80

  11.12

  1980–81

  11.25

  1981–82

  11.27

  1982–83

  11.25

  1983–84

  11.19

  1984–85

  11.26

  1985–86

  11.21

  1986–87

  11.14

  1987–88

  11.55

  1988–891

  12.40

  1989–90

  12.24

  1990–91

  11.98

  1991–92

  11.49

  1992–93

  11.47

  1993–94

  10.90

  1994–95

  10.59

  1995–96

  10.55

  1996–972

  12.09

  1997–98

  12.14

  1998–99

  11.97

  1999–20003

  12.34

  2000–01

  12.71

  229W
  1 Data analysis method changed to show more detailed community health care expenditure.

  2 Data collection method changed to give better analysis of NHS expenditure.

  3 Data collection method changed to include secondary healthcare expenditure from primary care groups and trusts.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the proportion of the population of England which will require mental health treatment during their lives. [124874]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Decisions about mental health treatment and care are taken on the basis of an individualised assessment of needs by the responsible clinical team in consultation with the patient, in the light of the evidence base, the resources available, and in the context of national guidance.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is responsible for compiling, analysing and disseminating information relating to UK economic, social and demographic statistics. Their report, 'Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in private households, 2000', is available on the website at www.statistics.gov.uk. Surveys of children's mental health (1999) and the mental health needs amongst people in prison (1997) have also been undertaken by ONS and further information is available from them.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to improve fast track intervention for those suffering from acute mental health problems. [124876]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has a public service agreement to reduce the duration of untreated psychosis to a service median of less than three months (individual maximum less than six months) and provide support for the first three years for all young people who develop a first episode of psychosis by 2004. This target is being accomplished by the creation of 50 early intervention teams across the country.

  There are currently 24 early intervention teams in England which provide quick diagnosis of the first onset of a psychotic disorder and appropriate treatment including intensive support in the early years for people aged between 14 and 35.

  Also, NHS Direct's call handling capacity will more than double to 16 million calls annually by 2006, backed by a funding increase to £182 million. Improved 24-hour access to clinical advice by telephone from home will cut the burden on general practitioners and the emergency services, including for people with mental health problems, who can obtain rapid advice from trained nurses.

  As part of the mental health modernisation agenda, steps are being taken to increase capacity in both community and hospital based provision that will help provide quicker and more convenient services. Establishing crisis resolution services and more hospital beds as well as improving access to child and adolescent mental health services by 10 per cent. each year across the service according to agreed local priorities are among these steps.
  230W
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of unmet need with respect to child and adolescent mental health services, broken down by(a) region and (b) strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [124921]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information on which to base such an assessment is not collected centrally. Needs assessment is the responsibility of local agencies as part of their service planning activity. Systematic mapping of local child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) provision across England was launched last year and it is intended to repeat this annually. This will provide detailed information on service provision, service activity levels and expenditure on CAMHS by provider trust and by local authority and primary care trust commissioners. Data currently available can be found on the dedicated website at www.dur.ac.uk/ service.mapping/CAMH/.

  The Government's strategy for the development of CAMHS, initiated in 1999, has made significant progress in improving the overall quality and accessibility of local services for children and young people with mental health problems. Our current central investment programme of £250 million over the coming three years aims to help secure comprehensive CAMHS in all areas by 2006, in line with the objectives contained in "Improvement, Expansion, Reform the Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06" published by the Department in October 2002.

  Midwives
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio of midwives in post to the total number of births was in 2002 in each NHS maternity unit. [123474]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the ratio of deliveries to midwives by hospital in 2001–02 has been placed in the Library.

  MRI Scanners
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to replace the MRI scanners used in Shropshire NHS trusts. [125147]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners at the Princess Royal Hospital National Health Service Trust and the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust fit within the criteria for replacement indicated in my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State's announcement on the 22 May 2003, Official Report, column 47WS. It is proposed that the scanner at the Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust will be replaced when the current service agreement expires in April 2004. It is proposed to replace the other scanner during 2005–06

  The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust has recently been awarded an additional MRI scanner from a "New Opportunities Fund initiative". This is likely to be installed before the end of 2004.

  Myositis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make drugs used to treat patients with myositis available on free prescriptions. [125201]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Prescription charges are not payable by myositis patients who are aged under 16 or 60 or over, who are (or their partner is) receiving income support or income based jobseekers allowance, or who are named on a national health service tax credit exemption certificate. Other patients on a low income may receive help under the NHS low income scheme. We have no plans to change the current charging arrangements.

  By using a prescription prepayment certificate, no one who has to pay need pay more than £32.90 for four months, or £90.40 for 12 months, for all NHS medication they are prescribed.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been made to the National Care Standards Commission from parents of children at(a) boarding schools belonging to the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference and the Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools and (b) other boarding schools. [125178]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Care Standards Commission has received six complaints about Incorporated Association of Preparatory Schools or Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference schools and six complaints about other boarding schools.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of dental services which are free at the point of use. [124628]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Gross spend on general dental services (GDS), that is, payments to dentists covering both their income and expenses, was £1.7 billion in 2002–03 in England. Adults who pay charges for their dental treatment contributed about £0.5 billion, leaving a net £1.2 billion contributed by Government.

  National health service resources are also spent on dental services delivered in the community dental service (CDS) and the hospital dental service. Estimate of the cost of the CDS is £150 million. There is no similar estimate for the cost of hospital dental services.

  NICE
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the considerations of the Joint Planning Group meeting, involving his Department and NICE, held on 13 March 2003. [123378]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Joint Planning Group is an advisory group which formulates internal advice to Ministers. As such, its minutes are not published.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general hospitals have failed to introduce 232W
  plans for a specialist stroke unit as referred to on page 172 of the National Service Framework for Older People. [124586]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A monitoring exercise, conducted at the end of 2002, suggested that 83 per cent. of hospitals have plans in place to have a specialist stroke service by April 2004.

  The Department of Health will be monitoring formally the overall stroke milestone in April 2004, as this is included as one of the key targets in Improvement, Expansion and Reform, the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. It is now for strategic health authorities to plan, deliver and monitor progress locally on the other stroke milestones in the national service framework.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his assessment is of how successfully implemented the medicine reviews are for older people as referred to on page 172 of the National Service Framework for Older People. [124587]

  Dr. Ladyman
  A monitoring exercise, conducted at the end of 2002 through the strategic health authorities (SHAs), suggested that 29 per cent. of practices had mechanisms in place to review medicines prescribed to those aged 75 and over, in accordance with the national service framework (NSF) for older people.

  The Department of Health will be monitoring formally the key targets in Improvement, Expansion and Reform, the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. It is now for SHAs to plan, deliver and monitor progress locally on the other milestones in the NSF.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints have been received by NHS organisations from older people and carers under systems set up under the National Standards Framework for Older People. [124924]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is for local National Health Service organisations to analyse and report on complaints received from older people and their carers. This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many risk management procedures under the National Standards Framework for Older People are(a) in development and (b) planned but not in place in providers of health and social care. [124926]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The Department of Health will be monitoring formally the overall falls milestone of integrated health and social care falls services by April 2005 as this is included as one of the key targets in Improvement, Expansion and Reform, the priorities and planning framework for 2003–2006. It is now for strategic health authorities to plan, deliver and monitor progress locally on the other falls milestones in the national service framework.

  Ophthalmic Laser Treatment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Early Day Motion 1494 (Ophthalmic Laser Treatment). [125024]
  233W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Royal College of Ophthalmologists recommends that only qualified ophthalmologists should be able to undertake laser eye surgery and that they should have undertaken additional specialist training in refractive surgery.

  Establishments where Class 4 laser treatment (the type used in laser eye surgery) is provided are required to be registered with the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) as independent hospitals, under the Care Standards Act 2000. Establishments are required to meet certain standards, amongst which is the requirement to ensure that all staff using lasers and intense pulsed light sources use them only for treatments for which they have been trained and, where appropriate, hold qualifications and that they receive regular training. Independent hospitals are inspected by the NCSC at least once every 12 months.

  Prescription Charges
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of abolishing prescription charges in England. [125416]

  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.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 30 June 2003,Official

  NHS Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff, by age-band, in England as at 30 September each year

  Headcount by age-band

  All ages

  Under 21

  21–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  Over 60

  Unknown

  2002

  346,537

  124

  48,650

  105,237

  101,468

  53,884

  5,509

  31,665

  2001

  330,535

  149

  47,021

  103,469

  93,766

  50,704

  4,961

  30,465

  2000

  316,752

  131

  45,036

  103,275

  87,725

  48,475

  4,725

  27,385

  1999

  310,142

  167

  45,277

  104,054

  82,164

  45,871

  4,570

  28,039

  1998

  304,563

  168

  47,470

  105,037

  77,119

  43,233

  4,251

  27,285

  1997

  300,467

  535

  50,007

  103,327

  73,427

  41,276

  4,593

  27,302

  1996

  301,253

  208

  55,397

  104,541

  73,096

  39,358

  4,133

  24,520

  1995

  298,650

  291

  58,022

  101,842

  72,345

  39,101

  4,542

  22,507

  1994

  289,284

  163

  60,456

  97,649

  70,161

  38,135

  4,301

  18,419

  1993

  293,379

  63

  64,440

  94,255

  70,565

  38,881

  4,560

  20,615

  Percentage of nurses in each age-band

  All ages

  Under 21

  21–30

  30–40

  40–50

  50–60

  Over 60

  2002

  100.0

  0.0

  15.5

  33.4

  32.2

  17.1

  1.7

  2001

  100.0

  0.0

  15.7

  34.5

  31.2

  16.9

  1.7

  2000

  100.0

  0.0

  15.6

  35.7

  30.3

  16.8

  1.6

  1999

  100.0

  0.1

  16.0

  36.9

  29.1

  16.3

  1.6

  1998

  100.0

  0.1

  17.1

  37.9

  27.8

  15.6

  1.5

  1997

  100.0

  0.2

  18.3

  37.8

  26.9

  15.1

  1.7

  1996

  100.0

  0.1

  20.0

  37.8

  26.4

  14.2

  1.5

  1995

  100.0

  0.1

  21.0

  36.9

  26.2

  14.2

  1.6

  1994

  100.0

  0.1

  22.3

  36.1

  25.9

  14.1

  1.6

  1993

  100.0

  0.0

  23.6

  34.6

  25.9

  14.3

  1.7

  Note:

  Percentages have been calculated using only nurses age is known.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census
  234W
  Report, column 173W, on primary care trusts, if he will list the average distance from target in each primary care trust, in each year since 1997. [124254]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on primary care trust distances from targets for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 have been placed in the Library. Prior to 2003–04 allocations were made to health authorities.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to publish this year's star ratings with the local context of each primary care trust. [124391]

  Mr. Hutton
  The next set of national health service performance (star) ratings will be published this summer by the Commission for Health Improvement, the independent regulator for NHS performance. The performance ratings system provides a high level overview of NHS organisations' performance across a wide range of measures.

  Registered Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of registered nurses were aged(a) 20–30, (b) 30–40, (c) 40–50, (d) 50–60 and (e) over 60, in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [123927]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of qualified nurses employed in the national health service by age-band is shown in the table.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council publishes an annual statistical analysis of the register, which includes a breakdown by age of registered nurses. This can be obtained at www.nmc-uk.org.

  Salt
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to bring forward legislation on the reduction of the salt content of processed food if the food industry does not introduce voluntary measures. [122803]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans to do so at present. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency have been in ongoing discussions with food manufacturers and retailers about the levels of salt in specific categories of processed foods, reductions that have been made in the past and the opportunities for further reductions. The principal bodies that have been involved are the Food and Drink Federation, the British Retail Consortium, the British Frozen Food Federation and the Joint Food Service Industry Group.

  All of the organisations have approached discussions constructively, with a focus on verifying and recognising salt reductions already achieved by industry and investigating the scope for achieving further reductions.

  School Health Checks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills on introducing annual health checks for schoolchildren up to the age of 16. [124483]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health regularly meet ministerial colleagues from the Department for Education and Skills, where various issues are discussed. Our discussions often include the best way to provide health care, to support health promotional activity for schoolchildren and young people and to ensure access to any health checks that are necessary for their well being.

  Sport
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many staff are employed in his Department to promote sports participation, as part of his public health role; [123909]

  (2) how much is spent by his Department to promote the public health benefits of participation in sport and physical exercise. [123910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health is committed to developing policies that provide people with the skills, information and support to make and sustain healthy lifestyle choices.

  The Department of Health funds a physical activity programme to:
  support the delivery of Planning and Priorities Framework targets and national service framework milestones;
  work with other government departments and stakeholders to enhance opportunities for physical activity; and
  develop and communicate the evidence base for physical activity.

  It is not possible to provide an overall figure for Department of Health spending to promote the public health benefits of physical activity and exercise, since the
  236W
  amount spent by primary care trusts (PCTs) on the promotion of physical activity from the devolved Department of Health budgets varies in each PCT.

  Department of Health staff work across topic areas within the whole range of work covering cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention (which includes promotion of physical activity) according to needs and we do not enumerate specific people on the topic of sports participation. The Department of Health employs a number of organisations and individuals on an ad hoc contractual basis to assist the department in the delivery of specific work items, and also receives support and advice on the evidence base for successful interventions from the Health Development Agency.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to tackle obesity levels through increasing participation in sport and physical activity; and if he will make a statement. [123911]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Considerable action is being taken across Government to tackle obesity levels, especially through increasing physical activity and improving diet.

  The Government have recently set a challenging target for 70 per cent. of the population to be active by 2020. To ensure that there is a co-ordinated and strategic approach to the planning and delivery of sport and physical activity across a diverse range of sectors—such as transport, countryside management and town planning—and in response to this target, a Sport and Physical Activity Board (SPAB) has been established. The SPAB, jointly led by the Department of Health and Department of Culture, Media and Sport and supported by a dedicated delivery team, met for the first time on 8 July 2003.

  Another key project in our programme of work are the local exercise action pilots (LEAPs), which we jointly fund with Sport England and the Countryside Agency. LEAPs will test the effectiveness of primary care trust-led interventions to increase access and levels of physical activity in communities based in neighbourhood renewal areas. Involving a range of partners, the activities range from walking, cycling and swimming, to clinical-based programmes that are focusing on diabetes and weight management.

  Stroke Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals caring for stroke have not established clinical audit systems to ensure delivery of Royal College of Physicians clinical guidelines for stroke care. [124589]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2001, the Third National Sentinel Audit of Stroke, carried out by the Clinical Effectiveness and Evaluation Unit of the Royal College of Physicians and led by the Intercollegiate Working Party for Stroke, gave a detailed picture of the way hospitals provide care for stroke patients. The results of this study were published in July 2002.

  In the 2001 audit, 98 per cent. of eligible acute trusts submitted clinical data, demonstrating delivery of the clinical guidelines. The next National Sentinel Audit of Stroke is expected to take place in April 2004.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff the Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which it is responsible has; and what their annual cost will be. [122272]

  Mr. Lammy
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service are collected from Departments and agencies twice-yearly, in April and October. Headline figures are published under National Statistics guidelines via a press notice. Those for October 2002 were published on 27 February 2003. A copy of the press notice, accompanying media brief and supporting tables is available on the world wide web at: www.civilservice.gov.uk/statistics Copies of these documents are also placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  More detailed information on the Civil Service is published annually in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The last edition, based on April 2001 data, was published in June 2002. The next edition, based on April 2002 data, is due to be published at the end of July 2003.

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

  The Department for Constitutional Affairs publishes information on staff numbers and costs in the "Departmental Report"; the last report for 2002–03 was published in June 2003.

  Each non-departmental public body for which the Department is responsible publishes its own accounts and annual report.

  These reports are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  General Elections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps the Government have taken to increase the turnout at general elections. [124995]

  Mr. Leslie
  This Government have introduced a number of measures aimed at encouraging participation in elections. We have made it easier to register to vote and to cast a vote. We are, with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, continuing to expand the programme of electoral pilot schemes to test innovative methods of voting at local elections. We have announced our intention, subject to parliamentary approval, to hold next year's European parliamentary, local and GLA elections on the same day, so that voters will only need to turn out once, rather than twice within a short period. All these measures are designed to increase flexibility and convenience for voters and thus encourage greater turnout. In addition, we introduced legislation to set up the independent Electoral Commission. The 238W
  Commission has a duty to educate and inform the public about the importance of participation in the democratic process and a remit to recommend ways in which our electoral arrangements can be improved. We will consider carefully any recommendations made by the Electoral Commission which may have an impact on electoral turnout.

  House of Lords Reform
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many letters his Department has received from the general public, giving their views on the appointment of people's peers. [123971]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Department has received several hundred pieces of correspondence on aspects of House of Lords reform from the general public. Around 20 of these have focused exclusively on the appointment of cross-bench life peers following the recommendations of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

  Magistrates
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many magistrates(a) joined and (b) retired from the bench in each year since 1997. [124914]

  Mr. Leslie
  The table sets out the information for England and Wales, including the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Total appointed1

  Retirements at age 70

  Resignations and removals

  1997

  1,573

  606

  879

  1998

  1,609

  623

  1,004

  1999

  1,743

  559

  1,058

  1 January to 31 March 2000

  180

  133

  405

  2000–01

  1,618

  590

  1,709

  2001–02

  1,786

  638

  1,302

  2002–03

  1,623

  593

  1,181

  1 Excludes re-appointments.

  Office of Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the Office of Supervision of Solicitors. [125210]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are considering the performance of the Office in the light of the Legal Service Ombudsman's Annual Report 2002–03 and the Government's undertaking to review the regulatory framework for legal services about which we hope to make an announcement soon.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (1) whether he will(a) amend and (b) adopt any of the existing Lord Chancellor's Department public service agreements; [124861]

  (2) when he will introduce new public service agreements. [124862]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 127W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Adviser Discretion Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals have been given financial help to purchase a car through the Adviser Discretion Fund. [121218]

  Mr. Browne
  Detailed information about specific goods and services purchased with help from the Adviser Discretion Fund is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures in place in respect of(a) jobseekers allowance, (b) housing benefit and (c) other benefits to meet the needs of agency workers who are regularly unemployed for short periods of time. [124021]

  Mr. Browne
  Agency workers can experience intermittent periods of employment and unemployment. The fear of finding themselves involved in a lengthy claim process and without an income during these periods of unemployment may have, in the past, discouraged many people from taking this type of work.

  In order to assist people in these circumstances we introduced Rapid Reclaim to ensure a smooth transition from work to benefit. Rapid Reclaim is available to customers who find themselves having to reclaim Income Support, Jobseekers Allowance, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit within 12 weeks of having previously claimed the same benefit. The Rapid Reclaim process allows Decision Makers to use information provided for the previous claim alongside a shorter claim form, completed by the customer, that captures any changes that may have occurred during the break in their claim. This speeds up the data collection process and so reduces the time from making a claim to receiving the first payment.

  Rapid Reclaim is making it easier for people to take up work, that may be only short-term or through an agency, as it reduces the fear that there will be a delay in the resumption of benefits during the periods that they are off work.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a copy of the reminder letter that is sent to people who have not replied to the initial letter on automated credit transfer. [114371]

  Mr. Pond
  Example copies of the reminder letters sent to child benefit, state pension and benefit customers who have not responded to an initial letter inviting them to transfer to Direct Payment will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the exceptions service being designed for those customers 240W
  who will not be transferring to direct payment; and when he expects to make available the criteria by which customers will qualify for the service. [124018]

  Mr. Pond
  Our aim is to have an exceptions service ready from October 2004. There are now a number of easy to operate accounts available, many of which can be accessed at Post Office branches, so our expectation is that this service will be available for those who are genuinely unable to open or operate any type of bank, building society or Post Office account.

  Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications were made for social fund(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans in each of the last 12 months; and how many of those applications were successful, broken down by category. [123324]

  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the tables.

  Community care grant—applications and initial awards

  Date

  Number of applications

  Number of initial awards

  June 2002

  41,600

  17,400

  July 2002

  53,600

  22,200

  August 2002

  47,500

  19,200

  September 2002

  49,300

  20,700

  October 2002

  54,800

  23,000

  November 2002

  53,300

  22,400

  December 2002

  39,500

  17,600

  January 2003

  48,000

  20,200

  February 2003

  49,000

  19,800

  March 2003

  51,100

  20,000

  April 2003

  46,200

  19,900

  May 2003

  46,400

  21,200

  Budgeting loan—applications and initial awards

  Date

  Number of applications

  Number of initial awards

  June 2002

  124,300

  84,900

  July 2002

  151,400

  106,800

  August 2002

  133,600

  93,800

  September 2002

  142,700

  101,200

  October 2002

  176,600

  122,200

  November 2002

  193,900

  140,200

  December 2002

  118,400

  103,700

  January 2003

  133,400

  80,400

  February 2003

  136,000

  95,700

  March 2003

  148,000

  104,900

  April 2003

  135,400

  95,400

  May 2003

  140,200

  102,700

  Crisis loan—applications and initial awards

  Date

  Number of applications

  Number of initial awards

  June 2002

  106,000

  81,100

  July 2002

  123,600

  94,700

  August 2002

  117,700

  90,200

  September 2002

  111,900

  85,900

  October 2002

  121,600

  92,800

  November 2002

  109,600

  83,100

  December 2002

  98,000

  75,600

  January 2003

  126,000

  97,600

  February 2003

  112,700

  86,700

  March 2003

  114,700

  88,100

  241W

  Crisis loan—applications and initial awards

  Date

  Number of applications

  Number of initial awards

  April 2003

  108,300

  84,200

  May 2003

  110,700

  87,700

  Notes:

  1. Available data on the numbers of awards made following review do not differentiate between awards that were initially refused and those where an award was increased on review. To avoid double counting, the tables show the number of initial awards only.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. The number of awards made in a month do not necessarily relate to applications made in that month.

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management

  Information System.

  Benefits Consultancies
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action the Government have taken to regulate independent benefits consultancies. [122443]

  Mr. Pond
  Independent benefits consultancies are not subject to regulation by this Department.

  The best source of information about entitlement to state pensions and benefits is the Department's own staff. We publicise contact information widely, including details of local offices and specialist help-lines.

  Independent advice is also widely available free of charge through organisations affiliated to the Federation of Independent Advice Centres, Citizens Advice Bureaux and disability organisations.

  We are also working with local authorities and organisations that represent disabled people to ensure that the right information gets to claimants. Our aim is to work with these partners who are best placed to target potential benefits customers in an individual and focused way.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119814]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right. hon Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 24 June 2003,Official Report, columns 657–59W.

  Community Care Grants
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications were made for community care grants as a result of domestic violence in each year since 1998; how many(a) were successful and (b) failed; and if he will make a statement. [125740]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to her on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 76W.

  Crisis and Interim Payments
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what criteria the Department and its agencies authorise crisis and interim payments to those in need while benefit applications are processed. [124617]

  Mr. Pond
  Interim payments are discretionary payments on account of benefit made to avoid hardship where the Decision Maker is satisfied that the basic conditions of entitlement for the benefit are met. Interim payments can be ma de in the following circumstances:

  1. Where a benefit claim has been made but cannot immediately be determined and the delay is not the fault of the customer;

  2. In an emergency. This covers a variety of different situations from civil emergencies to industrial action;

  3. Where a claim has not been made in the correct manner but it is not the fault of the customer, for example because the claim form has been completed incorrectly by a visiting officer; and

  4. While an appeal is ongoing but the customer clearly has some residual entitlement t D benefit.

  Interim payments follow the same payment cycles and periods as the main benefit being claimed and are not made before the person's first benefit pay-day. The amount of any payment is recoverable from the main benefit when it is awarded.

  Social fund crisis loans can be made to help with the day-to-day living expenses of people awaiting a first payment of benefit which is paid in arrears. Any crisis loan made under these circumstances will cover the recipient's needs until their first benefit pay-day, following which full or interim payments of benefit can be made.

  Disability Benefits
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action is being taken better to estimate the take-up of disability living allowance. [124641]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to commission research into the take-up of disability benefits. [124793]

  Maria Eagle
  Entitlement to disability living allowance (DLA) and attendance allowance (AA) can only be reliably established after an actual claim has been made and the care and mobility needs of the customer are assessed. There is no data available about who might be entitled to either DLA or AA if they were to make a claim. This means that currently we cannot reliably calculate the number of people receiving the benefits as a proportion of the overall eligible population.

  However, in the five years to November 2002, the number of people receiving DLA increased by 24 per cent. and by 6.1 per cent. in the last 12 months alone. For AA the increases are 9.6 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively.

  The Department is taking steps to improve the take-up of the benefits in a targeted and well directed way and will continue to work more closely with partners, such as local authorities and welfare rights organisations who are better able to identify potential disability benefits claimants in an individual and focused way.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the expected(a) average and (b) total expected cost to small businesses employing fewer than 15 people is from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003; [124736]

  (2) how many small businesses employing fewer than 15 people are expected to be affected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003; [124737]

  (3) how many representations her Department has had from small businesses employing fewer than 15 people regarding the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (a) prior and (b) subsequent to their being passed; and what proportion of those representations expressed concern about a potentially adverse impact of the regulations; [124738]

  (4) how many disabled employees are expected to be affected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003; [124739]

  (5) what representations he has received from organisations representing small and medium sized enterprises on the costs of compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003; and if he will make a statement. [125587]

  Maria Eagle
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which is available in the Library, estimates that the average cost for small businesses with one to 15 employees of removing the small firms exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) is £5.50, although many small employers will have no costs at all. The total cost to these small businesses will be about £6 million. Of this, £3.9 million is a one-off cost while £2.1 million is a recurring cost, and includes £0.7 million for recruitment. This does not take into account the many benefits that employers can gain from employing and retaining disabled people such as access to a wide pool of applicants, retention of skills and knowledge and better motivation more generally among the workforce.

  There are around 1,087,000 businesses with between one and 14 employees. Within these businesses, there are around 382,000 disabled employees who will be protected from discrimination by the DDA's employment provisions as a result of the inclusion of small employers. Other provisions in the Regulations will end a number of other employment and occupational exclusions such as the police, fire-fighters and partners in business partnerships. These measures are expected to bring an additional 218,000 disabled workers within scope of the DDA. Other provisions in the Regulations applying to organisations of all sizes could affect all of the 2,243,000 disabled workers in GB (Winter 2002 Labour Force Survey).

  We consulted on draft regulations to implement the sexual orientation, religion and belief and disability provisions of the Article 13 Employment Directive in our 2002 document "Equality and Diversity—the way ahead". Of the 172 respondents who replied on issues specifically concerning the disability provisions, only 2 identified
  244W
  themselves as a private organisation employing one to 14 employees; the vast majority of replies were from representative bodies, disability organisations, public bodies and voluntary organisations. Neither of those respondents commented on a potential adverse impact of the disability regulations.

  The Federation of small businesses responded to the consultation but did not comment on compliance costs. Other respondents representing employers, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors, may have taken account of views from small and medium-sized employers in submitting their replies but it is not possible to measure the extent to which their replies were informed by members with fewer than 15 employees. The majority of such responses concerned the operation of the regulations themselves. However, the IOD questioned some of the assumptions made by Government in estimating the overall costs of implementing the Directive. There have been no representations from small employers or their representative bodies on the disability regulations since they were approved by Parliament.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how his Department are assisting tourism businesses in becoming informed about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [124759]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is currently undertaking a campaign to raise awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) among all types of businesses, including those in the tourism industry. As Minister for Disabled People, I am undertaking a series of regional visits which highlight disability issues and remind employers and service providers of their duties under the Act, and these have been supported by radio advertising and press articles.

  On 15 May 2003, we launched two major elements of this campaign; an information pack, aimed particularly at small and medium-sized enterprises. The pack contains advisory leaflets for employers and service providers, together with a video entitled 'Act Now—the DDA and Your Business'. This video provides information about the duties that employers and service providers have under the Act. It shows practical examples of what some companies have done to improve access for their disabled workers and customers and the 'Access All Areas' award which aims to recognise and congratulate small organisations that have made imaginative changes to the way they provide their services so that disabled people can use them. Details of the award and an entry form are available on the website www.disability.gov.uk and are included in the information pack, which is available to any business free of charge.

  The Department has undertaken a mailshot of the information packs to business organisations such as Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, CBI Regional Offices, and local Businesslink offices. We have liaised with VisitBritain which has publicised the award on its website and in its email newsletter which reaches 200,000 tourism businesses. The Tourism Skills Network has also advertised the award on its website.
  245W
  In addition, the Department sponsors, and is continuing to work with, the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), to promote a greater awareness and understanding of the rights of disabled people. The DRC provides advice via its helpline to employers. service providers and members of the public about rights and duties under the DDA.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides funding for England's 9 Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs), and one function of the RTBs is to interpret and communicate the impact of legislation which applies to the tourism sector—this includes the DDA.

  E-government
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what organisations he has consulted to meet his Department's commitment to develop an online web based retirement planner; and when that planner will be available to the public. [122267]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The consultation programme for the Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: working and saving for retirement," Cm 5677, was the largest we have undertaken on pensions. More than 800 consultation responses were received. We also met around 2,000 people including individuals and those representing a wide range of organisations taking part in 35 consultation events of various forms. Nearly 150 people contributed to this discussion on our departmental website.

  There were a limited number of specific references to the online retirement planner within the consultation responses. Those that did respond were in favour of the proposal.

  The Department has also carried out specific consultation with representatives from consumer bodies, industry trade bodies and pension product providers. In particular, with:

  Consumers Association;

  Financial Services Authority (FSA);

  Association of British Insurers (ABI);

  Pension Product Providers, including AXA Sun Life, Legal and General, Norwich Union, Prudential, Scottish Equitable and Standard Life; and

  EMAP, an employer

  We are currently finalising our plans for the web-based retirement planner in response to the Green Paper consultation exercise.

  Employment Assistance
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to assist those for whom a move to new employment would impose severe problems of cash flow. [125375]

  Mr. Browne
  Making the move from benefit into employment can be worrying. In recognition of this a package of measures has been developed, designed to provide real support for people making this transition and give them confidence that they can take up work. These measures include Job Grant, Lone Parents' Run-On, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Extended Payments, Mortgage Interest Run-On, the Adviser 246W
  Discretion Fund, Social Fund Crisis Loans and the New Tax Credits. In addition we have announced further plans to financially assist people during the transition from benefit to work.

  From April 2004 we will be extending the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Extended Payments to people claiming Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance, making it easier for people on these benefits to manage the first few weeks in work. At the same time we will be extending the £11.90 Housing Benefit earnings disregard to people working 16 hours a week and who are receiving or are entitled to Working Tax Credit. This disregard is currently only available to those working 30 hours or more a week and who receiving, or are entitled to, Working Tax Credit.

  From October 2004 we will be introducing a unified, more streamlined and easier to understand Job Grant that will also replace the Lone Parents' Benefit Run-On. The new Job Grant will have two rates; one for people with, and another for those without, children. It will, for the first time, be available to partners of benefit claimants who are taking up work and taking the household off benefit. Finally we will also be piloting a new in-work credit for lone parents, also from October 2004.

  These measures will help people financially during the difficult period between the last payment of benefit and the first payment of wages.

  Energy-efficient Electrical Appliances
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to encourage the use of social fund grants to provide energy efficient electrical appliances. [120750]

  Mr. Pond
  We believe that people should, as far as possible, be responsible for managing their own money. People who are awarded a social fund payment are, like other consumers, free to choose the goods they purchase. This includes deciding whether to purchase energy efficient electrical appliances.

  Exceptions Service
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the statement made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 9 July 2003,Official Report, column 310WH, if he will make a statement on the timetable for the establishment of the exceptions service. [125962]

  Mr. Pond
  Our aim is to have an exceptions service ready from October 2004.

  Gangmasters
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the enforcement of the obligations of gangmasters to ensure that the staff they provide to British farmers and growers(a) are aware of the health and safety requirements of their work and (b) hold appropriate qualifications for any specialised tasks they may need to perform. [124888]
  247W
  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: Employers, including gangmasters have responsibility for the health and safety of their employees. Enforcement of health and safety aw in the agriculture sector rests with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and a summary of HSE's enforcement and other activities can be found in the Health and Safety Commission's annual report available from the House library. HSE is involved with other Government agencies and departments in the Gangmaster Working Group's activities to co-ordinate enforcement activity against gangmasters acting illegally.

  Government Initiatives
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the research that has been conducted into(a) employment zones, (b) new deal for communities and (c) action teams; if he will publish these documents; and if he will make a statement. [122465]

  Mr. Browne
  The following research has been conducted into Employment Zones and Action Teams:'Employment Zones: A study of local delivery agents and case studies', Working Age Evaluation Series 124, July 2002
  'Personal Advisers in New Deal 25 plus and Employment Zones', Working Age Evaluation Series 139, August 2002
  'Evaluation of Action Teams for Jobs' Working Age Evaluation 114, April 2002

  All of these reports are available in the Library. Future evaluation reports on these programmes will be placed in the Library when published.

  The evaluation of the New Deal for Communities partnerships is just moving into its second year. A first report on this evaluation will be published later this year by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. This report will be placed in the Library.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) client-based targets and (b) weighted points target system Jobcentre Plus has for placing people who are on (i) jobseekers allowance, (ii) income support for lone parents, (iii) incapacity benefit and (iv) each of the new deal programmes; what the level of performance has been against each of these targets and the weighted points targets in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [124538]

  Mr. Browne
  Jobcentre Plus was created in April 2002, bringing together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency chat delivered services to working age people. That was the first time that an explicit weighted target was used for job entries.

  The targets for Jobcentre Plus are set out in the Jobcentre Plus Business Plan and the Performance and Resources Agreement (PRA) which are available in the Library. Performance against the 2002/03 targets will be included in the Jobcentre Plus Annual Report and Accounts, which will be published in the near future.

  Job entry performance against targets prior to 2002 can be found in the Employment Service Annual Reports and Accounts, copies of which are in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when persons whose jobseekers allowance claims are refused are informed of the reasons for the refusal of their claim; and if he will make a statement on the appeal procedures applicable in such cases. [124024]

  Mr. Pond
  Once a claim for jobseekers allowance is assessed, a letter is sent to inform the person making the claim of the entitlement decision and the reasons for that decision. This letter also sets out the action the customer can take if they either do not understand or are unhappy with the decision. They can ask for further explanation of the decision, ask for the decision to be reconsidered or appeal against the decision to an independent tribunal.

  Full details on these procedures can be found in leaflet GL24: If you think our decision is wrong. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were claiming jobseeker's allowance in North Yorkshire on(a) 1 April 2000 and (b) 1 April 2003. [124427]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.

  Jobseeker's allowance claimants in the county of North Yorkshire

  Number

  April 2000

  6,635

  April 2003

  4,932

  Note:

  Figures are from a count of people claiming benefit at 13 April
  2000 and 10 April2003 respectively.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus computer systems (including clerically held cases)

  National Insurance
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many pensioners who live abroad and have a full National Insurance record have not had their pension up-rated since they moved; and what the current lowest full basic state pension paid to such a pensioner is; [125029]

  (2) how many pensioners who live abroad and have a full National Insurance contribution record have not had their pension up-rated since they moved; and what the lowest full basic state pension paid to a pensioner living abroad who has a full contribution record is. [125030]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is that, as at 30 September 2002, 488,400 State Pensioners living abroad will not have their State Pension increased.

  Source:

  Five per cent sample from the Pensions Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office use the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118861]
  249W
  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions follows Cabinet Office Guidance for the Handling of Ministerial and Other Correspondence; this ensures that the quality of replies is high.

  The department also has its own guidance in place known as Better Letters and Effective Business Writing which emphasise the importance of using plain English in all departmental correspondence.

  Departmental publications are prepared in line with the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

  Plastic Card Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions following the introduction of direct payment for benefits, what measures he has introduced to. [119848]

  Mr. Pond
  Direct Payment is a more secure and efficient method of payment. We have been paying benefits into customers' accounts for many years. We have no evidence of weakness in the system of delivering Direct Payments to financial institutions once a payment has been authorised it is sent and received securely. The financial institutions already have robust security measures to safeguard cash withdrawals using plastic cards, including benefit payments, from their customers' accounts.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Post Office Card Accounts he estimates will have been opened by 2005; what the cost to the Government of this number of accounts is; and what the cost would be if five million such accounts were to be opened by this time. [125335]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 11 July 2003]: Our working assumption is around three million Post Office card accounts will have been opened by 2005. However, there is no cap on numbers and anyone who wants to open an account can do so. Present indications are that the final number will be significantly above three million. The precise cost at any given level of take-up is commercial in confidence to Post Office Limited and is not released in line with paragraph 13, part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2003,Official Report, column 412W, on Post Office card accounts, if he will break down the figures in respect of each benefit of the customers (a) who were invited to take part in direct payment and (b) who have failed to respond to the invitation; and for what reasons the answer did not contain the information requested. [121681]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 26 June 2003]: I regret that the information given in my previous answer was incomplete due to an error.

  As at 6 June 2003 the precise break down of figures is 2,797,879 customers have been invited to convert to direct payment.
  250W
  Of those, 2,354,313 are child benefit customers, 108,837 are Veterans Agency customers, 148,148 are pensions customers and 186,581 are Jobcentre Plus customers.

  We are awaiting a response from 705,699. This consists of 514,235 child benefit customers, 11,775 Veterans Agency customers, 61,320 pension service customers and 118,369 Jobcentre Plus customers.

  Pensions and Jobcentre Plus customers began their conversion process with controlled pilots. Their full conversion commenced at the beginning of May 2003. This corrects the information given in my answer on 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 412W.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of automatically creating Post Office Card Accounts for those benefit and pension claimants who choose not to open a bank account following contact from his Department as part of the migration programme. [124302]

  Mr. Pond
  We have made no such estimates. The Post Office card account is one of the banking options available to customers. The choice of account is a matter for the customer. It would not be appropriate for the Department to open a Post Office card account on a customer's behalf, in the same way as it would be inappropriate for us to do so for any other sort of bank account.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of rejected applications to the Social Fund for(a) budgeting loans and (b) crisis loans have been overturned on appeal in each year since 1997; [110912]

  (2) how many applications there have been to the Social Fund for (a) budgeting loans and (b) crisis loans in each year since 1997; and how many have been rejected in each of th Dse years. [110921]

  Mr. Pond
  An applicant to the discretionary Social Fund who is dissatisfied with the decision on their application has the right to have the decision reviewed.

  An internal reviewing officer carries out the initial review at local level, and the applicant is notified of the outcome. Applicants who remain dissatisfied with the result of the local review can ask for a further review by an independent Social Fund Inspector.

  Information on the number and proportion of applications initially refused, but which resulted in awards following review is not available. Information on the number of applications made and the number which were initially refused is in the table.
  251W

  Social Fund loan applications and refusals 1996–97 to 2002–03

  Budgeting loan applications

  Budgeting loan refusals

  Crisis loan applications

  Crisis loan refusals

  1996–97

  1,339,000

  475,000

  1,022,000

  233,000

  1997–98

  1,330,000

  494,000

  1,057,000

  230,000

  1998–99

  1,327,000

  442,000

  1,135,000

  247,000

  1999–2000

  1,680,000

  647,000

  1,294,000

  336,000

  2000–01

  1,724,000

  531,000

  1,292,000

  342,000

  2001–02

  1,748,000

  460,000

  1,330,000

  317,000

  2002–03

  1,774,000

  466,000

  1,391,000

  305,000

  Notes:

  1. If an application is initially refused, but an award is subsequently made on review, the case will still be counted as an (initial) refusal in the table.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System

  Stakeholder Pension (Women)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of the stakeholder pension on pension rights for women. [125355]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Stakeholder pensions do not impose penalties if a person stops paying contributions for a time, or if they transfer their pension to another

  Table 1: The gross cost of restoring a link with earnings in the basic State Pension from April 2004

  £ billion

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  All pensioners

  1.7

  2.5

  3.3

  4.2

  5.2

  6.2

  Pensioners aged 65 and over

  1.6

  2.2

  2.9

  3.7

  4.5

  5.4

  Pensioners aged 70 and over

  1.1

  1.6

  2.1

  2.7

  3.3

  3.9

  Pensioners aged 75 and over

  800

  1.1

  1.4

  1.8

  2.2

  2.6

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  500

  600

  900

  1.1

  1.3

  1.6

  Table 2: The net cost of restoring a link with earnings in the basic State Pension from April 2004

  £ billion

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  All pensioners

  1.1

  1.6

  2.2

  2.8

  3.4

  4.1

  Pensioners aged 65 and over

  1.3

  1.8

  2.4

  3.0

  3.7

  4.4

  Pensioners aged 70 and over

  900

  1.2

  1.7

  2.1

  2.6b

  3.0

  Pensioners aged 75 and over

  600

  800

  1.1

  1.4

  1.7b

  2.0

  Pensioners aged 80 and over

  300

  500

  600

  800

  900

  1.1

  Notes:

  1. All costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million and are in 2003–04 price terms.

  2. Gross costs are calculated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2003 assumptions. It is assumed that the earnings link is restored in Apr 1 2004.

  3. The net costs are calculated using the DWP Policy Simulation Model for 2005–06. The net cost represents the cost after allowing for any offsetting savings in income-related benefits.

  4. In the case where the earnings link is restored for all pensions, it is assumed that the start of the Savings Credit is increased to the value of the earnings linked basic State Pension. In the other variants it is assumed that the start of the Savings Credit is unchanged.

  State Pensions Forecasts
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many state pensions forecasts his Department expects to produce in the next three years; how many people will be required to process those projected forecasts; and what the estimated cost is to process them. [122268]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the year 2003–04 we expect to issue 843,000 Individual Pension Forecasts; over one million Combined Pension Forecasts and 1.9 million Automatic Pension Forecasts to the self-employed in 252W
  provider. They are therefore a pension option for people who change jobs often or who have breaks in their employment and savings patterns, which includes many women.

  We are monitoring trends in take-up of stakeholder pensions, including differences in take-up between men and women, using a number of sources.

  Information from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) shows that in the period 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2002 over 40 per cent, of stakeholder pension sales were to, or for, women. In comparison 30 per cent, of personal pension products are held by women.

  State Pension
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the cost in(a) gross terms and (b) net terms of restoring the earnings link for the state pension in each year between 2005–06 and 2010–11, assuming that the policy was introduced in April 2004 and applied to (i) all pensioners, (ii) pensioners aged 65 or above, (iii) pensioners aged 70 and above, (iv) pensioners aged 75 and above and (v) pensioners aged 80 and above. [126035]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  2003–04. The total number of State Pension Forecasts for 2003–04 will therefore be approximately 3,944,000. This is five times the number issued in 2002–03.

  We are currently finalising our forecasting plans in response to the Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice," Cm 5677, and the subsequent consultation exercise. We have not made final decisions on the total number of planned forecasts for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  The current number of staff processing all forecasts is the equivalent of 175 full time staff. The estimated operational cost for this year is £3.9 million. Estimates

  253W
  of the operational costs for future years are not currently available as they are subject to decisions that we make as part of the Informed Choice package in the Green Paper.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether it is the Government's policy to turn the state second pension into a flat-rate benefit. [125408]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government are keeping the position under review, taking account of progress on stakeholder pensions and the wider developments in pensions and savings as set out in the Pensions Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677).

  Tax Credits
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has(a) received from and (b) made to the Scottish Executive concerning recent problems with the credit payments, broken down by (i) subject, (ii) date and (iii) responsible Scottish Minister. [122510]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We regularly communicate with Scottish Office Ministers on matters of mutual interest. At official level, there is regular contact between officials in the Department and their Scottish Executive counterparts.

  Pension Credit will be introduced from October 2003.

  Teenage Mothers
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of teenage mothers are dependent on benefit; and what proportion this represents of the benefit budget. [123592]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is not available.

  Work-related Accidents
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many work-related(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries occurred in the Truro and St. Austell constituency in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002; and how many prosecutions took place as a result. [124444]

  Mr. Browne
  Information at constituency level is not available.

  The number of work-related (a) deaths and (b) major injuries reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the district councils of Carrick and Restormel in (i) 1999–2000 (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02, and the number of health and safety at work prosecutions which have taken place as a result, are shown in the table.

  Year1

  Work-Related Deaths2

  Separate Offences Prosecuted

  Major injury2

  Separate Offences Prosecuted

  1999–2000

  3

  —

  171

  2

  2000–01

  1

  —

  132

  —

  2001–02

  2

  —

  111

  3—

  254W
  1 The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March

  2 Deaths and major injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public

  3 HSE Prosecutions may yet follow deaths or injuries that occurred in 2001–02

  The number of work-related (a) deaths and (b) major injuries reported to the district councils of Carrick and Restormel in (i) 1999––2000 (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02, and the number of prosecutions by the councils, are shown in the table.

  Year1

  Work-Reiated Deaths2

  Major injury2

  Number of Separate Offences Prosecuted (all health and safety offences)3

  1999–2000

  —

  73

  2

  2000–014

  —

  68

  —

  2001–02

  —

  61

  Not yet available

  1 The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March

  2 Deaths and major injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public

  3 Figures for offences prosecuted by local authorities specifically following death or major injury are not available except at disproportionate cost

  4 Restormel District Council did not include details of enforcement action in their annual Local Authority health and safety return for 2000–01

  The number of health and safety at work prosecutions by Carrick and Restormel district councils for 2001–02 will be available on 31 July.

  Workplace Safety
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many work-related(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries occurred in Worcester for the last year for which data are available; and how many prosecutions took place as a result. [122517]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of work-related(a) deaths and (b) major injuries reported to HSE in Worcester in 2001–02, and the number of health and safety at work prosecutions which have taken place as a result, are as follows:

  2001–021

  Work-related deaths2

  0

  Major injury2

  109

  1 The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  2 Deaths and major injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public.

  As yet no prosecutions have been taken in relation to these deaths and injuries. The number of work-related (a) deaths and (b) major injuries reported to Worcester city council in 2001–02, are as follows:

  2001–021

  Work-related deaths2

  1

  Major injury2

  30

  1 The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  2 Deaths and major injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public.

  255W
  The number of health and safety at work prosecutions by the Council in 2001–02 will be available shortly. I will write to my hon. Friend with these statistics when they become available and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs what representations the Department has received on providing assistance for the re-establishment of a police force in Iraq [125695]

  Mr. Rammell
  Government officials continue to discuss with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) how best the UK can contribute to the CPA's work to rebuild the Iraqi police service. The UK considers the restoration of the rule of law in Iraq to be a priority and will stay closely engaged with the CPA on issues of funding and assistance. In particular, the UK has deployed a senior police officer to Baghdad to assist with advising and training the new Iraq police service. In addition to this a further senior officer will deploy to Basra on 15 July to advise CPA (South). The CPA intends to hold a police contributor's conference shortly to garner support for a substantial international policing contribution, the UK is actively considering making a further part of this process.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relationship between the United Nations and the Iraq Survey Group. [125544]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Iraq Survey Group reports to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Under the terms of UN Security Council Resolution 1483, Coalition partners will make periodic reports to the UN Security Council on activities in Iraq.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Iraq sought the supply of uranium from Africa that had no civil nuclear application in Iraq since 1998. [125731]

  Mr. MacShane
  Iraq's civil nuclear programme was frozen under UN Security Council Resolution 707 in August 1991. Iraq would, therefore, have no legitimate civil application for any uranium sought or procured after that time.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Godsiff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 15 May to the right hon. and Learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)Official Report, column 403W, on arms exports, if he will list (a) the dates of the visits and (b) the names of those involved in the promotion of Ministry exports on such visits. [122149]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the pursuant answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the right hon. and learned Member for 256W
  North East Fife (Menzies Campbell) on 14 July, Official Report, column 47–8W. Further dates of such visits by Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are:

  Chile: Baroness Symons 6–8 March 2002.

  India: Foreign Secretary 27 February and 29 May 2002.

  Mike O'Brien 17 October 2002.

  Singapore: Ben Bradshaw 21 May 2002.

  Foreign Secretary 8 January 2003.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department had with President Putin about human rights in Chechnya. [125279]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in Chechnya with President Putin and Foreign Minister Ivanov during the State Visit last month. President Putin briefed on the political process. The Prime Minister supported a political solution to the conflict and stressed that the Chechen people should have a say in their own internal affairs.

  Colombia
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Colombia. [125519]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Colombia. I undertook a visit in May.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [124576]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has conducted the following public consultations in the last four years:Panel 2000: Consultation Document. Presented to Parliament on 10 September 1998 and closed on 15 November 1998. The website address is http://www.fco. gov.uk/Files/kfile/ pane12000Apdf
  Cost: £75,057 (excluding staff costs)
  Consultation Document was sent to 500 businesses and NGOs asking for comments. It was sent to a wide range of organisations throughout Britain and it was published on the FCO's website.
  There were 55 substantive responses to the Consultation paper
  International Criminal Court: Consultation on draft legislation. Presented to Parliament on 1 August 2000 and closed on 12 October 2000. The website address is: http:// www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/icc.pdf
  Cost: £6,156 (excluding staff costs)
  400 copies, plus an electronic copy produced
  45 responses were received

  257W
  Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation. Presented to Parliament on 12 February 2002 and closed on 12 August 2002. The website address is: http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/mercenaries.0.pdf
  Cost: £4,165 (excluding staff costs)
  500 copies of the document were produced
  39 responses were received
  Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Countering the Threat from Biological Weapons. Presented to Parliament on 29 April 2002 and closed on 13 September 2002. The website address is: http://www.fco.gov.uk/Filesikfile/ btwc290402.pdf
  Cost: £2,044 (excluding staff costs)
  There was a single report, of which the FCO ordered 500 copies in the time frame of the reply (the Green Paper itself).
  The FCO received 16 formal responses

  Cyprus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the compliance by occupied Cyprus with the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Loizidou case. [123181]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome the recent commitment by Turkey to pay the money awarded to Ms Loizidou by the European Court of Human Rights.

  We urge the Turkish authorities to continue to work with the Council of Europe Secretariat to ensure that this payment is made as soon as possible.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a new procedure for application for a pass for British Forces Cyprus Service Personnel to visit Northern Cyprus will be announced; and if he will make a statement. [125025]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  A review of procedures for passes for British Forces Cyprus Service Personnel to visit the north of Cyprus is being conducted by the British High Commission in conjunction with the Sovereign Base Areas Administration and Headquarters British Forces Cyprus. All affected personnel will be notified once the review is complete. In the meantime British Force Cyprus Service Personnel continue to be able to visit the north of Cyprus.

  Estonia
  Lembit öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has given to Estonia towards assisting the development of(a) their police service and (b) their NPA Estonian Neighbourhood Watch scheme; and if he will make a statement. [125529]

  Expenditure in year

  Major IT Projects

  2001–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Firecrest—Infrastructureproject to provide modern, easy to use office automation throughout the FCO

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Telecommunications Network (FTN)—An integrated and global telecommunications service

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  258W
  Mr. MacShane
  Through the British Embassy in Tallinn, the UK is actively supporting the Estonian police in preparing for EU accession. In particular, the government has funded UK experts to provide training in the fields of human rights and police ethics, counter-terrorism, facilitation skills for Police training officers and English language training.

  The FCO coordinated the UK's participation as lead nation in an EU twinning project with Estonia. Contacts established between the UK National Neighbourhood Watch Association and its Estonian counterpart in the context of this project have led to further cooperation between the two organisations.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with counterparts in the European Union about the legislative competencies covered by the draft European Constitution. [124755]

  Mr. MacShane
  Foreign Office Ministers and officials have had regular discussions with their counterparts in Member and Accession States on issues arising in the Convention on the Future of Europe.

  India
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Indian Government on the destruction of the national habitat for tigers in Rajastan for the mining of minerals to make talcum powder. [123668]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  While we have not raised this issue with the Government of India we are looking for an opportunity to do so soon. In the interim, the High Commission in New Delhi will monitor the situation.

  International Criminal Court
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court. [126173]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are presently 90 States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a full list of which may be found on the UN website www. un. org.

  IT Projects
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what major IT projects with a value in excess of £10,000 he authorised expenditure in each of the last three financial years. [125775]

  Mr. Rammell
  Expenditure has been authorised on the following major IT projects in the last three financial years:
  259W

  Expenditure in year

  Major IT Projects

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Prism—Personnel, finance and procurement system

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Internet—UK portal site providing British Public Sector Information

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Entry Clearance Modernisation—To support entry clearance modernisation

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Digital passport—Providing a modern machine readable passport system

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Consular Database—A centralised consular database

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Knowledge—FCO knowledge management system

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Of the above projects, expenditure on FTN, Prism, Digital passports and Consular database was approved by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Other expenditure on major projects was authorised through delegated authority.

  Liberia
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Liberia. [125299]

  Mr. Mullin
  There is a lull in the fighting in Liberia. On 10 July, the Joint Verification Team, comprising the UN, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and all sides in the conflict, began to verify and monitor the cease-fire. We continue to encourage all parties to respect the cease-fire and participate actively in the peace talks taking place in Ghana. The talks should lead to a negotiated political settlement and transitional government.

  The security and humanitarian situation is of serious concern. There are reports of 250,000 displaced civilians in Monrovia alone. Fuel, water and medical supplies are in short supply and looting is rife. A cholera outbreak has already killed more than 300 people. The UK has committed £2.5 million for humanitarian activity in Liberia this year, including £1.5 million as a response to the latest fighting.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to send British military personnel to Liberia. [125300]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are no plans to send UK troops to Liberia at present.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assesssment he has made of the effect of the exit from power of President Charles Taylor on the stability of Liberia. [125301]

  Mr. Mullin
  President Taylor has been a destabilising influence in Liberia and the region. The UK does not see a political future for him in Liberia. We hope that he will stand down as he has promised to do. The cease-fire agreement, signed in Ghana on 17 June, included provision for the formation of a transitional government, not including President Taylor. Peace talks currently taking place in Ghana aim to agree a political roadmap, leading to free and fair elections.

  On 4 June 2003 the Special Court for Sierra Leone unsealed an indictment for President Charles Taylor of Liberia as one of those who bear the greatest responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of international humanitarian law in Sierra Leone since 1996.
  260W
  The UK has called on Charles Taylor to surrender himself to the Court and continues to encourage all states, particularly those in the region, to cooperate with the Court and facilitate his arrest.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) the US Administration and (b) the Liberian Government concerning (i) the situation in Liberia and (ii) the possible deployment of a peacekeeping force. [125302]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have ongoing discussions with the US Administration at all levels concerning all aspects of the situation in Liberia, including the possible deployment of a peacekeeping force.

  There have been no discussions on the specifics of troop deployment with the Government of Liberia. However, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials met Samuel P Jackson, Minister of State for Financial and Economic Affairs in the Office of the President of Liberia, to discuss the current situation on 26 and 27 June.

  Turkmenistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Turkmenistan concerning raids made by the authorities on Baptist church services. [125836]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our Embassy in Ashgabat have made representations to the Turkmen government expressing our concern about the issue of raids on Baptist church services and harrassment of unregistered religious groups in Turkmenistan. We expressed the hope that no such further actions will be taken against peaceful congregations of an entirely religious character.

  The Turkmen authorities are well aware of our concerns on religious freedom issues, including the fact that only two denominations (Sunni Islam and the Russian Orthodox Church) have secured registration, despite others having reportedly fulfilled all necessary procedures.

  Uganda
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Uganda; and if he will make a statement. [125255]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are concerned about the deteriorating security situation in the north of Uganda following an upsurge in violence by the rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). We are particularly concerned about the impact on the local population and the recent
  261W
  abductions of school children. While we understand the Ugandan Government's aim of combating the LRA militarily, we have, through our High Commission in Kampala, encouraged them to consider all alternative methods of bringing the conflict to an end. We are also consulting with other donor partners in Uganda on ways to help resolve the conflict.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Administration Costs
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the equivalent figures for administration costs in Table 5, pl73 of the Annual Report 2003 were for 1996–97. [124853]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: The equivalent figures for administrative costs in Table 5, page 173 of the 2003 Home Office Annual Report for 1996–97 were published in the Running Costs table, page 85 of the 1999–2000 Home Office Annual Report.

  Advice Publication
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 646–47W, if he will publish the independent expert advice received by the Department. [125382]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 11 July 2003: We took advice on TETRA health and safety issues from the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB's) Independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR). The AGNIR report entitled "Possible health effects from Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA)" was published as Volume 12 No. 2, 2001 in the "Documents of the NRPB" series. It is available on the NRPB web site, http://www.nrpb.org.uk.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 23 June 2003,Official Report, column 595W, if he will list the buildings which have been identified as containing asbestos. [122966]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  No central records are kept on buildings, which contain asbestos. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, we can more readily provide details of buildings, which contain asbestos for certain parts of our estate. These are listed.

  Asbestos is only a risk to health if fibres are released into the air and breathed in. As long as it is in good condition and is not going to be disturbed or damaged there is no risk. The Department complies with the current regulations on asbestos. This ensures the safety of staff, contractors, inmates or visitors from asbestos. Department is taking steps to ensure that we will comply with the requirements of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 (which come into force in May 2004).

  Central London Headquarters estate:

  Queen Anne's Gate

  Horseferry House

  262W
  UK Passport Service

  Olympia House, Newport

  India Buildings, Liverpool

  Aragon Court, Peterborough

  Milburngate House, Durham

  National Probation Services Estate:

  Town Moor, 38/40 Christchurch Road, Doncaster

  Seafield Lodge, 71/73 Shoot Up Hill, London

  2 Corfton Road, Ealing

  St. Josephs Lodge, Miller Street, Patricroft

  172/174 Withington Road, Whalley Range, Manchester

  Carpenter House, 33 Portland Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham

  The above Probation Service buildings were identified as having asbestos from inspections carried out this year. Further surveys are being conducted on the remainder of the probation estate.

  HM Prison Service

  The following establishments have been identified as containing asbestos:

  Sudbury

  Ranby

  Stocken

  Garth

  Lancaster Farms

  Chelmsford

  Blundeston

  Whitemoor

  Dover

  Cookham Wood

  Swaleside

  Send

  Dorchester

  Channings Wood

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Holloway

  Hindley

  Styal

  Castington

  Low Newton

  Albany

  Bullingdon

  Stoke Heath

  Swinfen Hall

  Usk

  Lindholme

  Leeds

  Full Sutton

  Leicester

  Onley

  Lewes

  Doncaster

  Lincoln

  Foston Hall

  263W

  Wellingbrough

  Haverigg

  Preston

  Hollesley Bay

  The Grange

  Bullswood Hall

  Standford Hill

  Blantyre House

  High Down

  Gloucester

  The Verne

  Guys Marsh

  Shepton Mallet

  Latchmere

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Risley

  Kirklevington Grange

  Holme House

  Aylesbury

  Haslar

  Woodhill

  Werrington JC

  Drake Hall

  Frescoed

  Wetherby

  Northallerton

  Wakefield

  Shrewsbury

  Long Lartin

  Kingston

  Whatton

  Morton Hall

  Glen Parva

  Kirkham

  Wymott

  Bedford

  Wayland

  Highpoint

  Down view

  Ford

  Elmley

  Dartmoor

  Portland

  Erlestoke

  Eastwood Park

  Feltham

  Buckley Hall

  Thorn Cross

  Deerbolt

  Durham

  Parkhurst

  Grendon/Springhill

  264W

  Birmingham

  Featherstone

  Swansea

  Hull

  Wealstun

  Moorland

  New Hall

  Brockhill

  Reading

  Canterbury

  North Sea Camp

  Ashwell

  Gartree

  Lancaster Castle

  Norwich

  Highpoint (S)

  Littlehey

  Maidstone

  Rochester

  Coldingley

  East Sutton Park

  Exeter

  The Weare

  Leyhill

  Wandsworth

  Belmarsh

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Acklington

  Frankland

  Camp Hill

  Huntercombe

  Hewell Grange

  Newbold Revel

  Cardiff

  Everthorpe

  Askham Grange

  Hatfield

  Stafford

  Nottingham

  Winchester

  Wolds

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been granted exceptional right to work in the last 12 months: and what his estimate is of the number of asylum seekers who remain in employment which they commenced prior to the abolition of the employment concession. [124987]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information about the number of asylum seekers granted permission to work exceptionally in the last 12 months is not available centrally and could be obtained only by examination of individual case files.
  265W
  There are no estimates on the number of asylum seekers who remain in employment having been granted permission to work prior to the abolition of the employment concession.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made towards setting a target for the proportion of asylum cases to be decided within six months. [124991]

  Beverley Hughes
  The six-month target is the joint responsibility of the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Both Departments are

  Initial decisions on applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom1 for nationals of Iraq—1998 to 2002

  Number of principal applicants

  Cases considered under normal procedures3

  Backlog clearance exercise4

  Initial decisions2

  Granted asylum

  Granted ELR

  Refused

  Granted asylum or ELR under backlog criteria

  Refused under backlog criteria5

  1998

  1,100

  510

  500

  90

  —

  —

  1999

  745

  315

  320

  100

  5

  *

  2000

  5,530

  845

  2,455

  2,220

  10

  *

  20016

  8,880

  815

  1,855

  6,210

  —

  —

  20026

  11,785

  700

  8,130

  2,955

  —

  —

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

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

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

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

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

  6 Provisional data.

  Information on initial decisions on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the period up to June 2003, and will be available provisionally from 28 August 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigrationl. html

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi asylum seekers have been required to return to Iraq in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [125103]

  Beverley Hughes
  Excluding dependants, it is estimated that 195 Iraqi nationals who had sought asylum at some stage were removed in 2002. This figure includes persons deciding to leave after the initiation of enforcement action against them, and persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes run by the International Organization for Migration.

  Information on the destination of these removals is not available.

  Data on removals by nationality in the period January to March 2003 are due to be published on 28 August on the Home Office web-site www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnewl.html

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the UNHCR's observations on the situation in Iraq and large scale return of Iraqi refugees; [125104]

  (2) if he will implement a moratorium on (a) Iraqi asylum decisions and (b) the proposals to return rejected applicants. [125105]
  266W
  working closely to finalise a challenging but realistic target and will publish this as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi asylum applications have been refused in each of the last five years. [125101]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the number of Iraqi asylum applicants, excluding dependants, refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom between January 1998 and December 2002. These statistics relate to initial decisions only and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  Beverley Hughes
  Decision making on Iraqi asylum applications was suspended on 20 March 2003 at the onset of military action. The rapidly changing country conditions meant that there was insufficient information to make a fully considered decision, either positive or negative, about an applicant's claim and whether they would qualify for asylum under the United Nations Convention.

  We decided to resume processing of Iraqi asylum applications with effect from 16 June 2003. This coincided with a decision by the Independent Appellate Authority (IAA) to begin relisting asylum appeal hearings from the same date.

  While there remain security and humanitarian concerns in some areas, the threat of persecution from Saddam Hussein's regime no longer exists. We did not want to keep applications on hold longer than necessary given the uncertainty this creates for the individuals concerned. Having obtained information about conditions in Iraq from a range of sources, we concluded that there was sufficient information on which to base decisions As with asylum applications from all nationalities, each case will be considered individually on its merits.

  The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) is currently making preparations for the eventual return of large numbers of Iraqis and is developing a return and reintegration plan. UNHCR understands that there are people who wish to return right now and is aware that we are making plans for voluntary return programmes. We are aware of their concerns and will continue to work closely with them. With this in mind, we are developing a coherent returns

  267W
  strategy. Initially the emphasis will be on facilitating voluntary returns. Enforced returns will only be considered once we are satisfied that conditions on the ground allow for this.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) country of departure and (b) country of origin of asylum seekers who made an asylum claim at (i) Heathrow and (ii) Gatwick airports in each of the last five years. [125185]

  Beverley Hughes
  Data is not collated centrally on the origin or the country of departure of asylum seekers, only by nationality. To obtain information on the number of people, who claimed asylum at Heathrow and Gatwick, over the last five years, would be possible only by examination of individual case-files at a disproportionate cost.

  Community Support Officers
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has issued to chief constables on the(a) recruitment and (b) use of community support officers. [122882]

  Ms Blears
  The recruitment and deployment of community support officers (CSOs) is a matter for chief officers. In December 2002 the Home Office issued a "Frequently Asked Questions" document which gave some advice on these issues. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has also published a more detailed guidance document on CSOs, with material on both recruitment and deployment. This guidance is available to chief officers on the ACPO intranet site.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of community support officers. [125107]

  Ms Blears
  The 27 forces who received first round Community Support Officer (CSO) funding are required to carry out a formal evaluation of their schemes. I expect to receive their initial findings by the end of September. In addition to this I have already received a significant amount of informal evidence, such

  Consultation papers launched in 2001

  Title

  Number of responses

  Available figures for cost (£)

  Animal Procedures—review of the Ethical Review Process

  139

  35,000

  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000—New Laws for a successful Multi-Racial Britain

  302

  30,000

  Review of the victims Charter

  n/a

  n/a

  The Law on Extradition: a review

  15

  82,000

  Animal Rights Extremism: Government Strategy: A Consultation

  55

  n/a

  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 A consultation leaflet

  95

  2,155

  Guidance for the use of an Intermediary under s.29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  86

  80,617

  Funding Community Groups: a consultation document

  235

  3,742

  The Halliday Report—Making punishments work

  305

  75,000

  Consultation of use of X/Gamma Radiation Scanner.

  n/a

  n/a

  Extension of Civil Penalties to Freight Shuttle Wagons

  n/a

  n/a

  Consultation Paper on the Review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997

  46

  50,000 plus

  Accessing Communications data—draft code of practice

  n/a

  n/a

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code F

  10

  n/a

  Ratification of the Driving Disqualification Convention

  46

  n/a

  Review of Family Visitors Appeals

  n/a

  n/a

  268W
  as letters from members of the public, indicating that CSOs have been a great success in combating low level crime and reassuring the public.

  Consultation Documents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [124575]

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

  Stakeholder meetings

  Listening events/public meetings

  Web forums

  Public surveys

  Focus groups

  Regional events

  Free-phone and freepost surveys and events

  Targeted leaflet campaigns

  Road shows and exhibitions.

  It is standard practice for departments to evaluate the policy development process, including the use of consultation.

  Details of the number of consultation documents issued in each consultation exercise are not collated on a central basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Also provision of full details as requested for the years 1999–2000 would also incur disproportionate cost. However to give the fullest reply I can advise that the Home Office launched 19 consultations in 1999 and 28 consultation papers in 2000. Details of Home Office consultation publications can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/index, html

  The following table lists the consultations launched in 2001, 2002 plus those that were launched this year and for which the consultation period has concluded. I include figures for cost where available; methodology in calculating costs may vary.
  269W

  Consultation papers launched in 2001

  Title

  Number of responses

  A vailable figures for cost (£)

  Improving the planning of Young People Substance Misuse Services

  440

  n/a

  Fees for the removal and storage of vehicles, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

  21

  n/a

  White Paper 'Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for reform

  1,200

  n/a

  Death in Police Custody—Consultation paper on revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact

  14

  930

  Consultation papers launched in 2002

  Title

  Number of responses

  Available figures for cost

  Motor Salvage Operators Regulations 2002, made under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001

  26

  n/a

  Secure Borders Safe Haven—Integration with diversity in modern Britain

  330

  n/a

  Extension of controlled drugs licensing

  49

  n/a

  Proposed changes to the Misuse of Drugs legislation

  11

  n/a

  Review of Crime Reduction Training

  n/a

  n/a

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code A

  45

  n/a

  Review of Work Permit Policy on Recruitment of employment agencies and contractors

  54

  n/a

  Charging for the consideration of Work Permit applications

  135

  n/a

  Merger of CDRPs/DATs

  234

  n/a

  Working Holidaymaker Scheme: Consultation document

  84

  5,219 inc 4,750 staff costs

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code B

  28

  No separate costs available as part of wider review

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code C

  16

  No separate costs available as part of wider review

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code D

  105

  No separate costs available as part of wider review

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code E

  16

  No separate costs available as part of wider review

  Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud

  5,031

  Responses still being analysed. Too early to calculate cost.

  Breaking the Circle—A report of the review of the rehabilitation of offenders act

  68

  50,000

  Justice for All (Home Office, Attorney General and Lord Chancellor)

  242

  n/a

  Death in Police Custody—Consultation paper on revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact

  13

  n/a

  Protocol to the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters

  3

  n/a

  Proceeds of Crime Act Section 292—Code of Practice for search powers regarding recovery of criminal proceeds

  23

  2,652

  Proceeds of Crime Act—Part 7 (Money laundering) Section 339 Form and manner of disclosures.

  54

  2,964

  Fundamental review of death certification and the Coroner services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  500 +

  1.1 million for the review as a Whole. The writing issuing and consideration of the responses to the consultation document were not available separately.

  Criminal Justice White Paper: Proposals on jury exemptions and excusals PRIA

  56

  4,300

  Proceeds of Crime Act section 377—Investigation powers

  24

  3,325

  Proposals to make lawful the supply of specific items of drugs paraphernalia to drug users

  75

  n/a

  Implementation of juxtaposed controls at Calais

  13

  n/a

  IAA 1999 provision of facilities at ports and charging for additional services section 25/26 1999 Act

  8

  2,000

  Consultation papers launched in 2003 and closed to data.

  Title

  Number of responses

  Available figures for cost

  Sexual Offences Bill—sex offenders who travel abroad

  26

  n/a

  Insurance Cover Working Group paper (Voluntary Sector Insurance)

  n/a

  n/a

  Patient Group Directions (PGD)—Proposal to permit the supply of certain controlled drugs by health professionals under the PGD system.

  80

  n/a

  Criminal Records Bureau—reform of the disclosure process

  570

  11,400

  Access to communications data—respecting privacy and protecting the public from crime

  187

  66,167

  Retention of communications data—Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001

  54

  25,251

  Bind overs—a power for the 21st Century

  16

  3,500 approx

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum (NIA) Act 2002. Sections 134–139: Implementation of new information powers.

  16

  n/a

  Juxtaposed controls implementation—Dover-Calais

  10

  765

  270W 271W

  Consultation papers launched in 2003 and closed to date.

  Title

  Number of responses

  Available figures for cost

  Criminal Records Bureau—Basic Disclosure: Routing applications for basic disclosure through registered bodies

  358

  Still being analysed. Costs not known yet

  New sentencing guidance for the court of appeal on the crime of Robbery

  30—including one anticipated later response

  n/a

  Review of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme

  n/a

  n/a

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Crosby regarding delays in releasing persons subject to immigration control from Her Majesty's Prison Liverpool at the end of criminal sentences. [124240]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 14 July 2003.

  Crime (Older People)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what initiatives to tackle crimes against older people his Department is responsible. [124439]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 July 2003]: Elderly people are far less likely to suffer crime than younger people. But in recognition that crime against older people is particularly distasteful, we have funded several schemes specifically to tackle this problem.

  We set up a Distraction Burglary Task Force in 2000 to facilitate a multi-agency approach to reducing the problem of bogus callers and rogue traders. The task force includes people from different agencies who work with older people, such as Age Concern and Help the Aged, as well agencies such as the police. It has invested substantial resources and effort in promoting local schemes to tackle the problem, liaising with utility companies and others that need to call on the elderly, gathering data and publicising good practice both to the elderly and to those that work with them.

  Under the Crime Reduction Programme, we funded a two-year programme (the Locks for Pensioners scheme) to provide home security upgrades for low income pensioners in areas with burglary rates above the national average. The scheme was run in conjunction with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra's) Warm Front scheme, and, under it, over 58,000 homes received additional locks or bolts.

  The Locks for Pensioners scheme has ended. But it is now open to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships to fund local schemes where they identify crime against the elderly as a problem in their area. We cannot provide comprehensive data on locally funded projects for the elderly as this information is not held centrally. However, we know that interventions being implemented include improving the appearance and security of homes, sharing intelligence with all the involved agencies, educating people in crime reduction measures and providing reassurance and assistance.
  272W
  The work we are taking forward to tackle crime generally, while not solely aimed at older people, deals with many of the concerns they have about their safety.

  General initiatives which may have a particular impact on older people include the introduction of Community Support Officers tasked with tackling low-level crime and anti-social behaviour of the sort that causes older people much concern, and work with the Department of Health to evaluate the effectiveness of security technology in reducing crime and the fear of crime in two pilot hospitals and one ambulance service in England.

  Dangerous Dogs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities have initiated prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; how many have resulted in convictions; and how many dogs responsible for attacks were not ordered to be destroyed. [125648]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: It is not possible, in the statistics collected centrally, to identify those prosecutions initiated by local authorities.

  The available information, relating to all prosecutions and convictions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in England and Wales between 1992 and 2001 is given in the table.

  Figures for 2002 will be available in the autumn.

  Details of cases where dogs responsible for attacks are not destroyed are not collected centrally.

  Defendants1 proceeded against at magistrates' courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, England and Wales 1992–2001

  Year

  Proceeded against

  Found guilty

  1992

  1,222

  575

  1993

  984

  434

  1994

  617

  260

  1995

  554

  220

  1996

  449

  159

  1997

  504

  241

  1998

  764

  406

  1999

  802

  442

  20002

  823

  446

  2001

  886

  522

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire Police were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates' court for the year 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data these data are not robust at a detailed level and have been excluded from this table

  DCS Ellie Baker
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress is being made in the internal police investigation into the conduct of Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker; [123695]

  (2) if he will list (a) the name, (b) rank and (c) length of time for which they have been involved in the investigation of each officer involved in the internal police investigation of Detective Chief Superintende1nt Ellie Baker; [123696]

  (3) whether compensation will be paid to Detective Chief Superintendent Ellie Baker for the criminal investigation into her conduct. [123697]

  Ms Blears
  The West Midlands Police inform me that the internal investigation is drawing to a close. Independent legal advice has been sought and shared with the Police Complaints Authority, who are currently considering further written representations submitted by Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS) Baker in May, before they make their recommendations on whether she should face misconduct proceedings.

  The West Midlands Police inform me that the overall Senior Investigating Officer is Mr. Robert Quick, formerly a Commander of the Metropolitan Police Service and now the Deputy Chief Constable of Surrey Constabulary. Mr. Robert Quick has been involved in the case since the outset in November 2002. Other

  1. Crime Reduction Initiatives

  Initiatives that have been funded in Pendle for crime reduction purposes

  £

  Name of initiative

  Total amount of funding awarded

  CCTV

  2001–02

  201,000

  Communities against drugs

  2001–02 and 2002–03

  169,600

  Safer communities initiative

  2002–03

  32,125

  Partnership Development Fund (PDF)

  2002–03

  20,000

  Small Retailers in Deprived Areas (SRDA)

  2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04

  71,698

  Building Safer Communities Fund (BSC)

  2003–04

  120,867

  Basic Command Unit Fund (BCU)1

  2003–04

  1214,571

  Total

  (inclusive BCU) 829,861

  (exclusive BCU) 615,290

  1 BCU allocation is for the Pennine BCU which includes Burnley, Rossendale and Pendle. The allocation will be used across the BCU area; it is not possible to quantify how much will be utilised in Pendle itself.

  Interventions funded by crime reduction allocations included: a town centre Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system, targeted policing operations, mobile CCTV, an initiative on tackling domestic violence, supporting youth mentoring, installation of security improvements and funding community support workers.

  2. Community Cohesion Initiatives

  The Community Cohesion Pathfinder Programme, launched by the Home Office and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) in October 2002, aims to build examples of areas that are successfully mainstreaming community cohesion into all their core service delivery functions. The programme encompasses local authorities, the community and voluntary sector, and communities themselves. Pendle is one of the five authorities (together with Lancashire County Council,
  274W
  officers who have been involved in the internal investigation of DCS Baker are from the respective Professional Standards Units of the West Midlands Police and the Metropolitan Police Service and include ranks from Detective Constable up to Detective Superintendent. As these officers are often involved in covert policing methods investigating acts of serious corruption and unethical behaviour, the West Midlands Police do not wish to disclose their names and details publicly.

  The West Midlands Police advise me, however, that DCS Baker is aware of the actual identities of many of the officers involved in the investigation and, in particular, those who have performed key roles.

  At present the West Midlands Police consider that they would have no cause to pay compensation to DCS Baker.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [124093]

  Ms Blears
  Most of the policies initiated by the Home Office since 2001 have had an impact on Pendle as on other parts of the country. Our policies in the areas of crime reduction, community cohesion and policing are providing direct benefits to the people of Pendle, as follows.
  Burnley Borough Council, Hyndburn Borough Council, and Rossendale Borough Council) which make up the successful East Lancashire Community Cohesion Pathfinder. This will receive a total of £285,000 to spend in the period February 2003 to October 2004.

  The Home Office Community Cohesion Unit has worked closely with the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit of the ODPM, and through Government offices has funded community cohesion-focused activities for children and young people during the summer of 2001 and 2002 (in 2003 this has become incorporated into a single funded inter-Departmental programme). In 2001 around £7 million was provided for summer activities.

  Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP)

  On 29 October 2002, the Street Crime Action Group (SCAG) commissioned the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and

  275W
  Sport (DCMS) to report on the evaluation of summer activities in 2002 and on progress on simplifying funding.

  In December, SCAG approved the key design features and objectives of the new programme based on a simplified single pot for funding. The confirmed total funding pot for 2003–04 is £24.7 million. The formula for the new programme, which for the first time is being developed in each Local Education Authority (LEA) area in the North West, is a national one. It is based on three indicators of need: levels of truancy, offending rates (specifically rates of robbery), and the numbers of young people aged 8–19 in each area.

  It is not possible to provide a figure for Pendle, but each Government office has the flexibility to adjust the allocations by up to 15 per cent. of the regional total. The allocation to Lancashire has been increased by over £115,000 and GO-NW staff are looking to the LEA to take forward enhanced activities in east Lancashire in Burnley, Pendle and Hyndburn.

  The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit of the ODPM and Government offices have also funded the community facilitation programme, under which regional coordinators have been appointed to undertake conflict resolution work where tensions are identified, and to strengthen existing capacity for conflict resolution. This programme has raised the profile of community cohesion at the regional and local level and facilitated the building of relationships and Partnerships between agencies to address community cohesion and conflict. It has successfully supported the development of new approaches to addressing community conflicts.

  3. Police Initiatives

  Pendle, Rossendale and Burnley are boroughs within the Pennine division of the Lancashire constabulary. Lancashire as a whole has benefited from a £0.06 million rural policing grant. Each borough has its own Chief Inspector answering to the Chief Superintendent of Pennine Division. The force has informed us that the borough Pendle has benefited from the following Government initiatives.

  Government initiatives funding

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total

  Crime Fighting Fund (CFF)

  86

  169

  197

  240

  692

  Community Support Officers

  30

  50

  80

  Street Crime

  170

  70

  1 This is an equal portion of the 210,000 allocated to the Pennine Division

  Fly Tipping
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the steps the Government will take to improve detection and prosecution rates in conjunction with the planned sentencing review for fly tipping. [125126]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The environmental sentencing review is looking at sentencing from a broad perspective and is principally concerned with the sentence given to a particular offence, rather than preventative measures taken against it. We expect the results by the end of June.
  276W
  Specific measures to help tackle fly tipping have been proposed in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. If successful, the provisions will allow local authorities to stop, search and seize vehicles suspected of being used for fly tipping, and to investigate incidents to help them track and prosecute those responsible for dumping waste. The Bill will also give the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory directions to the Environment Agency and local authorities on the types of fly tipping incidents with which they deal.

  Further research into fly tipping will be carried out later this year that will focus on better enforcement, prevention and deterrents.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will earmark revenue from increases to fines for fly tipping for local authorities to spend on detection of fly tipping offences and prevention measures. [125127]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The issue of income from fines and whether this can be recycled to enforcement bodies to fund preventative action is a matter for Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Defra is however considering whether there is scope for using fixed penalty notice to help enforce duty of care legislation in particular.

  Immigration Facilities
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 25 June 2003,Official Report, column 866W on immigration holding cells, which independent bodies are responsible for inspecting the police and immigration facilities listed; and when the last inspection took place in each case. [124983]

  Beverley Hughes
  Independent custody visiting is the new name for lay visiting, the well established system where volunteers attend police stations to check on the treatment of detainees and the conditions in which they are held. Unannounced visits are made at varying times of the day and night, with volunteers having immediate access to the custody area. Heathrow and Stansted police stations were visited most recently on 14 and 25 June, respectively.

  Immigration holding rooms at ports are not at present subject to independent oversight. However, we have very recently invited Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, which performs a similar role in relation to immigration removal centres, to take on an inspection function for immigration short-term holding facilities, including holding rooms at ports, and we will be discussing with them the arrangements by which they might do so.

  Overstayers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people leaving the UK in the last two years were found to have overstayed the duration of their(a) visa and (b) work permit. [124982]

  Beverley Hughes
  The information requested is unavailable.

  Passports
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total number of United Kingdom passports in circulation was in each of the last 10 years. [124974]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total number of five year/10 year United Kingdom passports in circulation in each of the last 10 years is shown in the table:

  Number of passports

  1992

  24,302,691

  1993

  25,767,518

  1994

  27,808,451

  1995

  30,465,987

  1996

  33,596,434

  1997

  36,824,681

  1998

  38,609,485

  1999

  41,591,838

  2000

  43,608,145

  2001

  45,856,658

  2002

  47,383,796

  It should be noted that the UK Passport Service is not notified in every case of the death of a passport holder so these figures include some valid passports for deceased persons.

  Police
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the targets on which basic command units in each constabulary are assessed on a(a) quarterly and (b) annual basis. [124433]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office have not asked basic command units to set crime reduction targets. All police authorities have set targets for the reduction of vehicle crime and domestic burglary. In addition, the 10 police authorities involved in the street crime initiative have been asked to set targets for the reduction of robbery.

  It is for individual police authorities and forces to decide whether they would like their basic command units to set targets.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces in England are smaller than the City of Nottingham Division of the Nottinghamshire Constabulary. [124997]

  Ms Blears
  Information provided in June last year by the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police, Mr. Stephen Green QPM, showed that Nottingham

  (a) Number of police officers1

  (b) Police/population2

  (c) Government funding3£million

  (d) Funding per resident £ million

  (e) Precept on band D property (£)

  (f) Revenue raised through precept £ million4

  Avon and Somerset

  3,119

  476

  167.15

  113

  111.6

  58.63

  Bedfordshire

  1,086

  522

  63.73

  113

  93.4

  18.03

  Cambridgeshire

  1,398

  508

  75.95

  107

  113.3

  28.04

  Cheshire

  2,075

  474

  113.44

  115

  88.1

  31.32

  Cleveland

  1,488

  364

  87.43

  162

  120.2

  19.54

  Cumbria

  1,112

  439

  61.43

  126

  130.7

  21.84

  Derbyshire

  1,970

  486

  103.74

  108

  111.8

  34.88

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,145

  502

  172.41

  109

  103.3

  58.23

  278W
  City Division had 789 police officers. Only the City of London Police force was smaller with 764 officers in March 2002.

  Police National Computer
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to pass data from the Police National Computer to non-Home Department police forces which do not have direct access; and what procedures exist to ensure data protection requirements are complied with in such circumstances. [124945]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 July 2002]: Access by non-Home Department police forces to the Police National Computer is either through secure police national computer terminals in those forces or through Home Department police forces.

  Non-Home Department police forces have to meet the same stringent data protection procedures and requirements that apply to Home Department forces.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which non-Home Department police forces have direct access to the Police National Computer. [124946]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 July 2003]: The non-Home Department police force listed have direct access to the Police Nation al Computer.

  British Transport;

  States of Jersey;

  Guernsey;

  Northern Ireland;

  Isle of Man;

  Ministry of Defence;

  Port of Dover;

  RAF Provost;

  Royal Military Police (Army Provost); and

  UK Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of police officers, (b) the ratio of police officers to residents, (c) the amount of Government funding received, (d) the amount of Government funding per resident, (e) the precept levied on a Band D property and (f) the overall sum raised by the precept for each police authority in England in the last year for which figures are available [116897]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is provided in the table.
  279W

  (a) Number of police officers1

  (b) Police/population2

  (c) Government funding3 £ million

  (d) Funding per resident £ million

  (e) Precept on band D property (£)

  (f) Revenue raised through precept £ million4

  Dorset

  1,402

  495

  64.94

  94

  123.4

  33.80

  Durham

  1,655

  358

  85.23

  144

  79.6

  14.14

  Essex

  2,988

  541

  165.55

  102

  93.0

  56.51

  Gloucestershire

  1,171

  482

  60.88

  108

  142.6

  29.64

  Greater Manchester

  7,352

  338

  403.88

  163

  91.7

  69.77

  Hampshire

  3,592

  495

  201.03

  113

  97.3

  62.80

  Hertfordshire

  1,902

  544

  105.74

  102

  98.3

  41.36

  Humberside

  2,114

  411

  116.69

  134

  113.0

  30.67

  Kent

  3,434

  460

  193.37

  122

  95.0

  55.88

  Lancashire

  3,378

  419

  185.78

  131

  87.6

  39.56

  Leicestershire

  2,086

  443

  104.31

  113

  104.8

  31.02

  Lincolnshire

  1,214

  534

  63.69

  98

  104.4

  22.31

  Merseyside

  4,118

  331

  255.88

  188

  101.5

  42.25

  Metropolitan Police5

  27,645

  260

  1,902.88

  265

  159.1

  443.75

  Norfolk

  1,481

  539

  88.54

  111

  122.0

  33.70

  Northamptonshire

  1,202

  525

  68.53

  109

  130.1

  27.73

  Northumbria

  4,006

  345

  223.58

  162

  63.8

  26.56

  North Yorkshire

  1,404

  535

  75.26

  100

  156.0

  43.58

  Nottinghamshire

  2,397

  424

  131.49

  129

  109.3

  34.37

  South Yorkshire

  3,217

  394

  185.35

  146

  94.3

  34.38

  Staffordshire

  2,169

  483

  115.45

  110

  126.5

  43.06

  Suffolk

  1,228

  545

  68.29

  102

  109.4

  25.67

  Surrey

  1,986

  533

  93.33

  88

  135.1

  63.75

  Sussex

  2,933

  510

  163.05

  109

  97.7

  57.89

  Thames Valley

  3,830

  546

  220.83

  106

  106.2

  86.13

  Warwickshire

  1,007

  503

  52.97

  105

  117.3

  22.07

  West Mercia

  2,048

  566

  112.25

  97

  119.8

  49.66

  West Midlands

  7,855

  325

  422.27

  165

  71.2

  54.53

  West Yorkshire

  4,999

  416

  306.48

  147

  88.8

  56.08

  Wiltshire

  1,167

  526

  62.41

  102

  109.7

  25.18

  Total for England

  122,373

  409

  7,145.21

  145

  —

  1,928.31

  1 Officers at 30 September 2002.

  2 Population per police officer.

  3 Government funding shown is revenue police and specific grants and RSG/NNDR. Police authorities also received capital grant of £117 million and supplementary credit approvals (grant supported borrowing authority) of £73 million, plus, £12 million loan charges grant as support for costs of capital incurred before 1990.

  4 Data on precepts in columns (e) and (f) provided by ODPM. The average Band D property rate (per household) is £109 for shire authorities and £84 for metropolitan authorities (excluding the GLA) in respect of 2003–04.

  5 City of London police numbers and police specific grant information is included with the Metropolitan police. Precept information relates to MPA only.

  6 Remaining specific grants funds of £201 million have not yet been allocated.

  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 821W, on police vehicle accidents, how many road traffic accidents there were, broken down by category of incident, including accidents which did not involve another vehicle. [124994]

  Ms Blears
  Police force statistical returns do not separately identify police vehicle accidents by category of incident.

  Policing
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in post in Leicestershire Police Authority in(a) each year between 1991–92 and (b) the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [125256]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.
  280W

  Leicestershire police authority

  At 31 March

  Police strength

  Civilian support staff strength

  1992

  1,845

  676

  1993

  1,805

  661

  1994

  1,825

  646

  1995

  1,839

  679

  1996

  1,908

  667

  1997

  1,949

  755

  1998

  1,983

  774

  1999

  1,993

  802

  2000

  1,993

  805

  2001

  2,033

  806

  2002

  2,100

  816

  2002 (30 September)

  2,086

  n/a

  Police officer strength in Leicestershire has increased by 137 since March 1997. This is an increase of seven per cent. and is significantly higher than the national increase for the same period of 3.4 per cent.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to create a separate police force for the city of Nottingham. [125154]
  281W
  Ms Blears
  The Secretary of State may make alterations to the boundaries of police areas by order under sections 32 to 34 of the Police Act 1996. He may only do so if he has either received a request to make alterations from the relevant police authority or authorities or if it seems to him that it is expedient to make changes in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. I have received no such request from Nottinghamshire Police Authority nor am I aware of any evidence that indicates that the policing of either the city of Nottingham or the county of Nottinghamshire would be improved by creating a separate force for the city.

  Robberies
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise his Department's target for the reduction of robberies. [124960]

  Ms Blears
  The national Public Service Agreement (PSA) target is to reduce robbery in the 10 street crime initiative areas by 14 per cent. from 1999–2000 to 2005, and maintain that level. The Government has no current plans to revise the target.

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. [115580]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael), on 12 June 2003, Official Report, Column 1017W. Ministers in the Home Office arrange meetings with Ministers in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and with the Chairman of the Countryside Agency (Ewen Cameron) at regular intervals to discuss rural affairs. At the last such meeting, on 3 February this year, Ewen Cameron, Alun Michael and my hon. Friend Bob Ainsworth met to discuss Home Office policy on rural affairs and rural proofing.

  Savitaben Hasmukbhai Patel
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the case of Savitaben Hasmukbhai Patel born 12 July 1947, sent to the Integrated Casework Directorate in Liverpool on 28 May by recorded delivery (no. RE620118685GB); and when a decision will be made on the application. [122793]

  Area

  Minister

  Dates of visits

  London

  John Denham (Home Office)

  20 February 2003

  From July 2003:

  Hazel Blears (Home Office)

  Ivan Lewis (Department for Education and Skills)

  Greater Manchester

  Lord Falconer (Department for Constitutional Affairs)

  12 February 2003

  23 May 2003

  Merseyside

  Yvette Cooper (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

  20 February 2003

  West Yorkshire

  Hilary Benn (Department for International Development)

  24 April 2003

  282W
  Beverley Hughes
  The application was decided on 27 June.

  Senior Departmental Posts
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many senior departmental posts were advertised in each year since June 1999; and how many of those were advertised in the Scottish press. [120667]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Specific records of the number of posts advertised are not maintained by the Home Office. Following investigations we have been able to ascertain that two senior posts were advertised in 2000; three were advertised in 2001; three in 2002 and three have been advertised to date in 2003. The figures for 1999 are not available.

  Posts are advertised in the British press. The Home Office, as a department whose functions are primarily England and Wales, has not advertised posts in newspapers or journals published only in Scotland.

  Street Crime Initiative
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cost of the street crime initiative. [124989]

  Ms Blears
  On 1 May 2002 my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that £67 million had been allocated to tackle Street Crime in 2002–03. On 5 December 2002 the Home Secretary announced that a further £25 million would be provided in 2003–04 to support continued police operations against street crime.

  In addition, a number of other funding streams and work programmes both within the Home Office and from other Government Departments, have contributed directly and indirectly to tackling street crime. Most of these programmes have, however, had broader agendas, and it is not possible therefore to attribute a precise cost to the street crime element.

  Street Crime Initiative
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which sponsor ministers are attached to each of the 10 street crime areas; and when each minister visited his allocated area in the last six months. [124988]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is included in the table:
  283W

  Area

  Minister

  Dates of visits

  South Yorkshire

  Ivan Lewis (Department for Education and Skills)

  21 January 2003

  8 April 2003

  21 May 2003

  11 June 2003

  Thames Valley

  Barbara Roche (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

  13 January 2003

  From July 2003

  Chris Leslie (Department for Constitutional Affairs)

  Avon and Somerset

  Baroness Blackstone (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)

  21 February 2003

  9 May 2003

  From July 2003

  Estelle Morris (Department for Culture Media and Sport)

  Lancashire

  Hazel Blears (Home Office)

  6 February 2003

  Nottinghamshire

  Ruth Kelly (Her Majesty's Treasury)

  16 January 2003

  3 April 2003

  From July 2003

  Melanie Johnson (Department of Health)

  West Midlands

  Lord Rooker (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister)

  6 June 2003

  Vehicle Crime
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce vehicle crime. [125009]

  Ms Blears
  In September 1998, the Government announced a target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over five years. The Vehicle Crime Reduction Action Team (VCRAT) was set up at the same time to develop and oversee the implementation of initiatives to meet this target. They published their strategy on 22 September 1999.

  Their main proposals included improved security of new and used cars, improved car park security, better policing and community responses which targeted prolific offenders and crime hotspots, improved vehicle registration procedures, statutory regulation of the motor salvage industry and a publicity campaign to get vehicle crime prevention messages across to the public. Good progress is being made in implementing all these initiatives and some have been developed further. For example, work is in hand to make further improvements to vehicle registration procedures and we are working more closely with some local authorities and voluntary and community groups to get across vehicle crime prevention messages.

  The latest published British Crime Survey shows that, from interviews in the year to December 2002, there were an estimated 2,306,000 vehicle crimes (i.e. thefts of or from vehicles or attempts). This is a reduction of 703,000 offences (23 per cent.) against the baseline of the British Crime Survey 2000 (which estimated crime in 1999).

  Vehicle Recovery
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles were recovered by recovery agents contracted to police forces in each of the last 10 years; and at what cost. [124984]
  284W
  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Voluntary Sector
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of how the voluntary sector will be affected if people work to an older age in paid employment. [124583]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Government published `Equality and Diversity: Age Matters' on 2 July 2003. It seeks views on proposals for the implementation of new anti-discrimination law under the European Employment Directive. It is the first consultation to focus exclusively on proposals for age legislation. The Department of Trade and Industry is the lead department on this matter and The Active Community Unit have been invited to respond.

  Information gleaned from the Home Office Citizenship Survey 2000, shows that employed people have a higher propensity to volunteer and the development of the Corporate Challenge, launched on 7 July 2003, will contribute to increasing the number of employee-supported volunteering opportunities.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were granted in 2002 for unskilled occupations. [123781]

  Beverley Hughes
  None. Work permits were not issued for unskilled work in 2002.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were granted in the first six months of 2003 for unskilled occupations. [123782]

  Beverley Hughes
  No work permits were issued for unskilled work in the first quarter of 2003. Figures for the second quarter will not be available until end of August 2003.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Domestic Violence Helpline
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the 24-hour national helpline for victims of domestic violence will be available in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on its operations. [121259]

  Yvette Cooper
  A national 24-hour telephone helpline service for victims of domestic violence already exists in Northern Ireland. This is run by the Women's Aid Federation of Northern Ireland (NIWAF). It offers advice, support and crisis intervention for abused women, as well as information and guidance to all agencies relating to specific cases. The experienced and trained staff receive around 35,000 calls a year.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also working with Comic Relief on the production of an online information system that will be available for domestic violence service providers and the major helpline services across the UK. This will enable NIWAF to provide key information to people who call the helpline in Northern Ireland more quickly than before, and with the most up to date data on refuge vacancies, so people can be directed to the most appropriate support quickly and effectively.

  Homeless Families
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on recent progress made in finding permanent homes for homeless families in priority need. [125853]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Homelessness Directorate in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to foster sustainable communities by tackling homelessness more effectively and, in particular, delivering the Government's target to:end the use of B&B hotels for homeless families with children, except in short-term emergencies by March 2004.

  The Directorate has a budget of £260 million over the three years 2003–04 to 2005–06, most of which will be allocated to local authorities in support of their homelessness strategies, which they must have in place by 30 July 2003. The strategy must aim to prevent homelessness and ensure that accommodation and support are available for people who become homeless or are at risk of doing so. This funding will also assist local authorities in their efforts to tackle B&B use.

  The Directorate is investing £17 million over 2003/04/ 05 to support London & Quadrant Housing Trust to provide around 500 family houses for homeless households. Homes are being funded within the Housing Corporation's Social Housing Grant regime across a number of London boroughs where there are currently high numbers of black and minority ethnic households in temporary accommodation including B&B hotels.

  Affordable housing has a vital role to play in tackling homelessness. As detailed in the Sustainable Communities Plan, £5 billion is being invested in affordable housing over the next three years. This will make a further contribution to preventing homelessness and moving families out of B&B.
  286W
  In 2003–04 we are increasing the funding for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme to around £1.5 billion in 2003–04 to provide homes for both rent and low cost home ownership—an increase of £500 million on last year. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expect the Housing Corporation's programme, including the Challenge Fund in London and South-east England, to deliver around 22,000 homes this year.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria were used by the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to select the five resorts chosen for the award of £30 million over three years; and for what reason the selection was limited to five authorities. [124763]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID2000) have been used to determine Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) eligibility and the basis of distribution of the grant between eligible authorities. The Department decided that those authorities that appear within the top 50 most deprived districts on any of the six district level measures in the ID2000 should be eligible for the NR F. On this basis 81 authorities are eligible. It was also decided that there should be transitional arrangements for those authorities that were within the 50 most deprived areas on any of the four measures under the old Index of Local Deprivation, but are not in the list of 81 authorities that qualify using the ID2000. Therefore, a further seven local authority areas are eligible for the Fund. The 88 local authorities that are eligible for NRF and the amounts allocated to each authority in 2003/04 are listed in Annex A of the Special Grant Report 111 (SGR 111).

  The sum to be allocated to each authority is based on a standard amount per head of population in those wards in the authority that are in the most deprived 10 per cent. of all wards nationally, with a minimum allocation in 2003–04 of £400,000 for any eligible authority. This relates an authority's grant funding to the severity of deprivation within its area, measured by the number of their residents living in particularly deprived areas.

  Affordable Homes
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many affordable homes have been built; and how much has been spent in each constituency in each year since 1997. [125565]

  Keith Hill
  Information on the number of affordable homes built since 1997 and the expenditure is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the actions his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [117711]
  287W
  Yvette Cooper
  Preparations for compliance with the new duties in respect of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 are under way across the estate of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Records of the estimated costs of compliance are not yet available.

  Bed-and-breakfast Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) women and (b) men were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation on 31 March. [125023]

  £

  Policies

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Revenue Support Grant

  3.9 million

  4.3 million

  4.3 million

  5.4 million

  Redistributed National Non Domestic Rates

  3.2 million

  3.1 million

  3.5 million

  3.1 million

  Central Government Capital Grant

  1.0 million

  1.7 million

  0.4 million

  0.4 million

  Credit Approvals Available (covers housing, transport, social services, education)

  3.0 million

  1.5 million

  2.3 million

  2.7 million

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Note1

  1.0 million

  1.5 million

  2.0 million

  Community Empowerment Fund

  Note1

  115,000

  115,000

  115,000

  Community Chest

  Note1

  77.5,000

  116,000

  179,500

  Community Chest

  Note1

  77,500

  116,000

  179,500

  Community Learning Chest

  Note1

  Note1

  31,000

  46,500

  European Funding

  Note2

  1 Neighbourhoold Renewal Funding, Community Chest and Community Empowerment Fund were not available until 2001–02 and Community Learning Chest was not available until 2001–02.

  2 Pendle has transition status under the 2000–06 NW Objective 2 programme. Since 2001, the East Lancashire Partnership has been allocated £13 million ERDF for its transition areas for business support activity. The Pendle Partnership has also been allocated £2.6 million ERDF for its community development programme.

  3 Pendle will also benefit from a proportion of the Housing Market Renewal Fund. This is a long-term project that will identify ways to tackle problems of housing low demand and abandonment in East Lancashire.

  EU Regulations
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulations originating from the EU have been implemented by his Department over each of the last five years. [120862]

  Yvette Cooper
  No new European Union regulations have been implemented by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since its creation in May 2002. We continue to implement existing regulations including those relating to structural funds.

  Funding (Sefton
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which wards and programmes since 1997 within Sefton have benefited from(a) capital investment in housing, (b) major repairs allowance, (c) disabled facilities grants, (d) Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, (e) Community Empowerment Fluid, (f) Community Chest and Community Learning Chests, (g) the Objective One Programme, (h) the Objective Two Programme, (i) the Objective Three Programme, (j) the Community Champions Fund, (k) Pathfinder Young Community Champions Fund, (l) Sustainable Development Regional Promotional Budget, (m) Renewable Energy Programme, (n) Building Safer Communities, (o) Wardens Scheme, (p) Small Retailer in Deprived Areas, (q) Partnership Development and (r) Partnership Support Programme since 1997. [124386]
  288W
  Yvette Cooper
  A summary of information being collected from local authorities on the type and gender of homeless households in bed and breakfast accommodation as at 31 March 2003 will be available later in the year in due course.

  Departmental Policies (Pendle)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [124091]

  Yvette Cooper
  The principal kinds of funding which this department has provided to Pendle since 2001 are tabled.

  Yvette Cooper
  Due to the nature of the grants it is difficult to break down allocated funds to specific wards. Here are the programmes that have received funding:

  (a) £4.852 million (2003–4).

  (b) £7.37 million (2002–03), £7.191 million (2003–04).

  (c) £713,000 (2002–03), £720,000 (2003–04).

  All the above can be borough wide. Major repairs allowance is only for use on local authority stock.

  (d) £12.671 million (2001–04), £16,893 (2004–06)—Neighbourhood Renewal Fund is not prescribed, but intended for spend in the most deprived wards.

  (e) £435,423 (2001–04), £290,282 (2004–06) for use to set up a borough-wide community network.

  (f) £651,015 (2001–04), £657,050 (2004–06) Community Chest.

  £128,996 (2001–04), £154,796 (2004–06) Community Learning Chests.

  (g) The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information on levels of European funding at ward level. Also, as the Objective One programme is Merseyside-wide in scope, a substantial amount of programme-funded activity will be delivered by organisations that have a pan-Merseyside remit. A project based in one particular area (often at the organisations head office) will therefore draw beneficiaries, or have benefits, and spend money outside

  289W
  its immediate locality. However, Sefton will benefit from the £160 million invested through Objective One in Merseyside in 2002.

  (h) Areas that receive Objective One monies are not eligible for either Objective Two or Objective Three funding, therefore, it is nil return.

  (i) See above.

  (j) There are seven Community Champions receiving a total of £7,257.09.

  Current Community Champions include:

  Colette Sheerin Oscroft, No. 35—£416; Tony Roberts, No. 63—£1,000; Ian Mackinson, No. 65—£180; Margi Robinson, No. 73 —£1,209.82; Mary French, No. 74— £457.50; John Cunningham, No. 76—£2,000; Eileen Green, No. 100—£1,993.77.

  (k) Nil return. Sefton does not receive Pathfinder Young CC as they are not an eligible area. DfES ran a national competitive bidding process which Sefton did not enter.

  (l) £500 in 2000 to help the local authority with Local Agenda 21 issues.

  (m) Between 1998 and 2002, Government Office for the North West employed an energy and environmental adviser who visited 87 businesses in the Sefton area promoting environmental management and resource efficiency. This cost GONW approximately £9,000.

  (n) Sefton has been awarded £298,500 (2003–4).

  (o) There are no Wardens Schemes being managed by GONW in Sefton at present.

  (p) £21,000 (2001–02), £29,000 2002–03, £29,000 2003–04. Match funding has also been obtained for all three years from the South Sefton Partnership and all South Sefton wards have been benefited.

  (q) £50,000 awarded for the years 2001–03.

  (r) Allocated on a regional level for 2002–03. Awarded six days consultancy to Sefton CDRP to develop a partnership—Training Needs.

  Growth Area Assessments
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) organisations and (b) consultants are carrying out the Growth Area Assessments in respect of the Milton Keynes and South Midland Study; and what the costs of these assessments are. [123973]

  Yvette Cooper
  Roger Tym and Partners in association with Halcrow and Three Dragons, DTZ Pieda Consulting and Faber Maunsell, and Entec UK Ltd. in association with Faber Maunsell and Bone Wells Associates carried out the Growth Area Assessments for local and regional partners. The total cost of these assessments was approximately £225,000.

  Home Information Packs
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the responses to the consultation on home information packs. [125043]

  Keith Hill
  Yes. Copies of responses to the consultation on the draft Housing Bill as well as the two complementary consultation papers "The home information pack in low demand low value areas" and "Contents of the home information pack" will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many homeless families are in priority need in each local authority; [124667]

  (2) how many homeless families in priority need are temporarily housed in each type of accommodation; [124679]

  (3) what proportion of homeless families in priority need have children; and how many (a) children and (b) children under five are members of such families; [124681]

  (4) what proportion of members of homeless families in priority need (a) have criminal records and (b) are on a drug rehabilitation scheme; [124682]

  (5) what proportion of homeless families in priority need have a family member who is registered unemployed. [124683]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's latest Statistical Release on statutory homelessness, covering figures for England up to the end of March 2003, was published on 17 June 2003.

  Information summarised in Table 4 shows that 129,320 households were accepted as homeless and in priority need by local authorities in England during 2002–03. In some 53 per cent. of these cases the presence of a dependent child or children in the household was cited as the most relevant factor in determining priority need. It is estimated that these families contained some 115,000 children; no information is collected centrally on the ages of children.

  Table 7 shows that on 31 March 2003, 90,680 homeless households were in some form of temporary accommodation arranged by local authorities. This includes household; accommodated pending the local authority's decision on the application.

  An expanded breakdown of all homelessness decisions, acceptances and numbers in various types of temporary accommodation as reported by individual local authorities is presented in Supplementary Tables accompanying the Statistical Release.

  Information about the number of people in households accepted as homeless who have criminal records, are in a drug rehabilitation scheme or are unemployed, is not collected centrally.

  National and regional PIE-based figures—which include estimates for non-responding local authorities—appear in a quarterly Statistical Release, available in the Library and via the ODPM website. An accompanying Supplementary Table presents key data at regional and local authority level. The ODPM website link is: http://www.housing.odpm.gov.uk/ statistics/publicat/homelessness/index. htm#quarterly

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of homeless families in priority need have a family member registered disabled. [124696]

  Yvette Cooper
  During 2002/03, local authorities in England accepted over 129,000 households as being homeless and in priority need. Precise information on the number of these containing a person registered as disabled is not collected centrally, and could only be
  291W
  provided at disproportionate cost. However, in some 7,000 (5 per cent) of these cases the vulnerability of a household member due to a physical disability was reported as the most relevant factor in determining priority need; in a further 11,000 (9 per cent.) cases a mental illness or disability was considered the most relevant.

  Although a household may be eligible under more than one priority need category, authorities are only asked to record the one which they deemed most relevant to their decision. It is possible that some households which were accepted because, for example, there were dependent children would also contain a person with a physical or mental disability.

  The above statistics are included in the latest quarterly Statistical Release on statutory homelessness, issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on 17 June and covering statistics up to end March 2003. Copies are available in the library of the House.

  Ms. Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to commission an inquiry into the(a) experiences and (b) causes of hidden homelessness in response to the recommendation contained in the Executive Summary of Housing and BME communities: A review of the evidence base. [124705]

  Yvette Cooper
  Following publication for the first time in September 2002 of local authority homelessness statistics in relation to homelessness amongst black and minority ethnic communities, the Homelessness Directorate in my Department commissioned research to investigate the causes of homelessness amongst people from different black and minority ethnic groups and whether existing homelessness services meet their needs. This work is focused on BME households who have been accepted by the local authority as having a priority need for accommodation, but will cover issues around what the review of evidence in relation to housing and black and minority ethnic communities referred to as "so-called hidden homelessness". The current research is due to report in the Autumn and will include good practice recommendations on effective responses to homelessness for people from different black and minority ethnic groups.

  In addition to this research, the Homelessness Act 2002 requires all local authorities to conduct a review of homelessness and have a strategy based on that review. The first strategies must be in place by 30 July this year and must aim to prevent homelessness and ensure that accommodation and support are available for people who become homeless or are at risk of doing so. Statutory and good practice guidance issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister emphasises the need for reviews, strategies and homelessness services to address the needs of black and minority ethnic communities.

  Earlier this year, the Homelessness Directorate sponsored a series of seminars around the country designed to help local authorities and other agencies engage with, and address the needs of, faith and black and minority ethnic communities in conducting homelessness reviews and developing homelessness strategies and services.
  292W
  A breakdown of homelessness amongst black and minority ethnic groups is now published quarterly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's regular statistical release on homelessness. The Homelessness Directorate will keep the extent of homelessness amongst black and minority ethnic communities, and the evidence base relating to that, under review.

  Housing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses in Shrewsbury and Atcham are second homes for(a) local and (b) out of area residents. [125627]

  Keith Hill
  According to the 2001 Census there were 189 second homes in Shrewsbury and Atcham. Information is not available on whether they were owned by local or out of town residents.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the prudential framework will be available to local housing authorities. [126129]

  Keith Hill
  The Government's hope is to introduce the prudential borrowing system for all local authorities on 1 April 2004. However, that depends upon early completion of the remaining Parliamentary stages of the Local Government Bill, which is currently before the House of Lords.

  NDPBs
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which of the advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) hold public meetings, (b) conduct public consultation exercises, (c) conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests, (d) publish a register of members' interests, (e) publish agendas for meetings and (f) publish the minutes of meetings (i) under a statutory requirement and (ii) voluntarily. [121793]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sponsors seven advisory non-departmental public bodies. Of these:

  a) the Boundary Commission for England and the Boundary Commission for Wales hold public meetings. This is a statutory requirement;

  b) the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, the Boundary Commission for England and the Boundary Commission for Wales conduct public consultation exercises. This is a statutory requirement for the Boundary Commissions;

  c) no advisory non-departmental public bodies conduct consultation exercises with outside commercial interests. This is not a statutory requirement;

  d) the Community Forum, Boundary Commission for England and Boundary Commission for Wales voluntarily publish a register of members' interests. In addition the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, Building Regulations Advisory Committee and the Property Advisory Group keep a register which can be made available on request;

  e) no advisory non-departmental public bodies publish agendas for meetings. This is not a statutory requirement;

  f) no advisory non-departmental public bodies publish minutes of meetings. This is not a statutory requirement.

  All of these bodies are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which requires each of them to put in place a Publication Scheme by February 2004 for classes of material that they intend to

  293W
  publish. They will also need to comply with the access to information provisions of the Act when it comes fully into force at the start of 2005.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been paid by(a) his Department and (b) executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations for which he is accountable to staff or former staff in respect of (i) alleged equal opportunities breaches which did not proceed to tribunals or courts and (ii) equal opportunities breaches which proceeded to tribunals or courts in (A) the current year and (B) each of the two previous years; and how many staff received payments in each case. [121795]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established on 29 May 2002. Since that date, one allegation of breach of equal pay legislation was settled before proceedings were issued.

  In addition, two allegations of racial discrimination were settled after proceedings had been issued.

  Two further cases arose in an executive NDPB and were settled before proceeding to tribunal or court; allegations of breach of equal opportunities rules formed only part of these.

  It would be inappropriate to give financial details of the settlements, which are confidential to the individuals concerned.

  There have been no cases citing equal opportunity breaches raised in the executive agencies, or other organisations for which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is accountable.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding is available to enable successful neighbourhood warden schemes to continue. [124623]

  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. With this in mind 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 to assist scheme managers achieve sustainability for their warden schemes.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister continues to promote the wardens approach, particularly as a key element of neighbourhood management, and where possible will do all that is necessary to help successful schemes continue.

  New Posts
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new, additional positions have been created in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister since May 2002. [121809]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since its creation in May 2002, the Office of the Deputy Minister has been reorganising internally to ensure its structure is the most appropriate to meet its objectives, and this has led to some posts 294W
  being discontinued and some being created. All staff costs have been met within the Office of the Deputy Minister's administration budgets.

  Pilots, Trials and Research Studies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the pilots, trials and research studies funded by his Department which have been conducted since 2002, indicating(a) the title, summary and duration of the pilot or trial, (b) the target population and total number of participants and (c) when each pilot, trial or research finding was published; and if he will list the research bodies and organisations outside his Department which were involved in each pilot, trial or research study. [121777]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since 2002 the Office funded 68 projects of which four were pilots. The following pilots/ trials were commissioned.

  EHCS Follow Up Pilot with Local Authorities:

  A Study in a selection of local authorities to identify the levels of information that local authorities could provide about dwellings on an individual basis, which will be used to inform the direction of future EHCS Postal Survey (or its replacement).

  Let to: NFO Social Research Started 27/5/03 ends 4/7/03 No Publications yet.

  Target population—Local Authorities

  Total No. of participants: 12

  Home Condition Report (HCR)—Technical Pilot:

  This aims to test the effectiveness (technical accuracy and consistency) of the HCR on a number of property types.

  Let to: Building Research Establishment

  Started 7/1/2003 ends 15/8/2003–06–25

  No Publications yet.

  Target population/participants: It involves 25 surveyors spread across the same four locations carrying out HCRs, (Cardiff, Coventry, Hertfordshire and Sheffield), on 20 "test" properties.

  Home Condition Report Consumer Pilot/Surveyor Management contract: (Two contracts, but part of the same piece of work).

  The research will pilot the Home Condition Report (HCR), an element of the proposed Home Information Pack, with consumers to explore their understanding and use of the HCR.

  Let to: Building Research Establishment

  Started 9/5/03 to 31/10/03

  No Publications yet

  Target population: Home buyers and sellers

  Total no: of participants:

  A total of 290 home buyers and sellers from four locations (Cardiff, Coventry, Hertfordshire and Sheffield). A total or 40 estate agents (10 in each of the above four locations) 22 surveyors (spread across the four locations).

  The research projects commissioned by the Office since 2002 are listed in the following table with the research bodies and organisations involved.
  295W

  Research Projects Commissioned by ODPM since 2002

  Research Project

  Contractor

  Accessible Play Space

  Inclusion, Childhood & Ed Research & Consultancy Ltd.

  Alternative Funding for Stock Transfer

  Howard Webb

  Best value performance standards 2002–03

  Llewelyn-Davies

  Counting Gypsies and Travellers

  University of Birmingham

  Developing a planning aid fundraising strategy

  RTPI

  Developing a planning aid service in the south west region

  RTPI

  Developing alternative data sources for a national assessment of previously developed land

  University of the West of England

  EHCS Follow up Pilot with Local Authorities

  NFO System Three

  Evaluation of local Authority Bids for Gypsy Sites Refurbishment Grants in 2003–04

  Price WaterhouseCoopers

  Ex-Post Evaluation of the England and Wales Leader II Programmes (1994–99)

  Fraser Associates

  Good Practice in Providing Homelessness Services for Households from Black and Minority Ethnic Communities

  Ethnos

  Guidance for Local Authorities on Appraisal of Options for investing in Council Housing

  HACAS Chapman Hendy

  Home Condition Report—Technical Pilot

  Building Research Establishment

  Home Condition Report Consumer Pilot: Surveyor Management Contract

  Building Research Establishment

  Home Ownership Solutions for Low Demand Areas

  University of Birmingham

  Housing Research Network

  University of York

  Improvements in social sector repair and maintenance procurement practice

  The Housing Forum

  International Literature Review to Establish the Current Extent of Knowledge of the Physiological Capabilities of Firelighters in Dealing With Incidents in The Natural and Built Environment.

  Optimal Performance Ltd.

  Land Value Change in the Four South East Growth Areas in the Community Plan

  Steer Davies Gleave

  Mid-Term Evaluation of Urban II Programmes in England

  DTZ Pieda Consulting

  Planning aid volunteer recruitment, retention and support

  RTPI

  Planning Research Network

  CUDEM (Leeds Metropolitan Univ)

  Possession Actions and Evictions by Social Landlords

  University of Glasgow

  Preventing and Resolving Conflicts in Communities Between Local Groups

  Lemos and Crane

  Divided on Racial Grounds

  Risk of fire and social exclusion

  Ecotec

  Section 38 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954—Failed Applications

  University of Bristol

  Short Report of the Fire Cover Review

  Ubiqus Reporting UK

  Short Term Consultancy Needs for Human Factors Expertise to Her Majesty's

  Dr. Stephen Cole

  Fire Service Inspectorate and Fire Research Division within the Fire Health Safety Directorate.

  The Home Condition Report: Consumer Piloting

  Building Research Establishment

  The potential of a planning advisory service in England

  Chris Shepley Planning

  The Provision of Guidance on Methods of Forcible Entry.

  Building Research Establishment

  The relationship between transport and development in the Thames gateway

  Llewelyn-Davies

  The role of mediation in the planning process—international experience

  Heriot-Watt University.

  To Investigate the Increasing Value of Planning Appeals

  Arup Economics & Planning

  Urban & Neighbourhhod Studies Research Network

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Valuing the External Benefits of Undeveloped Land (Stage 2 of 3)

  Eftec with ENTEC

  Version 2 of the Housing Health &Safety Rating System

  University of Warwick

  Qualitative Case Studies to examine the perceived impact of policy on the lives of socially excluded households

  Qualitative Research Unit, National Centre for Social Rearch

  Scoping study for relative cost-effectiveness analysis of preventative vs palliative measures

  Frontier Economics

  Cost of interventions, long term costs of failure to address social exclusion among people with mental health problems

  Personal Social Services Research Unit, LSE

  Literature review "Mental Health and volunteering"

  Institute for Volunteering and Research

  Literature review of personal finances

  Birmingham University

  Literature Review of housing

  Housing and Support Association

  Literature review of arts/civic participation

  University of Durham

  Literature review of legal services

  University of Central Lancashire

  Literature review of healthy living

  University College of Ripon and York St. John

  Literature review of education and training

  N1ACE

  Evaluation of the Deprived Urban Post Office Fund

  The Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research, Middlesex University

  Evaluation of the NRU's Community Participation Programme

  University of West of England and Liverpool John Moores University

  Evaluation of the NRU's Residents Consultancy Programme

  Amion

  Analysis of Approved Document P Consultation

  White Maple Consulting

  Review of the Operation and Impact of Approved Document B 2000 Amendments

  Ove Arup

  Impact of Business Led Regeneration—phase 2

  Trends Business Research

  Systematic review series—Local economies

  CEEDR—Middlesex University

  Evaluation of National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Scoping Study

  University of Cambridge

  Annual Progress Report on Local Strategic Partnerships

  York Consulting

  Best Value Survey Indicators

  Data Management and Analysis (ATP/Mori)

  Decision making and Policy Development in New Council Constitutions:

  University of Birmingham De Montfort University

  Emerging Good Practice

  The Role of Staff in Delivering High Quality Public Services

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers

  Long term Evaluation of the Local Government Modernisation Agenda

  University of Manchester

  296W 297W

  Research Projects Commissioned by ODPM since 2002

  Research Project

  Contractor

  Evaluation of Intervention and Recovery Support Programmes

  University of Birmingham

  Research on Modelling the Cost of Local Government Reorganisation

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Scoping Work into Regional Governance Relationships

  UCL

  Single Capital Pot Baseline Research

  York Consulting

  Local Authority Use of the Bellwin Scheme Support

  Bannock Consulting

  Beacon Council Scheme: User Satisfaction with Service Delivery Contract

  Mori

  Extension to cover round 5

  Local Government Systems in Commonwealth Countries

  CLGF

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Department's Regulatory Impact Assessment procedure; and how many RIAs have been reviewed in respect of the Department over the last year. [120864]

  Yvette Cooper
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) must be completed for all policy proposals that have a potential impact on businesses, charities or the voluntary sector. It includes details of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluating policy proposals and their impact.

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

  The NAO review will focus on the quality of analysis in the RIAs and the thoroughness with which the RIAs have been undertaken. The findings and recommendations of best practice will be fed back to departments. It will play a valuable part in driving up standards of RIAs.

  Sexual Dysfunction
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will commission a study by the Social Exclusion Unit into the impact of sexual dysfunction on social exclusion, with particular reference to those on low incomes with erectile dysfunction who are denied treatment on the NHS and cannot afford a private prescription. [123433]

  Yvette Cooper
  No. The SEU currently has a full work programme and is working on three major projects:

  Improving the educational attainment of children in care;

  Tackling social exclusion among adults with mental health problems; and

  Removing barriers to jobs and enterprise in deprived areas.

  The Social Exclusion Unit's remit is to help improve Government action to reduce social exclusion. It does this by looking in depth at particular policy areas and recommending joined up solutions to interconnected problems.

  In addition the SEU is also carrying out work on Impact and Trends in social exclusion to develop a clearer understanding of how Government policies work together to tackle social exclusion for particular groups and to provide a comprehensive evidence base to inform current and future policy-making.
  298W
  The SEU's projects were chosen by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister following consultation with other Ministers and suggestions from interested groups. Potential new projects are fully tested against a set of objective criteria which include assessing whether a potential new project area has a strong preventative focus; covers an issue currently falling between Government Departments, and will not duplicate work being done elsewhere.

  Social Exclusion and Urban Policy Units
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many conferences staff of the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Urban Policy Unit attended in each year since the Unit was established; what the (i) cost and (ii) purpose was in each case; and how many were overseas conferences. [113551]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the financial year 2002–03 the Social Exclusion Unit attended 27 conferences at a total cost of £8,942.99. In the financial year 2001–02 the SEU attended 35 conferences at a total cost of £10,511.10.

  Similar information for the SEU and the Urban Policy Unit for 1997–2001 is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost

  All conferences attended are associated with the work of the Units.

  Staff Drug Testing
  Mr. Eric Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will authorise drug testing of staff within his Department. [122136]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently has no plans to introduce drug testing of staff.

  Staff Relocation
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many staff of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been relocated out of London since May 2002. [121783]

  Yvette Cooper
  None

  Staff Working Hours
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many persons in his Department worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any of the last 52 weeks; and what percentage of staff employed this represents. [121785]

  Yvette Cooper
  160 staff in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, including its Executive Agencies, worked in excess of 48 hours per week in any one of the
  299W
  last 52 weeks. This figure represents 4 per cent. of staff. These figures do not include the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister staff working in the Government Offices where this information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Towns and Cities (Regeneration)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps the Government has taken to regenerate the UK's towns and cities. [124199]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government's policies for delivering an urban renaissance were set out in the Urban White Paper "Our Towns and our Cities: the Future" published in November 2000. This provides the framework within which Government policies and programmes affecting urban areas in England are co-ordinated.

  In February 2003, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched "Sustainable Communities: building for the future"—a £22 billion action programme to improve housing and communities, including over £5 billion to regenerate deprived areas. This programme builds on the policies and actions in the Urban White Paper and the Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the future."
  300W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has established a £2 billion Single Regeneration Budget to provide resources to support regeneration activity carried out by local regeneration partnerships. Managed at regional level by the RDAs, this programme promotes sustainable economic growth, enterprise and major regeneration projects in nine English regions (including London), with a focus on urban areas. 14 Urban Regeneration Companies have been set up to regenerate some of the most neglected areas in our towns and cities.

  English Partnerships (EP) are involved in wide range of regeneration and development projects across the country. EP is focusing on identifying and delivering more brownfield land for housing and sustainable urban development. Already an initial list of 42 sites have been announced for EP to concentrate on.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also investing over £4 billion through the Neighbourhood Renewal National Strategy Action Plan to tackle deprivation, and extend prosperity and opportunity to the poorest neighbourhoods in the country. This money is used to encourage the better targeting of services and mainstream public funds to the most deprived areas and to provide evidence of best practice through pathfinder programmes.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  UK Climate Impacts Programme
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Today, the DEFRA-funded UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) is publishing its report Climate change and local communities—how prepared are you? The report informs local authorities of the key implications of climate change for their business functions and offers them guidance to help them adapt. It has been produced for local authorities by UKCIP in partnership with the Local Government Association and the Improvement and Development Agency. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Animal Health and Welfare Strategy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
  I have arranged for copies of the Government's Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain to be made available in the Libraries of both Houses. Produced jointly by DEFRA, the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly, the outline strategy is being circulated for public consultation, with a deadline for comments of 31 October.

  Copies are also available on the DEFRA website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh

  Darwin Initiative
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  I am pleased to announce to the House awards under a new funding scheme forming part of DEFRA's Darwin Initiative.

  The Darwin Initiative is an annual small grants programme which uses UK expertise working with local partners to help countries rich in biodiversity but poor in resources to conserve and use their biodiversity sustainably. Launched at the Rio summit in 1992, the initiative has committed more than £30 million to over 300 projects in around 100 countries. More than 100 projects are currently running. The Prime Minister announced an increase in the Darwin Initiative budget in his speech on WSSD in September. The budget increased from £3 million to £4 million in 2003–04 and will rise to £5 million in 2004–05, and £7 million a year from 2005–06. Three new Darwin Initiative schemes have been launched as part of Phase II of the Initiative: Darwin Initiative scholarships, pre-project awards and post-project funding. Together these will help to help embed the core aims of capacity building, partnership and legacy. I announced the Scholarship awards at the annual Darwin lecture on 21 May.
  12WS
  The awards of pre-project funding are as follows: (Annex B)

  Organisation

  Project Title

  Country

  Award £

  The Society for Environmental Exploration

  Capacity building for sustainable management in the
  Nicaraguan Pacific Region

  Nicaragua

  1,790

  Macauley Land Use Research Institute

  Community conservation action plan for the threatened long-tailed chinchilla in Chile

  Chile

  1,792

  Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development

  Conservation and sustainable use of Agriculture Biodiversity in Costa Rica

  Costa Rica

  1,425

  The Global Diversity Foundation

  Conservation status of botanical resources in protected areas of Sabah, Malaysia

  Sabah, Malaysia

  1,600

  University of Southampton

  Control of Alien Species: the Red-Bellied Beautiful Squirrel in Argentina

  Argentina

  1,205

  University of Wales, Bangor

  In Situ conservation of Indigenous tree species in Southern Cameroon

  Cameroon

  1,520

  British Trust for Ornithology

  Meeting biodiversity and socio-ecnomic targets in Ugandan agricultural development

  Uganda

  2,650

  Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  Namibia Marine Biodiversity Baseline

  Namibia

  2,400

  Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

  Selection, propagation, multiplication and distribution of indigenous tree species

  Sierra Leone

  1,705

  University of Oxford

  Sustainable Management of Forest Medicinal Plants by Peruvian Indigenous Communities

  Peru

  3,000

  Royal Holloway Institute for Environmental Research

  The macroinvertebrates of riverine wetlands in Ghana

  Ghana

  2,861

  Tree Council

  Tomsk Forestry and Biodiversity Action Planning

  Russia

  2,188

  The Natural History Museum

  Training the next generation of Papua New Guinea's conservation biologists

  Papua New Guinea

  3,000

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Sustainable management of burrowing mammals on the Tibetan Plateau

  China

  3,000

  Cranfield University

  Functional roles of soil microbial diversity in logged ecosystems in Malaysia

  Malaysia

  2,900

  33,037

  British-Irish Council Report of Climate Change
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  On 24 July 2003, on behalf of the British-Irish Council (BIG) Environment Group, my Department is publishing the report scenarios of climate change for islands within the BIC region. The report builds on the climate change scenarios for the UK published by my Department last year and provides new detail on how climate is likely to change for the islands of the BIC region—Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Western Isles, Orkney Islands, and Shetland Islands. There is now considerable interest in climate change impacts and adaptation in the island administrations following awareness-raising workshops at the end of last year, and the scenarios will provide a sound basis for further work in this area. These new scenarios represent a concrete example of how BIC can foster co-operation between the UK, Ireland and the island administrations on environmental issues of common interest like climate change.

  Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses on the day of the launch.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Forensic Science Northern Ireland
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  I have today published the Forensic Science Northern Ireland Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03. The annual report sets out the performance of the agency against key targets. Copies of the report have today been laid in the House of Commons.

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Angela Smith)
  I have today arranged for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland Corporate Plan 2003–06 and Business Plan 2003–04 document to be placed in the House Libraries. This document will also be made available on the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland website at http://www.osni.gov.uk/

  Northern Ireland Assembly Elections (Registered Parties and Candidates) Reimbursement Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I am announcing today the publication of the Northern Ireland Assembly Elections (Registered Parties and Candidates) Reimbursement Scheme 2003 in accordance with section 3 of the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003. The scheme has been finalised following the submission to me of a number of recommendations by the Electoral Commission. I am pleased to say that all the recommendations meet the provisions of the Act.

  I have the authority under Section 3 of the Act to make payments, in the form of a scheme, to registered political parties, in connection with their campaign expenditure and candidates, in connection with their election expenses. These parties and candidates would have contested the Northern Ireland Assembly election due on 29 May 2003 but postponed by the Act.
  14WS
  I will be writing to the Northern Ireland political parties today to inform them that I have published a scheme. The Electoral Commission will also write to the parties to give them full details of the scheme including clear explanatory notes.

  Although I will be responsible for making payments to parties and candidates following recommendations made by the Electoral Commission, it will be the Commission who will have day-to-day responsibility for operating the scheme. The Commission will only recommend that a payment be made once it is satisfied that a party or candidate would have contested the May election and that the expenditure or expenses being claimed are in accordance with the requirements of the scheme. Claims will only be considered if they are sent to the Commission by 30 September 2003 at the latest and accompanied by the declarations required by the scheme and evidence to support the value of the claim. The Commission will also have the authority to verify all claims by asking for further information, explanations or inspections of documents or goods and property.

  I am very grateful to the Commission for its help in putting the scheme together.

  I have placed copies of the scheme in both Libraries.

  Accounts (2001–02) Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  I have published today the Accounts of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Veterans' Challenge Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Ministry of Defence is announcing today that it plans to allocate up to £2 million for veterans' projects over the next 3 years.

  The new Challenge Fund will be used in co-operation with partners in the ex-Service organisations, Non Government Organisations and public sector to pump-prime new projects or research or buy into existing activities in order to give them a veterans-related dimension.

  The Government want this fund to be used to help address the identifiable gaps in existing activity or knowledge that will need to be filled if we are to deliver the agreed Strategy for Veterans. The Strategy for Veterans identifies 3 key areas for further work: ensuring that as many Service personnel as possible make the transition from Service to civilian life successfully, that those who do not make a successful transition receive appropriate support, and that the contribution of the Services and veterans to national and international security is properly understood in wider society. The Government would like the Fund to be used to support a few projects in each area.
  15WS
  Five hundred thousand pounds has been made available for the remainder of this Financial Year and up to £750,000 is planned for each of the next two Financial Years. Arrangements for the longer term will depend on the success of the Fund over this initial three-year period.

  UK Gulf Veterans' Mortality Data
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  Mortality figures for the United Kingdom veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf Conflict from 1 April 1991 to 31 December 2002 were published on 27 January 2003,Official Report, columns 28-30WS. The latest data, as at 30 June 2003, are shown in Table 1 below. As before, the data for Gulf veterans are compared to that of a control group, known as the Era cohort, which is made up of Armed Forces personnel of a similar size, age, gender, Service, regular/reservist status and rank who were not deployed. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of deaths from cancer (neoplasm) by anatomical site.

  On 23 July 2002,Official Report, column 910W, it was announced that the Ministry of Defence was discussing with the University of Manchester a detailed study of the factors underlying the figures for road traffic accident deaths. There are indications that the excess of motor vehicle accident deaths among Gulf veterans occurred principally during the first six years after the cessation of hostilities (to 31 March 1997) and that this trend has reversed in the following six years to 31 March 2003. Furthermore, the numbers of incidents are relatively small, the information on each accident is insufficiently detailed to allow meaningful analysis and a considerable amount of time has elapsed since 1 April 1991. Therefore, following the advice of the experts that have been consulted, we have decided not to commission the proposed study.

  Table 1

  Deaths to UK Gulf veterans (Note: 1) 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2003 Causes (coded to ICD-9) (Note: 2)

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era3

  Mortality Rate Ratio4

  All deaths

  600

  613

  0.97

  All cause coded deaths

  586

  599

  0.97

  I-XVI

  Disease-related causes

  243

  300

  0.81

  I

  Infectious and parasitic diseases

  4

  2

  1.99

  II

  Cancers

  105

  124

  0.84

  III

  Endocrine and immune disorders

  1

  6

  0.20

  V

  Mental orders

  13

  15

  0.86

  VI

  Diseases of the nervous system and sense organs (Note 5)

  10

  11

  0.90

  VII

  Diseases of the circulatory system

  82

  106

  0.77

  VIII

  Diseases of the respiratory system

  11

  6

  1.82

  IX

  Diseases of the digestive system

  15

  18

  0.83

  IV, X-XVI

  All other disease-related causes (Note 6)

  2

  12

  0.17

  EXVII

  External causes of injury and poisoning

  343

  299

  1.14

  16WS

  ICD Chapter

  Cause of death

  Gulf

  Era3

  Mortality Rate Ratio4

  Railway accidents

  4

  1

  3.98

  Motor vehicle accidents

  118

  100

  1.17

  Water transport accidents

  5

  1

  4.98

  Air and space accidents

  25

  19

  1.31

  Other vehicle accidents

  0

  1

  0.00

  Accidental poisoning

  14

  15

  0.93

  Accidental falls

  8

  8

  1.00

  Accidents due to fire/flames

  0

  2

  0.00

  Accidents due to natural environmental factors

  2

  2

  1.00

  Accidents due to submersion/suffocation/foreign bodies

  17

  7

  2.42

  Other accidents

  31

  29

  1.06

  Late effects of accident/injury

  0

  2

  0.00

  Suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted

  110

  103

  1.06

  Homicide

  6

  5

  1.19

  Injury resulting from the operations of war

  3

  4

  0.75

  Other deaths for which coded cause data are not yet available

  11

  10

  Overseas deaths for which cause data are not available

  3

  4

  Notes:

  1. Service and Ex-Service personnel only.

  2. World Health Organisation's International Classification of
  Diseases 9th revision, 1997.

  3. The Era group comprises 53,143 personnel, randomly sampled from all UK Armed Forces personnel in service on 1 January 1991 and who did not deploy to the Gulf. This group is matched to the 53,409 Gulf veterans to reflect the socio-demographic and military composition of the Gulf cohort in terms of age, gender, Service (Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force), officer/other rank status, regular/reservist status, and a proxy measure for fitness.

  4. Mortality rate ratios differ marginally from the crude deaths ratio owing to some small differences between the Gulf and Era cohorts.

  5. These figures include four deaths from Motor Neurone Disease amongst the Gulf cohort and three in the Era group.

  6. Includes cases with insufficient information on the death certificate to provide a known cause of death.

  Table 2

  Deaths due to neoplasms among UK veterans: 1 April to 30 June 2003

  ICD 9

  Site

  Gulf

  Era

  140–239

  All neoplasms

  105

  124

  140–149

  Malignant neoplasm of lip, oral cavity and pharynx

  6

  4

  150–159

  Malignant neoplasm of digestive organs and peritoneum

  22

  30

  160–165

  Malignant neoplasm of respiratory and intrathoracic organs

  17

  25

  17WS

  ICD 9

  Site

  Gulf

  Era

  170–175

  Malignant neoplasm of bone, connective tissue, skin and breast

  14

  13

  179–189

  Malignant neoplasm of genitourinary organs

  3

  7

  190–199

  Malignant neoplasm of other and unspecified site

  21

  29

  200–208

  Malignant neoplasm of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue

  19

  14

  239

  Unspecified nature

  3

  2

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Baghdad Visit (9 July 2003)
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I visited Baghdad on Wednesday 9 July 2003.

  The purpose of the visit was to support Iraqi women to become properly involved in the political process and to ensure that British business expertise does not get overlooked in the reconstruction work in Iraq.

  I addressed the plenary session of the "Voice of Women of Iraq" conference. This was an important event, organised, run and managed by Iraqi women but with the backing and support of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), especially a secondee to the CPA from my Department's Women and Equality Unit. In addition to speaking at the plenary session, I participated in one of the workshops looking at constitutional and democracy issues, had lunch with the attendees and private discussions with the steering group who had led the conference.

  Paula Dobriansky, the Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the US State Department also addressed the conference.

  The turnout was impressive in numbers, quality and diversity of participants. This was, of course, only the start of the process of ensuring that women are fully engaged in the reconstruction of Iraq and the political process.

  In the afternoon I met with Ambassador Paul Bremer, administrator of the CPA, and pressed him to ensure substantial women's representation on the Governing Council. In the event, only 3 women have actually been appointed to the Council which will be a disappointment to the in-country and exiled Iraq women who had expected and asked for a stronger voice. The UK Government will continue to press for substantial women's representation in future political structures. It will also be important to ensure that those women who are appointed continue to be given support so that they are not marginalised in the political process.

  For part of my visit I was joined by a business scoping mission from British Trade International's Iraq Industry Working Group. Together we visited the CPA's Business Support and Facilitation Centre (the brainchild of a UK secondee) and had discussions with senior officials of the Ministries of Industry and Trade about trade and investment promotion and economic reform. We will be following up that visit with offers of
  18WS
  further practical support. The Iraqi senior officials were also keen to make use of UK experience and expertise in economic reform and privatisation.

  The scoping mission joined me for discussions with US members of the CPA economics team where I was able to press for the interim budget to be finalised. I also discussed the handling of vested/seized assets and the procurement process, and reiterated the need for there to be a level playing field on the role of the private sector in reconstruction. I also used the visit to highlight the value and quality that the UK private sector can bring to Iraq's reconstruction.

  In my meeting with Ambassador Bremer, I also discussed the ways in which UK companies might contribute to the reconstruction work in Iraq.

TREASURY

  Butterfield Review
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  Further to my written statement to the House on 4 July 2003,Official Report, column 4OWS, I can announce that today the Government are publishing in full the independent report, its summary and recommendations, of the hon. Mr. Justice Butterfield following the completion of his review.

  The Attorney General and I asked Mr. Justice Butterfield to examine the circumstances that led to the termination of the London City Bond (LCB) prosecutions in Liverpool Crown Court on 25 November 2002, the changes in practice within HM Customs and Excise (HMCE) since the time of the cases to which those prosecutions related, and HMCE's compliance with best practice in the use of investigation techniques. The full terms of reference for this review were announced in the written statement I made to the House on 26 November 2002, Official Report, column 9WS. In addition the House will be aware that the Government are looking at the links between law enforcement agencies which investigate serious crime, alongside the review the Chancellor has announced on the future of the tax institutions.

  The Government welcome the report, and are grateful to Mr. Justice Butterfield and his team for completing the study so promptly and for the extensive research that underpins his conclusions.

  The Review's main findings are:

  that there were major failings in the investigation into and prosecution of the LCB cases, investigated by HMCE from 1995 to 1998;

  but that, since then, there have been significant changes, including:

  far-reaching improvements in management, structure and culture within HMCE;

  changes to the legal framework controlling the regulation of Excise warehouses, which have closed the loopholes used by the criminals in the LCB frauds; and

  following the Gower/Hammond Review, the separation of responsibility for the conduct of prosecutions from responsibility for the conduct of investigations, by making the Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office

  19WS

  (CEPO) accountable to the Attorney General, and not to the Commissioners of Customs & Excise, since April 2002;

  that these changes have gone a long way towards dealing with the problems within HMCE underlying the LCB cases, and Mr. Justice Butterfield makes a number of recommendations designed to reinforce this change process.

  Mr. Justice Butterfield also identifies three important areas of concern in criminal law and practice highlighted by the LCB cases, all of which have a wider application than HMCE cases. These are:

  the use of "abuse of process" in trials as a mechanism for attacking investigation processes;

  the challenges investigators and prosecutors face in complex cases in meeting their disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996; and

  aspects of informant handling.

  Butterfield Review

    HMCE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION
    The Government welcome Mr. Justice Butterfield's conclusion that significant progress has already been made by HMCE in dealing with the issues underlying the failure of the LCB cases, and the unequivocal finding that there is no evidence in the LCB cases of improper enticement or encouragement to commit crimes or of entrapment.
    Most importantly, the Government welcome Mr. Justice Butterfield's conclusion that
    "HMCE should now put the events of the London City Bond cases behind them and move forward, but not in a spirit of complacency",
    and the recommendations he makes on how this process, already substantially underway, can be reinforced.
    Mr. Justice Butterfield makes a number of important recommendations that encourage HMCE and the CEPO to continue the programme of reform underway in the department. These recommendations relate to:
    HMCE's role as an independent investigating force—the Government accept Mr. Justice Butterfield's finding that, under the current arrangements, HMCE should continue in its present role;
    the handling of human intelligence sources—the Government accept these recommendations, and HMCE will promptly implement the new guidelines and procedures which are outlined in the Report;
    training for investigators—the Government accept these recommendations, and HMCE will incorporate them into an improved training programme for specialist investigators;
    external scrutiny of investigations work—the Government accept the principle of external scrutiny of HMCE investigations work, and HMCE has been asked to undertake a study to identify how additional external scrutiny can best be introduced; and
    HMCE's regional structure, and in particular expertise in Scottish law—the Government agree with the analysis in the Review, and has asked HMCE to ensure that proper and informed legal advice is available to Scottish investigators and intelligence officers.
    In addition, the Review recognises that CEPO has been revitalised since the Gower/Hammond Review and welcomes the changes that have taken place, in particular the increased independence that followed the transfer of accountability for HMCE's prosecution
    20WS
    function to the Attorney General in April 2002. However, Mr. Justice Butterfield draws a number of conclusions, which include recommendations:
    that, in order to make its independence from HMCE even more transparent, CEPO should become an entirely separate prosecuting authority accountable to the Attorney General;
    that there should be an increase in the number of Investigation Legal Advisers employed within Customs, who play no part in the prosecution process but are available to provide advice to investigators; and
    that a more systematic dialogue between HMCE and other Government Departments responsible for related practical and policy issues would be desirable.
    The Government strongly agree that the ability of prosecutors to exercise their decision making and other prosecution functions independently should be ensured.
    The Government will be considering the full practical implications of these recommendations, and in particular how the independence of the prosecutors in CEPO can best be strengthened further. The Government will provide a detailed response to all these recommendations in the autumn.

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
    The Review concludes that the criminal justice system does not work as effectively as it should, but recognises that some of the problems identified are being addressed in the Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament. The Review recommends that consideration is given to:
    reforming the operation and rules of the disclosure regime in complex criminal cases;
    the power of judges to control proceedings before them relating to abuse of process; and
    the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
    These recommendations have potential implications across the criminal justice agencies and departments. While accepting that they highlight important areas of concern, the Government will give them further detailed consideration before deciding whether to accept them.

  PFI Review
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Treasury has today published the document "PFI: Meeting the Investment Challenge". Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government's objective is to deliver world-class public services. To achieve this, sustained increase in investment and matching reforms are needed to deliver efficient and responsive public services. PFI has an important role to play in delivering this investment. The Government have already significantly increased investment to schools, hospitals, public transport and other public services—total investment in public services now stands at over £40 billion, up from £23 billion in 1997, and it will continue to rise to over £48 billion in 2005–06. While the overwhelming majority of public investment—over 85 per cent—is funded conventionally, PFI has an important role to play in delivering investment in public services.
  21WS
  The document gives a detailed picture of the role of PFI in delivering this investment and presents a rigorous examination of the performance of PFI based on the evidence drawn from research by Her Majesty's Treasury and other bodies, in particular the National Audit Office. This evidence shows that, where it is properly used, PFI has delivered better infrastructure, on time, on budget and to a high standard throughout its life. Of the projects studied almost 90 per cent. were completed on time, and in every case the public sector has paid what it expected to pay. The document also reaffirms the Government's commitment that value for money in PFI projects should not be obtained at the expense of employees' terms and conditions. Drawing on the evidence presented, the document also outlines a series of measures designed to ensure that the public sector effectively captures the value for money benefits that PFI can deliver:
  reforms to improve the assessment of value for money appraisal by the public sector, to continue to ensure there is no bias in favour of any one procurement option and the decisions are made on the basis of best value for money. These include reforms to the Public Sector Comparator to ensure consistency with the reforms made at last year's revision of the "Green Book" (the Treasury's guidance to departments on project appraisal). These changes mean that a value for money assessment of both PFI and conventional procurement options are fully taken into account prior to the procurement of a project, and that there is greater clarity on transferring soft services staff to ensure that application of value for money does not come at the expense of employee terms and conditions;
  measures to improve the efficiency of the procurement process, including more rigorous enforcement of standardisation, the accreditation of advisers, new models of procurement and greater transparency;
  proposals to revise the scope of PFI and focus its use on where it works best—exploring new applications for PFI where existing evidence suggests it could deliver benefits—as foreshadowed in the Chancellor's Social Market Foundation speech earlier this year—in social housing, urban regeneration and waste, but using conventional procurement methods in areas such as IT and small value projects where experience suggests that conventional methods are the best approach for driving more efficient procurement; and
  investigating the potential for new methods of financing projects, for example, through "framework funding" for small PFI schemes bundled together and by piloting the potential for using credit guarantees as an additional means of funding PFI projects.

  With over 600 facilities, including 34 major hospitals and over 200 schools, now in operation, and good levels of satisfaction with their performance, this document demonstrates that an intelligent and productive partnership with the private sector can deliver high quality public infrastructure. The reforms set out in the document will help strengthen this partnership for the future.

  "Stakeholder" Investment Products
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions are today publishing a Government response to their consultation paper "Proposed Product Specifications for Sandler 'Stakeholder' Products", which was launched on 5 February. It takes forward one of the main recommendations of the Sandler review of 22WS
  July 2002. Copies will be available in the Libraries of the House. The document is also available on the Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions websites.

  UK Gilts
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The Bank of England's Registrar's Department has conducted gilts registration services on behalf of Her Majesty's Treasury to date, but will cease to do so from March 2005. A new service provider will need to be appointed to take its place. In preparing for outsourcing this service, the Government have taken the opportunity to modernise the arrangements for the registration and transfer of gilts. The re-engineered model has now been finalised, taking into account comments received in response to a recent consultation exercise. Details of the model are being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  We plan to put the gilts registration service out to tender over the summer.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Strategy Unit report "Private Action, Public Benefit", published in September 2002, highlights some of the key challenges facing the voluntary and not-for-profit sector, and contains a number of recommendations for reform of this sector. Earlier this year the Department of Trade and Industry issued a consultation document on community interest companies, an alternative corporate form in this sector, in response to one of the recommendations in the report. The Government will issue an overall response to the report shortly. The Government now respond to the report's recommendations on industrial and provident societies.

  The Government recognise the importance of industrial and provident societies and welcome their tradition of member engagement, contribution to the economy and service to the community. We are working hard to help support this sector to enable it to maximise the benefits it provides to members, the economy and society as a whole.

  The Government have closely analysed each of the recommendations in the report and reviewed the responses to the subsequent public consultation on these recommendations. The response to the report will form a significant contribution to the Government's agenda for reform in the industrial and provident society sector. The Government are supportive of the report's recommendations on the industrial and provident society sector. We have accepted in full or in part, six of the seven recommendations in the report. Several of these have already been implemented—either because they represent a continuation of existing policy, or they were taken forward by the 2002 Industrial and Provident Societies Act.

  My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) recently enacted Private Member's Bill gives the Treasury power to bring forward an asset lock-in regime for community benefit societies. Such a regime was a recommendation of this report, and the Treasury is committed to taking it forward. The Government

  23WS
  accept in principle a number of the recommendations, but will undertake further work before deciding how to bring them into effect. These include the recommendations on changing the name of industrial and provident societies to co-operatives and community benefit societies, easing member share capital limits and updating industrial and provident society legislation in line with company law.

  We do not accept one of the report's recommendations, on giving co-operatives a statutory definition in line with International Co-operative Alliance Principles. This is because giving co-operatives such a definition would risk restricting the development of this form of industrial and provident society in future.

  A detailed analysis to each of the report's recommendations on industrial and provident societies, together with a copy of this statement, is being deposited in the Library of the House and is accessible on the Treasury website http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Building Regulations (Electrical Safety)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope)
  It was announced in a Written Statement on 10 April this year that preliminary analysis of the responses to the consultation on our proposals to introduce a requirement on electrical safety in dwellings into the Building Regulations had received broad support.

  Full analysis has confirmed this support and the arguments in the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) show that such an introduction would be beneficial to health and safety in reducing the number of deaths, injuries and fires caused by defective electrical installations in homes. Overall the RIA estimates that there would be a net benefit over the first ten years of £93 million at current prices. The RIA also makes it clear that for the introduction to be successful there would need to be schemes of registered competent installers who would be able to certify that their work was in compliance with all requirements of the Building Regulations. Following the advice of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, I am therefore pleased to be able to announce that it is our intention to amend the Building Regulations to include a requirement on electrical safety in dwellings as soon as suitable competent person schemes are in place. I wish to do this as soon as possible and therefore urge any body intending to apply to run such a scheme to apply to my Department by 15 October this year.

  Making householders aware of the need to protect themselves and their families from incompetent workmanship is in line with our drive for better, safer communities in which to live and work. The new measures will also raise industry standards and contribute towards our overall aim of creating a better-qualified workforce. They reinforce the emphasis in the Fire White Paper published on 30 June of greater prevention of fires.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Remploy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)

  Remploy's achievement against its targets set by Government for 2002–03

  Target

  Achievement

  Gross Margin the Company will Achieve Gross Margin of £53.7m

  £53.7m

  £52.7m

  Progressions from Remploy Factories to Interwork and to open employment

  2,000

  2,138

  Of which progressions to open employment

  1,400

  1,610

  Unit Cost—operating deficit per disabled worker

  £10,173

  £11,484

  Employee Development Time

  5%

  5.7%

  Remploy will publish its Annual Report and Accounts in the Autumn giving further detail of its performance throughout 2002–03. Copies of the Annual Report and Accounts will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  In addition, I have, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, written to the Chairman of Remploy approving the 2003–06 Performance and Resources Framework between the Department and the Company. The Performance and Resources Framework includes targets for the coming year. The agreement has been negotiated by the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Targets for 2003–04 are:

  a total of 1,650 progressions from Remploy factories or Interwork to mainstream unsupported employment;

  Remploy Ltd. will keep within an average cost per supported employee of £10,400;

  the Company will achieve a gross margin (sales less cost of materials) figure of £55m;

  the Company's Employee Development time will be at least 5 per cent. The full Agreement for 2003–04 will be placed in the Library.

  International Labour Organisation Conference 2002
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  The 90th Session of the International Labour Conference 2002 adopted a new protocol to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention 1981 (No. 155) and Recommendation 193 and Recommendation 194 on Promotion of Cooperatives. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid before Parliament a White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference, proposed action on one Protocol and two Recommendations adopted at the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference 2002 (Cm 5870)", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Standards of Decision Making
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's Report on the Standards of Decision Making in the Benefits Agency, Child Support Agency and Employment Service for 2001–02 has been laid before Parliament today (HC 880).

  This is the second report under the new decision making and appeals system introduced by the Social Security Act 1998. It covers the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, the second full year of operation of the new regime. Overall the report shows improvements compared with the previous year. However, some aspects continue to be disappointing, notably overpayment recoverability decisions, but significant remedial steps have been taken in the year since the period of this report to raise standards. Quality decision making is a core element of DWP business and we can assure our customers that raising standards is a priority matter.

HEALTH

  Isaacs Report (Government Response)
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  We are publishing today our response to the Isaacs Report, which followed an investigation by Her Majesty's Inspector of Anatomy, Dr Jeremy Metters CB. We advised the House about the publication of the Isaacs Report in a written Ministerial statement on 12 May.

  The Inspector's report addressed the case of the late Mr. Cyril Mark Isaacs and the retention of his brain for research purposes following a Coroner's post mortem in 1987 without the knowledge or consent of his widow, Mrs. Elaine Isaacs. Mr. Isaacs's case proved to be part of an arrangement whereby the' coroner's office in north Manchester would identify brains suitable for a research programme at Manchester university. The Inspector also found evidence that brains were used following post mortems on adults in other locations.

  The report made 34 specific recommendations that bear on the responsibilities of the Department, the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills. We have considered these carefully and we are today publishing our joint response and copies have been placed in the Library.

  I pay tribute once again to Mrs. Elaine Isaacs for bringing her husband's case to public attention and to Dr. Metters for his thorough investigation and report. We are very grateful to the Retained Organs Commission and to National Health Service trusts for the arrangements they put in place to deal with inquiries from the public arising from the publication of the report. I understand that the Commission's helpline has
  26WS
  taken over 860 calls and, of these, some 580 were specific inquiries about organ retention from a deceased person which are being passed to the relevant NHS trusts for investigation.

  While there is still work to be done, the programme of action on the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue that we have put in hand since we accepted recommendations by the Chief Medical Officer in 2001 has already achieved significant improvements. Following extensive consultation, we published on 25 April a comprehensive, interim framework of guidance and other materials to reflect transparent new systems founded on consent. The interim framework comprises: a statement on the use of human tissue and organs under the current law, a code of practice 'Families and Post-mortems', post-mortem consent forms and leaflets, a code of practice on import/export of human body parts and a summary report on the responses to the consultation document "Human Bodies Human Choices". Steps have also been taken to modernise the practice of pathology and to improve the management of joint NHS and academic posts. In addition, the inquiry findings will be taken into account in the development of relevant policy initiatives bearing on death investigation and coronial services which are currently being taken forward by the Home Office.

  We also intend to bring forward legislation establishing a comprehensive new framework for the removal retention and use of organs and tissue from both adults and children as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Medicines Control Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  We have received the annual report and accounts of the Medicines Control Agency for 2002–03 which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Medicines Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman)
  We have received the annual report of the Medicines Commission for 2002, which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2002 reports of the medicines commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the advisory board on the registration of homoeopathic products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the independent review panel on advertising, the independent panel for borderline products and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United States Alien Tort Statute
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  The British Government oppose all unwarranted assertions of extra-territorial jurisdiction in commercial cases. Such assertions infringe on the sovereign right of states to regulate activities within their own territory, interfere with the freedom of states to conduct their own economic policies, place an unwarranted burden on businesses, and can create a climate of uncertainty which may affect the trading and investment conditions of British companies.

  A number of cases have been brought under the United States Alien Tort Statute against British companies and others in relation to their activities in third countries. Of particular concern are cases brought in the US against British companies in relation to their activities in South Africa during the Apartheid era, alleging that their presence in South Africa at the time made them complicit in human rights abuses.

  The British Government have expressed to the US Government their concerns over the extra-territorial use of the Alien Tort Statute in these commercial cases. The US Government have filed an amicus brief in a related case brought under the Statute, seeking to address this issue among others.

  The British Government remain committed to combating impunity for human rights violations wherever they occur. We believe that the most effective means of achieving this goal is the strengthening and developing of credible national justice mechanisms that conform to international human rights standards. We believe that, in the first instance, legal remedies in the country where the act allegedly took place should be exhausted. In the Apartheid cases this does not appear to have happened. Moreover, South Africa is engaged in an ongoing post-Apartheid reconciliation process, the complexities of which should not be under-estimated. We believe that the South African Government are best placed and best capable of dealing with the issue of reparations for crimes under Apartheid.

TRANSPORT

  Transport for London
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I have today placed a list in the Libraries of both Houses, which details all the major land assets that Transport for London inherited from London Regional Transport today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Draft Gambling Bill
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I have today published for consultation a set of draft clauses that we intend to be part of a wider Gambling Bill.
  28WS
  The Bill will make major changes to the way in which gambling is regulated and controlled in Great Britain. It will build on the work undertaken by Sir Alan Budd and the Gambling Review Body that he led.

  It is based on the three key principles.

  First, the principle that the system of gambling law and regulation must keep the gambling industry free of crime. Our industry has a high international reputation for integrity, which must not be put at risk.

  Second, the law must ensure that gambling is conducted fairly, so that players know what to expect.

  Third, there must be effective protection for children and the vulnerable.

  The controls we have on gambling today date from the 1960s and 1970s. They have served us well, but have failed to keep up with society's attitudes to gambling and developments in technology and the leisure industries. They need to be modernised.

  But modernisation must not be allowed to generate an upsurge in problem gambling. I am determined that we will maintain the highest standards of social responsibility.

  Sir Alan recommended the establishment of a new national regulator for all forms of gambling. It was proposed that this regulator, the Gambling Commission, should license gambling operators and key individuals involved in the provision of gambling, and that local authorities should license gambling premises.

  In A Safe Bet for Success (published in March 2002, Cmnd 5397) we accepted the vast majority of the Gambling Review's recommendations. We have been working closely with the interested industries, representatives of groups encouraging responsible gambling, local authorities, consumer groups, other Government Departments and the devolved administrations to prepare draft legislation that would give effect to this new system of regulation, which will be centred on the creation of a new national regulator—the Gambling Commission.

  The proposals published today allow for the establishment of a Gambling Commission, transforming the Gaming Board for Great Britain into a new body with wider functions, greater flexibility to act and stronger enforcement powers.

  The clauses describe the three purposes of gambling regulation, which will guide the work of the Commission.

  They outline the ways in which the Commission will be able to use codes of practice to ensure best practice across each sector of the gambling industry. Codes of practice issued by the Commission will be an important feature of the new legislation, giving the regulator more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances that may raise issues of consumer protection or threats to vulnerable people.

  The draft Bill goes on to describe the principal function of the Gambling Commission—the licensing of gambling operations and key personnel. The Commission will have flexibility to impose licence

  29WS
  conditions on categories of licences and, where necessary, on specific operators. It will also have powers to review licences where it believes conditions have been breached or where there is some other threat to the three objectives of regulation.

  Local authorities are to be responsible for the licensing of gambling premises. Details of these proposals will be published later this year.

  The Government remain committed also to the sale of the Totalisator Board and the abolition of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. We will bring forward legislation to achieve these objectives as soon as parliamentary time becomes available. Should parliamentary time become available prior to the introduction of a Gambling Bill, we will leave open the option of pursuing our horseracing proposals in a smaller, separate measure.

  I understand that a Joint Committee of both Houses is to be convened to examine the Government's draft proposals. The draft Gambling Bill is precisely the sort of legislation, cutting across party lines but with some potential for controversy, that will benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses. Such scrutiny will improve the legislation and build parliamentary understanding and public confidence, enabling us to strike the right balance between deregulation and the protection of young and vulnerable people.

  The text of the publication can be found at www.culture.gov.uk

  I will publish the draft Bill in full later this year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The Prison Service's latest annual report and accounts, setting out the service's performance during 2002–03 is published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Youth Justice Board Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The Youth Justice Board's annual review for 2002–03 has today been laid before Parliament. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Youth Justice Board for England & Wales is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to monitor the operation and performance of the youth justice system and to identify and disseminate good practice to prevent offending by children and young people. Since April 2000, the Board has been responsible for commissioning services for young people under 18 who are sentenced and remanded to secure facilities.

  The Annual Review for 2002–03 reports on the continuing progress in implementing reforms to the youth justice system including a successful reduction in juvenile non-custodial reconviction rates and the
  30WS
  continuing delivery of the Government's pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.

  The review outlines a year in which new orders and programmes have been successfully introduced—most notably the extension of Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes to 80 per cent. national coverage (ISSPs) targeting persistent and serious offenders and the nationwide roll-out of referral orders and youth offender panels for offenders convicted for the first time.

  Independent Review of the National Asylum Support Service
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I am pleased to inform the House that I have today published the key findings from the report of the independent review of the operation of the National Asylum Support Service (NASS). The review was established in March this year to consider the ways in which NASS operates and provide me with recommendations to improve its performance. I am grateful to the review team for the work they have undertaken. The review team found that NASS was established to undertake a much simpler role than the complex one which they now perform. That role is made even more complicated by being a very visible part of the asylum system. Despite that, the review team found that NASS was showing signs of improvement in its operational performance, strategic planning and relationships with partner organisations.

  However, they also found that some key issues still need to be addressed. They found that NASS had faced real difficulties in getting on top of its job. External pressures such as Sangatte, an upsurge in asylum applications in 2001 and significant ongoing recruitment and training gaps contributed significantly to NASS's current problems and it had failed to establish a clear strategy to provide purpose, direction and governance of its activities. It had been established as a distinct part of the Immigration and Nationality Department, something which had contributed to a lack of proper integration with other parts of the asylum process and unrealistic expectations surrounding issues such as social integration.

  The review team found that there were still considerable gaps in NASS's ability to deal effectively with its external partners such as local authorities or the voluntary sector. Partly, this was a lack of understanding of the roles of these other organisations, but also a simple lack of effective and agreed processes to ensure that issues ran smoothly. The review team also found weaknesses within some of NASS's core operations. IT was critical to the business but was neither fully exploited, nor was it properly integrated with the IT used elsewhere in IND. The Review Team said that specific improvements to processes or resolution of long-standing policy impasses were possible which would provide much needed service improvements. The basic customer service provided to NASS's wide range of stakeholders needed to improve. Within this were concerns such as the difficulties with telephone contact with NASS. The review team supported NASS's regionalisation project and pointed

  31WS
  to a need for many more aspects of NASS's business to be handled at a local level. Looking across the range of issues covered, the review team said that for NASS to perform at its best it needs to:

  be clear what is expected of it and how its success will be judged;

  have the financial and managerial resources to do the job;

  have a thorough understanding of its own strengths and weaknesses;

  have a clear view of what it needs to do to improve its performance;

  understand its impact on the whole end to end asylum process;

  sort out some of its key business processes and procedures;

  get better at working with the rest of IND in a fully joined up operation.

  Since completion of the review NASS's senior management team has been strengthened, as has the Immigration and Nationality Department's ability to deal more effectively with social integration issues. More widely, NASS and other IND staff are currently analysing the proposals contained in the report and will submit an action plan to me shortly. This action plan will form the basis of a major programme of work designed to improve NASS's performance. I shall make a further statement about the action taken in the light of the review in due course.

  Firearms Amnesty
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses details of what was handed in to police forces during the recent firearms amnesty (31 March to 30 April).
  32WS
  A total of 43,908 guns and 1,039,358 rounds of ammunition were handed in. This compares to 22,939 guns and 695,197 rounds of ammunition during the previous amnesty in June 1996.

  I am particularly pleased to see the high volume of hand-ins of all types of gun and ammunition. The amnesty was a great success and these items are no longer at risk of falling into the hands of criminals.

  The guns figure includes 6,529 prohibited firearms (including 5,734 handguns), 10,513 shot guns, 13,974 air weapons, 9,480 imitations and 3,412 assorted rifles and other guns. In addition, a total of 7,093 other weapons, including knives, swords and crossbows, were handed in.

  Immigration And Nationality Directorate
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  I am pleased to announce the publication of the independent Complaints Audit Committee (CAC) annual report for 2002–03. Copies are available in the Library of the House and on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's website.

  This is the CAC's 9th annual report. Their role is to monitor the effectiveness of IND's procedures for investigating formal complaints about the conduct and efficiency of staff in IND. Their findings are a very valuable contribution to the process of continuous improvement within IND.

  The annual report highlights a number of areas where IND could improve, together with useful recommendations. IND will use these recommendations to help inform their wider change and reform strategy, one of the key elements of which is to make it a more customer-focused organisation.

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.

Regional Assemblies: Referendums
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they used in making their decision to hold local referendums on whether to establish three regional assemblies in England.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16th June the three regions which will proceed towards referendums. He published a summary of the information, evidence and views which he considered in reaching his decision. That summary has been placed in the Library of the House. No further soundings will be taken during this Parliament.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the noble Lord tells us exactly what is in the summary that was put forward and published. However, he did not mention that, on the same day, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was satisfied that,
"an overwhelming case has been made for the three northern areas to hold a referendum".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/6/03; col. 31.]
In Yorkshire and Humberside, only 833 individuals out of 5 million wrote to support a local referendum. Is that the Minister's criterion for an outstanding case? If so, what about the more than 1 million people who wrote to the Daily Mail to say that they would like to have a referendum on the EU Convention? Is that not a much more substantial "outstanding case"? If he were to agree to have a referendum on the EU Convention, he would have my support as a pro-European, because it would give an opportunity for airing the powers and responsibilities of the enlarged EU that is very badly needed.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, what I always remember about the Daily Mail when people quote it at me is how it was described in the other place in the late 1970s as "the Forgers' Gazette" for the stories that it published.
Compared to the five regions that did not express a positive opinion about having a referendum, the three regions that expressed a majority opinion did so overwhelmingly. There is no doubt about that. If one takes the West Midlands, hardly anyone was interested, but—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is absolutely true. It is set out in the documents that are in the Library. By the
756
way, we estimate that 53,591 people were involved in the soundings exercise, so noble Lords should not dismiss it so lightly.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, do the Government have any views now, having taken the soundings in all the areas? The noble Lord mentioned the five areas that are not going forward at this stage. Have the Government changed their views about whether they need to look at boundary changes in those areas? When they announced the areas, they said that the timetable for the boundary review for local government changes was very tight. Can the Minister assure us that, if that proves difficult, he will keep the House informed?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, we will certainly keep the House informed. The timetable is tight, and has been published. We shall have draft submissions for the boundary review by around December, so there will be full consultation on that. I think that there is a date in September by which local authorities and others put their views in to the Boundary Committee, but there will be full consultation. We have every reason to believe that the Boundary Committee has the resources to deal with the three regions, bearing in mind the extra work that this House added to it; for example, for single-tier government in the two-tier areas. However, if there is any slippage, we shall certainly keep the House informed.
As far as the boundaries are concerned, notwithstanding what was said in debate on the Bill, the Government have no plans to redraw the boundaries at present.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the information on which he appears to rely is wholly selective? Would not the Government be prepared to reconsider the letter that they put in the Library of the House?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I agree: I am selecting the information that I am using in answering the Question. No one challenged the figure that we gave in a parliamentary Answer in the other place about the number of people involved. The fact of the matter, which cannot be denied, is that of the respondents to the soundings exercise—it was not done in secret; this House made sure of that—53 per cent of respondents in the North East, 56 per cent of respondents in the North West, and 72 per cent of respondents in Yorkshire and the Humber all said that they wanted a referendum. In all the other regions, the majority was the other way round.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, during the proceedings on the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act we discussed when there would be a draft Bill on the powers and responsibilities of the regional assemblies. Can the Minister give us any assurance that that Bill is going to

757
be available in draft form to this House before any referendum takes place, and. if so, on what sort of time-scale?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I repeat what we said; namely, that we will use our best endeavours to try to get a draft Bill. We expect that we can have a draft Bill available. However, I also think that the view was that we would not have the time for draft Bill scrutiny through the parliamentary process—the implication of a draft Bill being that it would normally go through that scrutiny process. If the referendums are planned for next autumn, that would not be possible. The plan was to have a Bill setting out the powers. responsibilities and finances of the elected regional assemblies before the referendum takes place, as well as the document that will go through the letter-box of every door in each area explaining the powers, functions and purposes involved.
The fact still remains that there is no new money, no new powers and no new tiers of government. That is why we are taking the step to make sure that unitary government is tied into the regional assemblies.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I do not want to continue trading statistics with the Minister. However, is it not a fact that, according to the Government's own statistics that they issued, in answer to their request for responses to the paper on regional government there were 713 replies of which 72 per cent were opposed to change with only 7 per cent being in favour? Is not the question of regional parliaments or assemblies a bee in the bonnet of the Deputy Prime Minister that is being pursued at very considerable future expense to the local taxpayer?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with all due respect. I do not recognise the figure quoted by the noble Lord. I think that the figure of 72 per cent for Yorkshire and Humber, which I have with me, was the example that the noble Lord gave in his first supplementary question. In that region, 11 out of 14 authorities that responded are in favour; in the North West, 22 out of 31 local authorities that responded are in favour, and in the North East 17 out of 19 local authorities that responded are in favour—all elected local authorities.

NHS: Continuing Care
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to publish updated guidance on the National Health Service's obligations to provide continuing care following the health ombudsman's report published in February 2003.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the NHS is making good progress on setting agreed
758
continuing care criteria for each strategic health authority area. Over 80 per cent of strategic health authorities have done this and the rest are due to follow suit. They know that, from October, when the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 is implemented, all older people must be assessed for continuing care before discharge from hospital. SHAs are now investigating individual cases for recompense for financial injustices back to 1996. We do not want to slow progress through the prospect of new guidance, but we will review the case for it after the summer.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and look forward to the impact of the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act so that more people should be entitled to receive help with their health needs after they leave hospital. However, since the health ombudsman's report, we have had continuing confusion rather than continuing care. In the Minister's view, what is the difference between the higher band nursing care and continuing care? Is he aware of any other authorities that, like Berkshire, are retaining client moneys in a separate account until the dispute with the strategic health authority over eligibility criteria is resolved?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness's concerns. However, as I tried to imply in my Answer, we have responded to the six main recommendations of the ombudsman. As I said, the majority of SHAs now have agreed new continuing care criteria. We have agreed with the recommendation to recompense for financial injustice. We have agreed to check that legal advice has been taken by each SHA to ascertain whether their criteria were compliant with the Coughlan case judgment. and to ensure that legal advice has been taken to support the new criteria. I think that we have tried to take all the necessary steps to ensure that there is consistency in different parts of the country commensurate with allowing people to make individual assessments on individual cases.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, what status does the Department of Health guidance have given that it was due to be either reviewed or cancelled by 28th June this year? Does the Minister agree with the conclusion of the health ombudsman's report that the current guidance is opaque and that that is one of the main reasons why strategic health authorities have been taking decisions that have led to, in her words, financial injustice for older people?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the ombudsman said in her report that, in 1999, the promise of more guidance following the Coughlan judgment,
"may also have encouraged some authorities to wait before taking significant action".
We agree with that analysis, and that is reflected in our current position. As I said, we will review the need for further guidance after the summer.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the health ombudsman also stated in her report that identifying patients who may have been affected by the issue would not be at all easy, and that a greater public awareness of the issue might be required. What have the Government done to ensure that there is a greater public awareness of the issue?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the issue has been aired fairly widely. We have put in place arrangements to pay for further compensation after individual assessments are made. It is down to strategic health authorities to work with people in the local area to ensure that cases come to light. It turns very much on looking at individual cases when people feel strongly about the issue. There is no evidence, I think, that people are not coming forward with individual cases.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister tell us about the current situation and how many NHS inpatient beds were blocked last month while patients waited for continuing care to be instigated?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.

High Hedges: Legislation
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce a Bill to control high hedges.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the Government remain fully in support of the two high hedges Bills introduced this Session, first, by the noble Baroness, and, in another place by Stephen Pound MP. We are very disappointed that neither Bill has so far managed to complete its consideration within the time allotted for Private Members' Bills business. The Government remain committed to legislation to deal with cases that neighbours cannot resolve and will make every effort to get it on to the statute book.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is he aware that, when the consultation document, High hedges: possible solutions, was published in 1999, there were more than 3,000 replies? That is a very large response; usually the number of replies is in the hundreds. Of those, 94 per cent wanted legislation to deal with the high hedges problem. Of the 94 per cent, 77 per cent of local authorities that replied strongly supported it.
When the Minister mentions the loss of the Private Member's Bill this year, is he also aware that we lost similar Bills previously, and that the issue has continued since 1999? When does he really see something happening to deal with the problem?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as soon as possible, I hope, because, to be honest, the public will think that this place is a joke. There is overwhelming support for legislation to deal with what is a very difficult subject. I suspect that if it were on a free vote on a Monday to Thursday in the other place, the Bill would sail through. It just falls foul of the archaic rules on Private Member's Bills in the other place. On a free vote, of course, the other place has chosen to send us the Hunting Bill instead of the High Hedges Bill.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if this Bill is so important, why cannot the Government give it time?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend asks a very good question. It is one that I have asked myself as well as several ministerial colleagues. To take over a private Bill or give a private Bill time is a sensitive issue for the Government, because it may set a precedent. On the other hand, life is about setting precedents. Some things are good to do and some are bad. If both Bills fail this Session, the conclusion may be drawn that the Private Member's Bill route is not the correct one to take to deal with this issue. It is a thoroughly antisocial problem as far as many neighbours are concerned. There may be other routes that can be explored.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, did the Minister inadvertently make a slip of the tongue when he said, "If they don't produce a Bill people will think this place is a joke"? Did he not mean that people would think that the House of Commons is a joke?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, this place is part of Parliament: both Houses are required to pass legislation. This place has thoroughly debated the High Hedges Bill and time was made available for people to come in on a Friday to discuss this important issue. We have considered the Bill, scrutinised it properly, looked at it and sent it to another place. We have done our job and another place has let the public down.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the Government agree that this subject would be ideal for local mediation rather than using the relative sledgehammer of legislation?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I say with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that mediation is all right in many circumstances involving high hedges, but in several cases people's lives have been made an absolute misery and no attempt at mediation would succeed. A fortune has been spent in legal fees in those cases and the lawyers have made money out of them. Therefore, the decision was taken that we needed to change the legislation to get local government involved in the problem, so that orders could be given to reduce the height of hedges.
Something must be done. Things cannot be left as they are, so we must make every effort, as I said. The Private Member's Bill route may fail completely. At

761
the end of this Session both Bills may fail. The Session ends in November so both Bills are still before Parliament.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I declare an interest as a Member of the other place who managed to secure a day of government time to get a change in the law relating to rape through both Houses. Why did a member of the same party as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, see fit to scupper the Bill?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I met the said Member on the escalator the other day and I asked him the same question. His view was that, "It went a bit too far". Therein may lie a solution.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, is the Minister's comment not a classic argument for self-regulation in this House? If he had made that comment in another place, somebody would have felt it necessary to remind the Speaker to rise to his feet and say that criticism can only be made of the other place on a substantive Motion. There is no need for that to be said here. This House takes the comment in the spirit in which it was offered. Thank God for self-regulation.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I realise I probably have gone too far, but I am speaking from experience. I know that I am new—I have only been here for two years, so I am a young one—but, as I said to two of my colleagues from the House of Commons in the Select Committee this morning, the level of scrutiny in this place is superior to the other place. That is a fact, and I will defend it whether I am here or next door.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, may I remind the Minister that, when he said that the takeover of Private Member's Bills by the Government is a sensitive issue, many years ago, I introduced a Private Member's Bill for the regulation of the osteopath profession into this House? The Government were so persuaded of the strength of the case that they took the Bill over as a government Bill.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, says. There are other examples—the original Abortion Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, was originally a Private Member's Bill that was given government time, although it was not taken over by the Government. However, we all know what happens. If a Bill is given time from Monday to Thursday, if there is a majority there are enough people for the Bill to pass. On a Friday the troops do not need to be there, but one person can shout "Object" at 2.30 p.m. and the Bill is scuppered. That is not a good way to proceed. It is fairly archaic and unfortunate when a similar Bill—in
762
reality it is exactly the same Bill—has received full scrutiny in this place, for the other Bill to be objected to in the way that it was.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords—
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and we have at least another five minutes.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I intend to ask a short question. Have the Government considered whether they could deal with this issue through the Anti-social Behaviour Bill that is still going through our House?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, part of my note says, "Pressures are mounting on the Government to find time in this Session to get the high hedges legislation onto the statute book." The same question has been asked about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill in another place. As I said, as far as neighbours are concerned, the problem relates to anti-social behaviour when disputes cannot be solved. I do not know whether such a route is suitable, but that Bill is due to receive consideration in your Lordships' House this Friday.
To avoid another question, if noble Lords are wondering about the planning Bill, the matter is not a planning one—high trees are not development—so such a route would not be suitable. However, I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that these matters are being actively considered by the Government.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware how very welcome is his robust defence of your Lordships' House and the way in which he handles Private Member's Bills? I took a Private Member's Bill through this House in the last Session, and, after a great deal of debate, found it sinking without trace in the other place. I can assure him that it is an extraordinarily frustrating experience for Members of this House.
Is it not the case, however, that there is a much more recent precedent for the taking-over of a Private Member's Bill than some that have been quoted this afternoon? The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, started life in and went through this House as a Private Member's Bill. It was then taken up by the Government in the House of Commons as a government Bill in the last Session.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand that there are precedents galore. Hopefully, one of them can be used to help stop this Bill becoming the wrong type of Bill.
Bills will have opponents. There are always two views on the subject. There is a libertarian argument that people should be allowed to grow trees in their gardens as high as they like and that nobody should tell them otherwise. That is an argument that some

763
people may forward. One cannot assume that there is 100 per cent support, but I understand that support for legislation on this issue is overwhelming.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Meikleour hedge in Perthshire is a considerable tourist attraction in Scotland and has been growing steadily higher since 1745?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I will not be the one who chops it down then.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that this Question has caused so much interest that there is almost a case for calling in the Special Branch?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot think of an answer to that.

Zimbabwe
2.58 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional support they would be able to give to Zimbabwe, in the event of a return to democracy in that country.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we stand ready to help any democratically elected government in Zimbabwe to rebuild its economy and reverse its dependence on food aid and, along with our EU partners, the wider international community and the international financial institutions, we would play our full part in the huge task of helping Zimbabwe to return to former levels of prosperity.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does she agree that it is now time to take that argument forward to consider what will happen after Mugabe goes, as he undoubtedly will, and, I hope, soon? Is there not a lot of value to be had in sending a strong message of hope to the people of Zimbabwe that western countries are standing by to help rebuild that country when democracy returns?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. What the people of Zimbabwe need now is the reassurance that, when the nightmare that they are living through is over, the international community will still be there. Indeed, it will be redoubling its efforts to help them. We stand ready, as I said, to work with any new administration in Zimbabwe who are democratically elected by the Zimbabwean people—in a process that is transparent, democratic, free and fair—and committed to respecting human rights.
764
Contingency planning is starting, to enable the international community to respond quickly and positively to the return of democratic government in Zimbabwe. However, it would be premature to speculate on the exact detail of UK support.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, following the meeting that the Prime Minister had with President Thabo Mbeki the day before yesterday, negotiations are progressing well towards the creation of a government of national unity in Zimbabwe, despite the recent statements made by Morgan Tsvangirai? Can she confirm that plans are afoot to amend the Zimbabwe constitution to reintroduce a prime minister and retain Robert Mugabe as an interim president, more in a ceremonial capacity, until a formalised democratic government can be introduced?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, President Mbeki made it clear that he was continuing his efforts to encourage inter-party dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change. We welcome that and President Mbeki's confirmation to President Bush last week that it was necessary to resolve Zimbabwe's political and economic challenges as quickly as possible. The noble Lord, who is a keen Zimbabwe-watcher, will know that the Prime Minister and Mr Mbeki had intensive talks on Zimbabwe yesterday.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister talked about the size of the task of reconstruction. I agree with her. Would it not be a good idea to ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to undertake a pre-planning study to identify the nature and the scale of the resources that will be required and to solicit voluntary contributions from member states of the UN, so that the people of Zimbabwe can see what is being prepared for the day on which they return to democratic government?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree that we would want the UN to strengthen its position on Zimbabwe. The noble Lord will know the problems that the European Union, in particular, has faced in trying to bring resolutions to the UN on the issue. However, given the possible political changes in Zimbabwe and the uncertainty about the pace and character of the transition and about the exact needs of Zimbabwe, we must talk in general terms about the early stages of contingency planning with the World Bank, the IMF, the United States and the European Union.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the immediate need is for Mr Mbeki to get over to Mr Mugabe the message that he must stop harassing, persecuting and torturing the political opposition? Will she undertake to encourage our Foreign Secretary to get that message, in turn, to Mr Mbeki? Until that happens, even talk of talks will not amount to much.

765
While we are talking about Zimbabwe, can the Minister say what is happening to all the former Southern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe pensioners living in this country whose pensions have been cut off? They have not had a penny piece since February. What will the Government do about that?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to push for the strongest representations about Zimbabwe from the Government. That has been the case all the way along. Only yesterday, we welcomed President Mbeki's confirmation that it was necessary to resolve Zimbabwe's political and economic challenges as quickly as possible. As I said, the Prime Minister has been in discussions with Mr Mbeki this week on the issue.
The Lancaster House agreement declared that the Zimbabwean constitution made provision for the payment of pensions to civil servants, even those no longer resident in Zimbabwe. Responsibility for the payment of those pensions rests firmly with the Zimbabwean Government and always has. The noble Lord will know that payment of the pensions is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. There are 153 pensioners resident in Zimbabwe for whom we have special responsibility. We are on the record as saying that we have responsibility for the pensions of those who were recruited by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to serve in our former dependent territories on expatriate terms.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about the possibility of a government of national unity at some point, will the Minister comment on the fact that, only last week, the mayor of Harare, who had returned voluntarily, was arrested at the airport and imprisoned? He was released briefly on bail and has subsequently been stripped of his mayoralty, his car, his house, his livelihood and his security guards. He was—possibly— a rightly elected mayor. Is a government of national unity at all probable, if such excesses and atrocities go on?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we condemn outright the treatment of the Harare mayor. As the noble Baroness will know, he was on an FCO-sponsored visit to the UK from 29th June to 3rd July and was arrested on his return. The build-up of human rights resources across the board in Zimbabwe encourages the international community to look robustly at the way in which it can help a post-Mugabe Zimbabwe.
Lord Acton: My Lords, we have spoken of the economic challenges. Is my noble friend aware that tobacco has played what is possibly the crucial part in earning foreign exchange for Zimbabwe? In view of the international decline in the tobacco market, will Britain and its partners pay attention to finding cash crops that a new-born Zimbabwe can develop to earn foreign exchange?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a detailed answer on the issue of tobacco, but I will say that any rescue plans for a post-Mugabe regime will involve the taking of macro-economic measures by the international community, as well as poverty reduction measures.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that we are substantially over time.

Libya: Foot and Mouth Disease
3.8 p.m.
Lord Plumb Lord Plumb asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Libya, whether they have completed their contingency plans for dealing with the possible threat of its spread to the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, trade with Libya in foot and mouth-susceptible species and their products is not permitted. Following the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Libya in May, the Government have reviewed their contingency arrangements. We are satisfied that the existing plans and precautions are sufficient for the relatively low threat from Libya. Officials maintain a high state of vigilance at our ports and airports.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I am aware that the volume of products coming from Libya is minimal. However, there are plenty of people who come from Libya, and there are the countries surrounding Libya, which are equally concerned by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
Is the Minister aware that there is a serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Libya? It spread throughout the country for six weeks before it was reported to OIE—the International Office of Epizootics—and is, therefore, possibly spreading into surrounding countries. In those circumstances, will Defra therefore alert the livestock producers throughout the European Union because the border countries are not far from the areas where foot and mouth disease is spreading? What steps have been taken at ports of entry to increase detection of illegal imports from Libya or neighbouring countries with a special warning to tourists? I accept that we are not importing from Libya but plenty of products come through those countries. Will extra surveillance be instituted and targeted where risks are highest? Bearing in mind—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Plumb: My Lords, I just want to say that the confusion which arose in our outbreak is of great concern. Therefore, let us not be complacent and prepare for any possibility, recognising the threat that exists in those countries.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no doubt that the Government take seriously any threat of foot and mouth disease. There has been no instance of the disease spreading beyond Libya, but it is important that the operational requirements at ports and airports—both EU and UK—take account of the fact that there is an outbreak in Libya. Without going into detail, undoubtedly that will inform the priorities of those authorities at ports and airports. As the noble Lord recognises, the import of livestock and products from Libya has been banned for many years.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, said about illegal imports? Illegal imports of meat are coming from all over the place and are not always intercepted. What strain of foot and mouth is rampant in Libya at the present time? What stocks of vaccine are present in the United Kingdom in case—God forbid—there is an outbreak here?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government certainly recognise the problem of illegal imports and the possibility that such illegal imports may be diseased. That is why we have allocated another £25 million to protection against illegal imports in this country. In terms of the strain of the disease, the virus in Libya is SAT 2 which has never been recorded in North Africa previously. We have stocks of that vaccine—it is one of the eight strains that the UK keeps. It is also available from European sources.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, my noble friend said that BSE has spread beyond the borders of Libya. The Minister said it has not. Who is right?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may correct the noble Baroness. We are talking about foot and mouth and not BSE. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, to say that there was a possibility of it spreading because it spread rapidly within Libya and therefore might go across the border. I said that there has been no incidence of foot and mouth in neighbouring countries to Libya. That is not to say that we should not be extremely vigilant should that happen.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, have extra discussions taken place since this outbreak occurred? What instructions have been given to port authorities with regard to illegal imports of meat? Secondly, the noble Lord said that we have enough vaccine. My understanding is that that is not so. There is not enough vaccine across the EU. Should there be another foot and mouth outbreak we would he back to slaughtering and not using vaccination, as this House recommended.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards vaccine, it would depend on what strain of foot and mouth occurred in
768
Europe. But we have sufficient vaccine to deal with an outbreak of this strain. Clearly, more will be produced, but that is not to say that every strain of foot and mouth disease is covered by vaccine stocks in Britain or Europe.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what specific steps have been taken to inform the public of the dangers of illegal import of meat? What penalties are available and will be applied?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as information to ordinary travelling members of the public is concerned—as distinct from trade because there is no trade with Libya and therefore it does not arise in this case—we have put out a substantial number of leaflets, posters and now in-flight videos to warn passengers from all destinations against bringing back, for personal or commercial use, meat from any destination or point of origin outside the EU. That message is being reinforced daily.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further—he did not actually answer my question. If a foot and mouth outbreak occurred again in this country, is it the fact that vaccination would not be the first choice of priority and that slaughter still would be so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, who has sat through many of these debates, will recognise, the contingency plan, which we have established here and would be broadly followed by other EU countries, would see the slaughter of diseased animals and those immediately exposed. We would then, provided the vaccine was appropriate to the strain, consider as a first priority the use of preventive vaccination. It would not necessarily be appropriate in all circumstances, but that is the order of priority in the current contingency plan.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 41 [Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury]:
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: We now move to that part of the Criminal Justice Bill entitled, "Trials On Indictment Without A Jury".

769
I oppose the Question that Clause 41 stand part of the Bill and indeed the whole of Part 7, which seeks to restrict jury trial. I asked for all the clause stand part debates relating to Part 7 to be grouped today because, from these Benches, our objective is to strike Part 7 from the Bill. We therefore consider that if we are successful in deleting Clause 41, all the other clause stand part debates will be consequential and all the other clauses will fall. It is on that basis that I speak today.
I do not need to remind your Lordships of the fundamental importance of jury trial to our democracy. It provides a crucial link between the citizen and the system of justice. Trial by one's peers prevents the justice system becoming a matter of the state judging the citizen. Trial by jury is far more popular with the public than any politician or political party. The polls clearly state that. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said:
"This country of ours exists on some very important traditions—traditions that bear the test of time. If you asked any citizen of this country which is one of those great traditions, I have no doubt the answer would be the jury trial".—[Official Report, 16/6/03; col. 593.]
So it is of critical importance. It is against this background that some three years ago the previous Home Secretary brought forward proposals to abolish the right to elect jury trial in either-way cases. Those proposals were rightly rejected by your Lordships' House not once but twice in two Bills in the same Session. Now a different Home Secretary again proposes to cut back the right to jury trial, but the Government have shifted their position from one extreme to the other.
What is the reason for this Government's obsession with restricting the right to trial by jury? I do not believe for one minute that the Government are bringing forward the measures set out in Part 7 because there has been a huge call for them from the Labour Party or from the general public. In that sense, the debate we are having now is by no means party-political, and I certainly do not seek to make it one. Some of the staunchest defenders of jury trial sit on the Benches opposite and on the Labour Benches in the House of Commons.
Rather, what the Government are seeking to do is a more serious manifestation of a much more important confrontation than mere party politics; namely, the relationship between the state and the citizen. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, reminded us at Second Reading:
"The Government have designs on the jury, and this is just the beginning".—[Official Report, 16/6/03; col. 621.]
That comment echoes the words of Lord Justice Auld. I was interested to read his lecture to the Medico-Legal Society given at the Royal Society of Medicine on Thursday, 9th May 2002. The right honourable Lord Justice Auld said in reference to no jury trial in a relatively small category of serious and complex fraud cases that the proposals would make,
"a good starting point … if that reform comes about, and if it is a success, then consideration could be given to extending it".
770
If I read aright the contributions made by noble Lords at Second Reading, that is what troubles a great many of us. There is a question over whether these proposals will be extended.
In any event, why are we dealing with that in what can only be described as a "bits and pieces" reform? I shall return to that question in a moment. But of course many noble Lords present in the Chamber today were also present in your Lordships' House at the time when the Government brought forward the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bills to end the defendant's right of election in either-way cases. At the time it was said from the Treasury Bench that there was no question of ending the use of jury trial for serious cases.
At Second Reading of the first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that:
"For serious cases, the accepted means for defendants to be tried in our jurisdiction is by jury. It is extremely important that that should continue where the state and the citizen are engaged in matters of proportionate importance. We want to strengthen and improve the workings of the jury system in serious cases".— [Official Report, 2/12/99; col. 922.]
When the second Bill, the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill, came before your Lordships' House, the same noble and learned Lord made the same point about the importance of jury trial for serious cases when he said this:
"Perhaps I may say by way of background that the right to an impartial trial in a reasonable period of time is one of the rights in the European convention. It is not a right that attaches only to defendants. I suggest that it is the right of the wider community that serious cases should be tried in the Crown Court with a jury within a reasonable period of time".
He went on to say in the same speech that:
"I understand as well as anyone the importance of trial by jury. It is the appropriate remedy in serious instances where the state and the citizen's interests collide".—[Official Report, 28/9/00; cols. 961 and 963.]
So, we were told previously that the Government's proposal to remove the right of election in middle-ranking cases did not mean there was any question of ending the use of jury trial in serious cases. Now the Government have put forward the very series of clauses which we were assured were not in their minds just three years ago. They say to us, as no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will say again this afternoon, that their proposal to end the use of juries in some serious cases does not mean that there will be any further erosion of jury trial. While the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that jury trial would be retained for serious cases, last month the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor said that jury trial would,
"continue to be the norm for the vast majority of serious cases .— [Official Report, 16/6/03; col. 560.]
Thus in three years we have moved from jury trial for serious cases to the "vast majority" of serious cases. Where will the Government be on this matter next year, the year after or in three years' time?

771
On that basis, I submit that Members of this Committee justifiably should be apprehensive not only of the Government's present intentions, but of what the Government's intentions may well be in the future if the principle that not all trials on indictment should be by trials by jury is conceded by us in this Bill.
Within the nine relevant clauses in the Bill, there are three main areas in which the Government have designs on trial by jury. At this point I should make the comment that this Bill is extraordinarily long. It contains a whole series of very important measures. There are 307 clauses and 32 schedules set out over 374 pages. Why, then, do we have these provisions to restrict trial by jury? Why have they been slipped into what is a Bill of some considerable importance? We await the response from the noble Baroness, but it is a question that should be asked.
Contained in the nine clauses are three particular categories of trial by jury that are to come under Part 7. The first category covers defence applications for trial without a jury. the second covers prosecution applications in what are described as "complex or lengthy trials", and the third category is where there is an issue of jury tampering. I believe that the Government's proposals are flawed in many ways, but let me deal in turn with each of those three areas as briefly as possible.
Clause 41 will create a two-tier system and is, I believe, divisive. Defendants charged with offences that attract serious public opprobrium may well opt for trial by judge alone, not daring to face trial by jury. Also, there is a two-tier system in the Bill itself. Under Clause 41(2), the defendant,
"may apply to a judge of the Crown Court for the trial to be conducted without a jury",
but, under subsection (6), may not do so if,
"the defendant, or any of the defendants, holds, or has held, an office or employment concerned with the administration of civil or criminal justice".
So a police officer, lawyer or judge must be tried by jury if the offence raises questions about the discharge of his functions or whether he was a fit person to hold the office; that is, any offence of dishonesty. That is a very curious, two-tier system.
Will defendants engage in "forum shopping" in the hope that they will get a particularly liberal judge? I recall that in the debate on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said something with which we all agreed:
"Juries, unlike judges, are not inclined to be either pro-prosecution or pro-defence".—[Official Report, 16/3/03; col. 613.]
In the speech made by Vera Baird QC, MP, in the other place, she, too, said that defendants would abuse this new provision. Although I do not have time to do so in my remarks, I hope that some of my noble friends will refer in more detail to Vera Baird's remarks. The notion of how defendants would abuse the new provision struck a chill in many hearts, in particular in regard to perceptions of racial and gender bias, due to what is, at present, the overwhelmingly white, male nature of the Crown Court judiciary.
772
I turn now to Clause 42 covering prosecution application in complex or lengthy trials. This marks the erosion of jury trial on the grounds of expediency. If the Government have their way, then the most serious types of complex cases, such as trials on indictment for serious fraud, major drugs rings and so forth, will be tried by judge alone, but lesser trials on indictment, such as street robbery, will be by jury only. That line is very difficult to draw and surely it is only a matter of time before the Government seek to remove the right to jury trial for more trials on indictment, if the principle that some of the most serious offences can be tried by judge alone is conceded.
Juries well understand the issues relevant to guilt or innocence, particularly in relation to dishonesty in serious fraud cases. Indeed, the standard for dishonesty used in court is the Ghosh test—the ordinary standards of reasonable people as to whether what was done was dishonest and whether the defendant must have been aware that his conduct would have been regarded as dishonest by such people. Surely members of a jury are the best possible people to determine this.
Simplifying the law on fraud to make it easier not only for jurors but also for judges to understand is surely preferable to dispensing with juries altogether. There are Law Commission reports and proposals in this area—for example, Report No. 276, issued last year—to simplify the law on fraud and we should carefully consider going down that road.
Any problems with juries in fraud trials are surely better addressed by improved case management—for instance, by allowing the judge to give written notes to the jury, better conditions for jurors and so on.
This issue is not confined to serious trials. Clause 42(5) states that juries can be dispensed with in any case where there are complex or lengthy issues of a,
"financial or commercial nature or which relate to property".
I am advised that this could well extend to money laundering cases, terrorist financing cases, drugs importation cases, major health and safety cases and even to offences such as arson and criminal damage. Thus many more cases will be affected than the Government have so far claimed. Even a murder or rape case could be tried by a judge alone if it fitted the criteria laid down in the clause.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Is he aware that sometimes the prosecution itself acts horrendously? I remember a case—I am sure this can be multiplied by a number of other instances—where a large number of documents were served on me which were entirely irrelevant, and so another set of documents had to be served. That kind of situation is untenable and avoidable. As far as I am concerned, juries understand the basic purpose of a trial, which is to decide whether or not there had been dishonest behaviour. Does the noble Lord agree?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: The noble Lord knows much about these matters. He is right. A great deal of unnecessary documentation could be dealt with at an

773
earlier stage through pre-trial hearings in order to restrict the consideration. After all, the only real question is whether or not a defendant is dishonest. Surely there must be a better way of simplifying the issues.
As to the third area, that of jury tampering, I am sure that I speak for all Members of the Committee when I say that we have much sympathy with the police if indeed, as the Deputy Commissioner revealed in a letter to The Times today, this problem is growing. We need to conduct urgent research. Let us look at the details and consider what it is best to do—but not as a part of a bits-and-pieces package to dispense with jury trial.
Jury tampering needs to be tackled head on. It cannot be countenanced in this country that there should be such tampering. There are existing common law powers for a judge to intervene, to stop a trial and to then order a retrial before another jury, perhaps hundreds of miles away. Such common law powers exist. If the mode of trial is altered under threat, the problem will not go away. It will still be there, but it will be restricted to the judge. If the problem is not tackled head on, extra security for judges and their families would be a consequence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and her entourage have moved into overdrive and there has been a highly orchestrated publicity campaign. I was delighted to see in the Guardian, if I may compliment the Minister, a marvellous photograph of the noble Baroness. Underneath the picture were the words "Scotland the brave". The article states:
"Can Baroness Scotland (above) ride to the government's rescue in the Lords today and save plans for judge-only trials?".
I have read with great interest the Minister's comments—no doubt they trail what she is about to say—and three words came across to me: namely, "cause to pause". She said that if indeed it was a fact that where there had been an attempt at jury nobbling juries were more likely to convict as a result, that gives "cause to pause". I hope that the Minister not only meant what she said but will put it into action today. This is a wonderful moment for the noble Baroness to save the Government from going down the wrong path and to say to the Committee today, "We are not going to move these clauses. We are going to remove them from the Bill and think again. We are going to have a moment of pause".
I hope that the Government will think again. Telling the public that certain cases are inappropriate for juries will surely undermine confidence in and commitment to the jury system. Trial by judge alone would see the independence of the judiciary called into question, to say nothing of the pressures it would place on individual Crown Court judges, an issue on which there has been no research and no consultation. There are many other issues that I hope will be raised during the course of the debate.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Government's proposals are, to use the phrase used by my right honourable friend the shadow Home
774
Secretary in another place, taking us well down a slippery slope. Another shadow Home Secretary once said when opposing the restriction of jury trial that,
"Fundamental rights to justice cannot be driven by administrative convenience".
Those are the words of the present Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, then shadow Home Secretary. I was there and I heard those words. He is now Prime Minister. I am in total and complete agreement with him.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that fundamental right and stated:
"The Bill"—
that is, the Criminal Justice Bill—
"respects and safeguards that central principle of our system".— [Official Report, 16/6/03; col. 560.]
This is where we on these Benches part company with the Government. The Bill neither respects nor safeguards jury trial and puts administrative convenience ahead of fundamental rights. For the reasons I have outlined, we not only oppose Clause 41 standing part of the Bill but seek to remove Part 7 from the Bill today.
Three years ago, the House stood up to the Government in defence of this central principle of our system of justice. I very much hope that the Committee will send the same message to the Government that they should end this obsession with restricting trial by jury. There are many provisions in the Bill which merit our consideration and support. Let us remove Part 7 and get on with our scrutiny of the remainder of the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his moving opposition to these clauses. We, too, believe that Part 7 should be removed from the Bill.
It is a curious paradox that during this week the Lord Chancellor should complain about the homogenised nature of the judiciary—70 per cent white, male, middle-aged and Oxbridge—and that he should talk about setting up a commission in order to expand the pool from which the judiciary are chosen to include younger people, more women, people from different ethnic backgrounds and so on. That mixture of people—young, different ethnic backgrounds, men and women—is the very foundation of the jury system: a mixture of people which amounts to a mini parliament—a democracy in itself—and which has always acted as a buffer against repressive regimes and against repressive laws.
The noble Lord. Lord Hunt, referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the remarks he had made on previous occasions when the Government sought to restrict the right to jury trial. I find it rather interesting to illustrate my point in this way. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, comes from an area 25 miles or so from where I live. We share very similar backgrounds; we went to very similar educational establishments. I think we have the same Presbyterian background—progressive,

775
anti-privilege and anti-establishment. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord is anti-establishment even though he now embodies the establishment. We have shared values—I know that, for us, certain truths are self-evident. Although we dance to different party Whips, I would be very surprised if the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, differed from mine on all the great issues that shake your Lordships' House such as fox hunting, Section 28, jury trials or the composition of the House of Lords.
If one were to imagine this House made up of 650 Queen's Counsels, all of whom had been born and brought up in north-east Wales, this place would be unutterably boring. It is the fact that there are other people who have different values and hold to different principles, who believe in stability and continuity, that allows this Parliament, in both Houses, to work as a democracy and to represent all the people of this country.
People who believe in stability and continuity—and many of Her Majesty's judges are such people—have other truths which appear to them to be self-evident. Very often, those of us who come from the sort of background that I have described, hit u' against the self-evident truths of the judiciary—less so, when it comes, perhaps, to the jury.
The jury is an essential democratic institution at the heart of the system of justice in this country. Any attempt to weaken it should be resisted. Clause 41 deals with the choice of jury trial. The defendant is to have the opportunity of choosing to be tried by a judge alone. The defendant will choose to be tried by a judge alone only if he sees some advantage to himself in it. That may not necessarily be in the interests of justice.
Lord Justice Auld said in his report that the judge sitting alone would be a simple, more efficient, fairer and more open way of justice. I do not believe that to be true for a moment. Who will be attracted to the idea of being tried by a judge alone? Sex offenders, perhaps, who have been the subject of massive publicity. Perhaps a white person charged with the rape of a black girl would fancy his chances more in front of a white judge sitting alone. If he were to be acquitted, what an uproar there would be throughout the press against the judge who had come to that conclusion.
Perhaps middle or upper-class fraudsters going into court wearing the right tie—one shudders to think it, but it could be a Garrick Club tie or one from another institution—would think that the person trying them shared their values, was not a cross-section and would respond to the sort of explanations that they wished to put forward for what was suggested against them.
The third category might be those who have no real merit but who hope that by the use of some technical argument they might be able to find a chink in the reasons that a judge sitting alone would inevitably have to put forward for his verdict and thereby get off on a technicality.
One can see all sorts of grounds for public disquiet; where a judge alone was chosen by the defendant it would be seen to be a mode of trial that was not open and
776
not necessarily independent. It would not be open in the sense that a great part of any trial these days consists of the prosecution going to see the judge without the knowledge of the defendant to make a public interest immunity application. Private information is handed to the judge which the defendant does not know about and cannot check. This system, I respectfully suggest, is not acceptable.
In Clause 42, we come to the perennial question of fraud trials. It so happens that the rate of conviction in fraud trials is variously assessed as between 83 and 87 per cent of those who are tried. That is significantly higher than the percentage of those convicted in all other trials. So what is wrong with the current system? It is said that fraud trials are too complex and that juries do not understand. There is an enormous arrogance in assuming that juries do not understand. That is not my experience. In most fraud cases, the financial background is perfectly clear and usually unarguable. The issue before the jury is simple: what did the defendant do and was it dishonest, not by the standards of the City of London but by the standards of the cross-section of ordinary people of this community?
It is said that we should have a judge sitting alone to try fraud trials because of the length of trials. What is being saved by the abolition of juries? The jurors' time, but I think we should be robust about that. It is a very important part of being a member of society to serve on a jury and to understand the complexities of the criminal justice system and how it works. How else is it to be shortened? Are witnesses to be clipped? Is cross-examination to be shortened? Are lawyers to be paid less? I fail to see the savings in the length of trial conducted by a judge sitting alone. That is not the experience that some of us have from viewing prosecutions in Hong Kong, for example, where very lengthy trials take place before district judges.
It is for the prosecution and the defence to make it clear where the criminality lies in a fraud case so that if a person goes to prison for a long time, the public understand it and there is no criticism of the verdict of the jury one way or the other because the public are a part of it.
Clause 43 deals with jury tampering. I am amused to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, feels that jury tampering is unfair to a defendant because it is more likely to lead to his conviction. Jury tampering will never take place in a trial in which the defendant is totally innocent, because then there is no need to tamper with the jury. The fact that the conviction rate is higher in cases where tampering has taken place is wholly unsurprising.
The Metropolitan Police have provided the service to about four to five trials per year across all sorts of trials, whether they emanate from the Crown Prosecution Service, Customs and Excise, or elsewhere. That is not a great number of trials; that is no reason to breach the principle of jury trial.
The terms of the clause are nebulous. The judge is to sit alone if there is "real and present danger" of jury tampering. What is that—a subjective judgment by the

777
police supported by evidence which is presented to the judge in a public interest immunity application that the defence never sees? If the judge has been provided in the middle of the trial with private information that jury tampering has gone on in respect of the defendant who stands before him, so that he decides that he should discharge the jury, does the trial continue in front of him? How can he dismiss from his mind that which he has been told in secret and which has caused him to rid the trial of the jury because of suspected tampering?
In all those ways, there is continuing pressure from the Home Secretary and, no doubt, from the police behind him, to get rid of the jury trial. It is seen as something that prevents justice being done. I hope that all noble Lords will reject any such notion and will join us when and if we reach a vote on this subject.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I put my name down with those who wish to oppose the jury proposals standing part of the Bill. I know that there is a great danger that one will make a Second Reading speech rather than confine oneself as one should in Committee. If I err in that direction, the Government are to blame to some extent because we should have had two days for making speeches on Second Reading, in which case we could have done more than choose one point out of 200 pages of clauses, and another 200 pages of schedules.
I shall try not to repeat the philosophy and the points already made. In October 1998, the Fraud Advisory Panel submitted proposals to the Lord Chancellor's Department for procedural reform in cases of serious fraud following the establishment of a review of pre-trial procedures in such cases. A short while before, the Home Office had also published a consultation document entitled Juries In Serious Fraud Trials, in which a number of different options for the trial of serious fraud were canvassed. The Government have taken no action on those proposals, which has caused members of the fraud prosecution very sensibly to take the view that, before the question of dispensing with trial by jury is contemplated, we should first put forward procedural amendments. Such amendments would substantially shorten the process, reduce the cost and reduce the burden placed on juries. Then we can reconsider the wisdom of managing without juries. A number of those suggestions are conveniently set out in one of the briefing papers from Justice, on which I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, may expand. I found it extremely helpful.
The suggestion has been made that long cases are simply not appropriate for juries. I have read an article on the Wickes case, which took 10 months to try. It took the jury less than eight hours to reach unanimous verdicts, finding all three of the accused not guilty. In the course of his summing up to the jury, the trial judge said:
"The care and attention which you have devoted to this case has been obvious to me throughout from almost the very first moment you started to try this case. Those who may hereafter criticize
778
juries' appreciation of lengthy and complex fraud cases would have done well to see the care and attention that, as I say, you have given to this case throughout".
Those observations may well have incited the Early Day Motion recently signed by 58 Members in another place, which reads as follows:
"That this House reaffirms its faith in jury trial for serious criminal cases as an essential cornerstone in British liberty: recognises that it provides a unique example of the responsibilities of citizenship; rejects the unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation that jury men and women cannot comprehend complex factual issues; and recognises that procedures and powers already exist to distil issues and shorten trials in serious fraud cases and to guard against rare attempts to tamper with the jury".
I wish to make a brief comment on the suggestion that the accused, or the prosecution, should have the option to choose trial by judge alone. That is the beginning of creating exceptions that will ultimately do the whole jury system down. It will result in suspicion when members of the jury come to hear the case where the accused is content to have the advantage and the disadvantage of a jury trial. They will wonder why that person has not chosen to be tried by judge alone. They will wonder whether he thinks that he can pull the wool over their eyes more easily and they will ask themselves whether that is why he has chosen trial by jury. This will give rise to a potential distortion, which is a cause of considerable anxiety.
At the back of the matter is the Treasury approach of value for money. The Treasury does not believe that a jury trial in long cases gives value for money because it takes longer and is more expensive. The Treasury concept of value for money is not the same as the consideration as to whether a system is delivering a better justice.
The only other point that I want to make is on the question of public perception, which I believe to be very important. A large proportion of the public, particularly the ethnic minority groups, looks upon trial by jury as giving a better quality of justice. They suspect that a judge has become case-hardened, which would not be surprising because the same sort of defence may be served up time and time again. That has often been the criticism levelled against stipendiary magistrates who are now district judges.
I believe that in the majority of fair-minded judges there can be a subconscious bias towards the prosecution. Although it is not in any way meant to be an unjust approach to the case, there is a feeling that the case would not have been brought if intense investigation had not shown that there was a strong case to answer. That perception is terribly important. If the minority feel that they are being done out of what they consider to be the only truly just and dispassionate way of getting justice, then a real sense of injustice will pervade a part of that population which already views the establishment, so to speak, with deep suspicion. Even though most of us may disagree with it, we must allow the perception to be satisfied. We do not do that by this objective approach to which system sounds and seems the most likely to give the best value for money. Accordingly, I subscribe to the amendments.
4 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I have a real sense of déjà vu because I have made many speeches in this House on the subject of juries. Two previous Bills were defeated when the Government tried to persuade us that the jury system should not be wasted on low-level crime and small-time offenders who abuse the system. At that time, the argument was that serious crime deserved the Rolls-Royce of jury trial—it was the less-serious crime that did not deserve it. I am afraid that, having failed at the lesser end, the Government have turned their assault on its head.
Last weekend, the Prime Minister opened a conference on the renewal of the third way. A list was put up outlining what would be discussed, and it contained seven categories. The sad thing was that the third way clearly has nothing to say when it comes to liberty and justice. The Government have allowed the agenda on law and order to be set elsewhere. What is forgotten is that the "law" part of the "law and order" strapline actually refers to justice—not to the making of laws, but to justice.
Although the jury is 800 years old, and the Government tend not to like anything of age, it is one of the most modern institutions in our firmament. It speaks to all those things that should be at the heart of a contemporary society. It empowers the citizen. It requires his or her responsibility to society. It means giving something back, participation, belonging to a community and bringing the community's values into the court room. By so doing, it validates the legal system.
It is highly desirable that society as a whole should be represented within the processes that determine guilt or innocence because a fellow citizen may be punished as a consequence of that verdict. These processes affect liberty.
Lord Devlin's description of the jury as a miniparliament—and therefore as an element of our democracy—has already been quoted. However, Lord Devlin also said:
"the first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will and next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury".
While we may not be talking about tyrants, I asked a notable Labour man why these repeated attacks were being made on the jury. I said that I could not understand it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said that it is all Treasury-driven, but I do not believe that that is true. The Labour man said that it was about control—that juries are beyond the control of government in a way that even judges sometimes are not.
Juries keep the law honest and comprehensible because working with juries—as those of as who work with juries know—puts an obligation on all of us to explain the law and the rules and to apply the standards of the public to what is right and wrong. The jury stops the law becoming opaque. It stops the law becoming closed and sometimes even dishonest.
780
In the rush to modernisation, we are sometimes unaware of consequences which may not have been immediately foreseeable. The jury, in fact, protects the judiciary. It is what maintains the esteem of the British judiciary. When I travel for the British Council, one comment is always made in relation to Britain and British institutions—that whatever small faults it may have, the British judiciary is globally regarded as incorruptible. That reputation is justified and is due to no small extent to the fact that we have a jury system.
There is no point in bribing or bullying judges as to the verdict because the verdict is not theirs. It is also almost impossible to bribe or bully the whole of a jury. To get a corrupt verdict one would have to get at least 10 jury members on one's side. To get a spoiled verdict, one would need the support of at least seven jury members. Although some serious criminals will inevitably attempt to bribe or intimidate, it happens on remarkably few occasions. However, it will happen more frequently if we have trial by judge alone. A magistrate in France recently publicly stated that there had been threats to her life and that she had been advised by French intelligence not to stand at her own apartment windows for fear of being shot. She had been investigating a fraud trial as an investigative magistrate.
Trial by a single judge catapults judges into a position which makes them very vulnerable. A jury tries a case, delivers its verdict and drifts back to the anonymity of daily life. However, a single judge trying a case will enjoy no such anonymity. Everything about that judge will come under scrutiny, not just from the press but also from the lawyers conducting the cases. Challenges will be made to judges. There will be insistence on disclosure of their every financial interest, and indeed those of their spouses.
Like it or not, judges also acquire reputations—for being prosecution-minded; most often, one would hope, for being even-handed; or, sometimes, even for being soft. Juries are exempt from accusations of being parti pris because they do not have reputations in that way. Having a judge with a reputation decide on a verdict is likely to inflame speculation and allegations of cases being deliberately placed before certain judges. All the public perceptions of the judiciary of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke would be affected. In some high-profile cases, there may be a public perception that the judge is a man brought in to do a job for the state. The undermining of confidence in the judicial system could be very serious. I suspect that the Government have not thought through the potential consequences.
We have an adversarial system. One cannot cobble together a quasi-inquisitorial system simply by removing the jury. I know there are those in government and among those who lobby government who, looking for greener grass, really believe that an inquisitorial system would answer their hopes. However, the checks and balances that are necessary within any system would not exist. The clearly defined role of people such as the juge d'instruction would be absent. So I am afraid that simply removing the jury will not accomplish that goal.

781
Clause 41, which suggests that the accused should be given the choice of whether to have a judge or a jury trial, is very seductive. That word "choice" is, of course, very much the flavour of our time. However, it is the defendants in those very cases that attract public notoriety—such as sexual cases, where there is a strong, proper and necessary expectation of a jury trial by the public—who are most likely to apply for trial by judge alone. What you may then get is judge shopping and people saying at the door of the court, "Actually, forget the jury. Now that I am in front of a particular judge, I think I shall decide on judge trial instead". When that starts to occur it will discredit our system.
I turn to fraud trials. That is not how they are referred to in the Bill which refers to long and complex cases. I am concerned that the matter will not confine itself just to fraud trials but will affect many other kinds of trial and that bureaucratic creep will start to occur. I am afraid that we know who the bureaucratic creep is. Money laundering cases connected with drugs, money laundering cases connected with terrorism and all manner of cases which the public would expect to see tried by a jury will be tried by a judge alone.
As regards the whole issue of fraud there is something very distasteful about creating a system in which white collared professionals are tried by other white collared professionals. How will ordinary citizens, excluded from the process, feel about acquittals in those circumstances? We were told that the reason for reducing jury trial for fraud was that mere mortals could not get to grips with the complexity of such cases, despite the fact that most practitioners, whether prosecuting or defending, take a very different view. It is certainly not the case that fraudsters are getting away scot free. The conviction rate is 86 per cent.
The argument changed in the other place in the final debate on the matter when it was going to a Vote. Suddenly the Secretary of State said, "No, the issue is not about complexity and a jury not understanding the matter. We are concerned that we are not getting the proper mix and a fair reflection of society in juries who attend long trials because most people are too busy to do so. Juries in such trials will mainly be composed of people who are available for long trials. Therefore, you do not get the proper mix". But the truth is that you get very representative juries nowadays. More and more people are retiring early who have a huge wealth of experience in many fields. You do get the disabled person, the unemployed person and the mother of young children on juries. You get an incredible reflection of society as a whole.
But the interesting thing is that the argument about complexity and juries not being up to the task changed as it did not fit comfortably with the Government's argument that juries were smart enough to be able to deal with hearsay and previous convictions and that they were able to sort the wheat from the chaff. If the Government put forward that argument, they must show at least some degree of integrity as regards fraud trials. Suddenly we have a change of argument at a
782
very late stage. The argument now is about how representative the jury is in a long fraud trial. But I ask what is representative about one white male judge, as most judges are who try these cases?
I turn from the issue of fraud to the issue of public interest immunity, which reveals a very important reason why the measure does not work. Increasingly, judges hear public interest immunity applications by the prosecution to withhold information from the defence. I wish to make clear to those who are not lawyers that this is about the prosecution saying to the judge in the absence of the defence, "Certain information came our way as a result of intelligence. An informant gave us that information. We do not want to have to disclose that material to the defence because of the possible repercussions". The defence obligation to disclose everything is limited when it may affect the good running of our investigatory system. The judge hears that application in the absence of the defence and he then says, "I am not going to make an order that this is disclosed to the defence. I do not think that is necessary but at some later stage I may, as the trial develops, have to change my mind". So what does one do in a situation where a judge is sitting on his own with material and facts at his disposal which he is supposed to then put out of his mind? Who will believe that he is capable of putting such factual material out of his mind when he reaches a verdict on the facts in a case?
I am afraid that not only is the measure's manifest unfairness clear to anyone but it is also contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. There is now a suggestion of having a parallel judge who would solve the problem as he would deal with issues of public interest immunity. But how can that help when the trial judge is supposed to keep the issue under review as the trial unfolds?
Finally, I wish to deal with the issue of jury tampering. Of course there is always a risk that professional criminals might interfere with a jury. I was involved in one such case where that suggestion was made against one of the accused. All the members of the jury had to be protected and any unfairness was visited upon the other defendants who were not involved in any imputation of having interfered with the jury. When I hear it said that miscarriages of justice might follow from that, I should say that the jury in that case was perfectly capable of making distinctions between those who were guilty and those who were innocent.
Apparently, a jury might be removed where there is a real and present danger that tampering will take place. Of course, determining whether there is a real and present danger relies on intelligence. It is a little like the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction and involves the same problems. It will be founded on the opinion of investigating officers who may see in it an advantage to the prosecution in making a claim that there is a real and present danger that a jury will be interfered with.
I have spent the best part of my professional life involved in terrorism cases. One managed to conduct all those cases with a jury and one was well served by

783
having juries in such highly inflammatory cases. Of course it is a price that has to be paid if we believe in jury trial, but the cases where jury tampering occurs are statistically very small. The occasional cost of a retrial or of jury protection is a legitimate price to pay for the wonder that is the jury.
We are on a slippery slope here. I alert the Committee to the fact that it is a slippery slope. It is like a virus that will spread. Whatever the Government tell us about confining this part of the Bill to very few cases, we have to ask whether we trust the Government to do just that. I am afraid that trust is a precious commodity and at the moment there is perhaps less of it around than there was.
When the Government tell us that they have no designs on the jury system as a whole, we have to remember that the Government have previous convictions. As there are no rules to prevent your using those previous convictions in reaching your verdict on this part of the Bill, I urge Members of the Committee to do so. I say that previous convictions should not be taken into account but sometimes it might make a difference if we know that in the past we were urged to do away with jury trial in another area. Is this the beginning, yet again, of an assault that will lead to yet fewer and fewer jury trials? I am afraid that my suspicion is that that is what we are looking at.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: The noble Baroness is fully justified, if I may say so, in not going the whole way with her own party on every occasion. Although I shall vote against Clauses 41 and 49 because they go too far in getting rid of jury trials, I feel bound to point out that there is an exception to nearly every good rule. I wish to draw the Committee's attention to an experience which I had which I believe illustrates that.
When I appeared for the defence in a fraud case of great complexity and with a lot of money involved before a jury, it lasted five weeks. It was very complicated. Most of the jury were not very well educated and found it impossible to follow the evidence and the arguments. Indeed, from time to time some of them fell asleep. When the five weeks were coming to an end, the High Court judge decided that he had to direct the jury, by implication, and that is what he did. He went a long way towards doing so.
Therefore, I favour giving power to the court to do without a jury if that is what the defence also wants and if the prosecution agrees. If the clauses are voted down in Committee, I shall come back with a narrow amendment on Report that would enable the court to try any lengthy, complicated fraud case without a jury if that is proposed on behalf of the accused and agreed to by the prosecution.
Lord Taverne: I have not spoken in the debate previously and I do so with great hesitation and humility, because it is a very long time since I had anything to do with the law. For the reasons which have been advanced by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I do not accept the
784
arguments in favour of Clauses 43 and 45 and I do not support all parts of Part 7. In general, 1 accept the arguments for juries in serious criminal cases, but I am sorry to say to my noble friends, with whom 1 part company on this matter, that I am attracted by the arguments in favour of Clause 41 and by the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Phillips to Clause 42.
I shall make a few brief, general remarks. I worked at the Home Office a long time ago. We found that the legal profession tends to oppose many reforms. It is a very conservative profession. The first question that arose when I arrived at the Home Office was whether we should have majority verdicts in jury cases. There was unanimous opposition from the Bar. The sky would fall if there were majority verdicts. The Criminal Bar Association was passionately opposed. It made official representations to the Home Office at that stage and argued that majority verdicts would be a disastrous development for criminal justice.
Leaving that aside, I also remember that earlier, during the time when a certain number of cases were subject to jury trials in civil proceedings, there was again strong opposition to any curtailment of jury trials in civil proceedings. I remember the late Lord Hailsham, when he was still Quintin Hogg, saying that there was a simple rule at the Bar. If one had a good case, one went for a judge; if one had a had one, one went for a jury. In the case of Clause 41, it would be wrong to say that a member who thinks that he has a good case for the defence, and thinks that there may be prejudices against him if he goes for a jury trial, should not be allowed to opt for trial by judge. For once, I am not convinced by the arguments of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. He cited a number of examples—they seemed to be examples—where the defendant thought that there would be great prejudice against him. Therefore, in the case of Clause 41, there are reasons why it should be legitimate for a defendant to opt for trial with a judge alone.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I support the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and those who have spoken after him to the same effect. I confine myself simply to Clause 42, which was another clause that was barely considered in the House of Commons.
There only ever was one plausible argument in favour of the principles behind Clause 42. That was that long fraud cases are too difficult and complicated for juries to understand, and that they have therefore acquitted in cases where they should have convicted. I said that was a plausible argument; it never was the case, as has now been conceded, I understand, by the Lord Chancellor in his speech at Second Reading. He specifically disclaimed any reliance on the argument that juries are not competent to decide those cases. One will find that in Hansard of 16th June, at col. 560. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made the powerful point that the Government's position has changed during the months.
I cannot speak from personal experience of ever having tried a long fraud case, but perhaps I may speak from the experience of others. Of course, juries do not

785
always take in every detail of a long case—one would not expect them to do so—but they are well capable of grasping the essentials. In most cases, as noble Lords will hear again and again this afternoon if they have not done so already, those long cases boil down to one essential point—does the jury believe the defendant or does it not? The essence of all such long cases is ultimately a simple question of dishonesty. Anybody with experience of those cases will confirm that juries have a very good nose for dishonesty.
Moreover, it is simply not the case that juries are failing to convict in cases where they should convict. A figure was given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, today. I thought that the figure that was given to us last time for long fraud cases was 92 per cent, not 86 per cent. That figure seems suspiciously high. I cannot believe that it is as high as that, but in any event, nobody is now suggesting that the rate of conviction in those cases is too low.
If fraud cases are not too difficult for juries to decide, what else is said? It is said, simply, that they are burdensome. Well, of course, they are. They are burdensome for judges, too. The remedy surely lies in the hands of the judges themselves. I return to a point that was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, at Second Reading. How are the judges in these cases to try and limit the issues and simplify them for the purposes of making them easily digestible by juries? I remember a very wise and experienced criminal judge—and he will be remembered also by all the lawyers in the Chamber—Lord Justice Farquharson. He showed the way. At the start of any long fraud case, he would fix leading counsel for the prosecution with a beady eye. He would see an indictment with 10 or 12 counts, or however many it might be, and he would say to leading counsel, "Now, which are your four best points?". From then on, the trial would proceed on the basis of those four counts. All the rest would be swept aside. Judges ought to do something similar to that in order to make such cases—not easier to understand, because that point is no longer relied on—but less burdensome.
If fraud trials are made shorter and less burdensome, as I believe they can be, and if they are not too complicated for juries to understand, as is now conceded on the Government Benches, why do we need to change the law at all? The answer is that we do not. So long as juries can be found to try those cases—-and they can be found—surely a defendant is entitled to be tried in our traditional way, by a traditional jury. If we allow Clause 42 to take its place on the statute book, it will mark the beginning of a very slippery slope. I thought that those were my words until a speaker earlier today pointed out that those had been the words used by the shadow Home Secretary in the House of Commons. I am glad to see my not very original words have that additional support.
I do not know what the fate of Clause 41 will be. I hope that it fails. But if it does not, I shall want to vote against Clause 42, and I hope that those on all sides of the House today who share my feeling for justice will do the same.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: I regret that on this matter I must differ from some respected, eminent and eloquent colleagues of Bench and Bar. It may well be that I swim against the tide of sentiment, but is it not indeed largely a tide of sentiment and myth? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights do not speak of a right to trial by jury. What they all require is an independent and impartial tribunal.
The so-called "right to a jury" is cherished in images of the English legal system and derivative systems, as the debate this afternoon has demonstrated. It is dear to the hearts of many lawyers. But it cannot be put higher than that. It is not fundamental. Such has been the verdict of well-informed reviews; for example, the Roskill report of 1986, the Narey report of 1997 and the Auld report of 2001. Auld recorded that only about 1 per cent of criminal cases in England and Wales are tried by jury. Percentages of that order may be seen as suggesting that the emotions raised by this subject are out of all proportion.
The English system of criminal procedure has undergone seismic changes over the centuries—some relating directly to the jury; others relating to the procedure before the jury. Once, jurors were men of the locality, summoned because they knew the facts of the case and could explain them to the itinerant justices. As late as the end of the 17th century, it was established doctrine that if the jurors knew something about the facts, they should act on that knowledge where it contradicted the evidence of witnesses. Now, however, knowledge of the facts of a case would be regarded as making men and women unsuitable to act as jurors in it.
Until the mid-19th century, a person accused of felony was not even allowed to address the jury through counsel. It was not until the later years of that century that the accused was given the right to give evidence himself before the jury. Again, in the 1870s, a category of offences triable either way—-"hybrid offences"—was introduced, irrespective of the defendant's consent. Majority verdicts were introduced in 1967.
In the light of history, it cannot be suggested that some modification of the law of jury trial in this country would transgress any fundamental principle.
Clause 41 gives the accused, within limitations, a right to trial by judge alone. A broadly similar provision has been in force in New Zealand for some 20 years or more—so, too, in Canada and some Australian states. In New Zealand, it does not apply if, having regard to the interests of justice, the judge considers that the accused should be tried with a jury. One can compare the exceptional circumstances provisions in the Bill in Clause 41(6), (7) and (8).
The other New Zealand limitation is that the accused's right to a judge alone does not apply when the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life or 14 years or more—for example, in cases of murder, manslaughter, aggravated robbery and serious drug offences.

787
The New Zealand provision has worked successfully. It has been invoked by accused persons typically in cases of alleged white-collar crime—a field in which it had been found on appeal that an over-emotional presentation of the prosecution could produce a verdict unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. Thus, in a case of alleged fraud, a parade in the witness box of prosecution witnesses being widows who have lost not only their husbands but their money can be a dangerous precedent in a trial by jury.
Clause 42 of the present Bill goes further than the New Zealand provision in enabling a trial by judge alone against the wishes of the accused in certain complex or lengthy cases—that is, financial or commercial cases or those relating to property—where, in the words of the Bill, there would be,
"an excessive burden upon the life of a typical juror".
As it can operate against the wishes of the accused, this provision is no doubt more open to argument. But, unless one takes the untenable position that only a jury can be an independent and impartial tribunal, it cannot be stigmatised as contrary to any basic human right. Media might sometimes misguidedly criticise either an acquittal or a conviction by a judge trying a case alone, but the tendencies to which sections of the media may succumb should not be allowed to deter Parliament from providing for a mode of trial which, for this kind of subject matter, is the most reliable, impartial and efficient available.
As for detail, the only amendment proposed is that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. That appears to provide for a special jury of six in Clause 42 cases. All special juries were finally abolished in England and Wales in 1971. In the words of Halsbury's Laws of England:
"A special jury was a jury consisting of persons who … were of a certain station of society, such as esquires, bankers, merchants, etc".
Perhaps that description is enough to suggest that restoration of the special jury in some form would not be acceptable today. On the other hand, no judge worth his or her salt flinches from the responsibility of trying a criminal case alone. International experience confirms as much and shows that such trials can be entirely satisfactory. However, in the words of the Bill, some cases can place an excessive burden on the life of a typical juror.
Lord Ackner: Before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wonder whether he has seen an article in the New Law Journal setting out a summary of the report of the Fraud Advisory Panel working party, which states:
"Experience in some of the Commonwealth jurisdictions which allow defendants to elect to be tried by a judge alone (for example, the state of New South Wales in Australia and New Zealand) suggests that the judges there have come to think that public confidence in the criminal justice system may be eroded if controversial cases are routinely tried this way. There is the added danger—set out in the consultation document—that confidence
788
might be further eroded by a system which encourages the presentation of the case in a specialised way which may preclude its comprehension by the wider public".
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reference to that paper. Indeed, I had not seen it, but speaking from experience I fundamentally disagree with it.
My own experience as a judge working in this field in New Zealand was in an appellate capacity where quite frequently in my court over the years we heard appeals from convictions entered by judges who had tried a case alone on the application of the accused. I fundamentally disagree with any suggestion that a sense was created of untrustworthiness in the legal system or anything of that kind. To my knowledge, the system worked perfectly satisfactorily. On the other hand, we had previously found that some convictions by juries were vulnerable because the juries appeared to have been swayed by emotions induced by the manner of the prosecution.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I had not intended to say very much today, but I have been provoked by considering Clause 42 in relation to espionage. There has been much discussion today about fraud and other trials of that kind. Let us imagine that an espionage case is brought in this country. Very few such cases have been other than pleas of guilty in our history. However, I happen to have been involved in one particular case which was tried by jury. If Clause 42 became law, undoubtedly there would be an immediate application by the Crown in such a case that the matter should be tried by a judge alone; that it would be far too complicated and difficult for a jury to try.
It so happens that in what became known as the Cyprus spy trial, a trial which lasted over six months at the Old Bailey, I was one of the defending counsel. Young servicemen were charged with espionage. It involved the safety of the country and NATO and the whole trial was held in camera. Because of the nature of the charges, the jury panel was positively vetted and was probably the most intelligent jury I have ever seen in my experience at the Bar. Jury members were selected, and so forth. Objections were raised to one or two. There was no reporting of the case, and we all had to take the oath not to disclose anything that went on in the trial.
However, it is interesting that at the end of that trial the most intelligent jury which I have ever seen took over a week to consider its verdicts. Six young servicemen were separately charged with espionage. The jury found them not guilty on each charge. Looking back, it is my belief that the particular judge who tried that case might well, although I do not know, have reached the same conclusion.
When one considers what the sentences might have been, it was of vital importance that the case was tried by a jury. That was also very important from the point of view of this country. I make no secret of the fact that

789
I have always regarded jury trial as one of the great bulwarks of freedom in this country. I do not hesitate from my experience in any way to mitigate that view.
However, as there has been no mention of espionage, and as I happen to have been involved in that case, it is as well that I should bring it to the attention of the Committee. I do not know whether anyone here would suggest that the government of the day with that clause would have tried to ensure that the trial was by judge alone rather than by judge and jury. I can think of many judges who might have reached exactly the same verdict as the jury. I believe that the learned judge who tried the case might well have done. However, I can think of other judges who I know quite well who might have taken a very different view. That is why, from my own experience of that particular case, trial by jury is essential. In that kind of case there should not be an opportunity for the establishment to apply under Clause 42.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to oppose my noble friend. I do not do that easily or often. However, on this occasion I think that the case that has been made by a number of Members of the Committee is almost irrefutable. When one considers the views of organisations such as Justice, the Bar Council and the Law Society, none of which are averse to changes in the law, such views are persuasive. They are wholly against the ideas which have been advanced by the Government, particularly as regards the three items mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
My view is that the burden of proof rests very heavily upon those who want to change the law. As far as I can make out, what is being advanced by those who argue for these provisions is based on belief that in certain cases it is safe to dispense with juries. But, frankly, belief is insufficient. The burden of proving that the system of justice can be improved falls on those who put forward these solutions. Therefore, I think that belief is insufficient. We are not talking about 30 or 40 years ago, we are talking about the present situation.
None of the organisations I have mentioned can be accused in any way of being conservative—with a small "c". In their time, those organisations have put forward vital, important and, in my view, essential provisions for strengthening the law. It is true that certain police organisations have come out in favour of the change which is being advocated, but they are all concerned with the prosecution of offences. Therefore, not one organisation of repute, which is concerned both with prosecution and defence issues, supports these proposals.
My view is based upon some 50 years of practice as a solicitor. In the debate so far, only the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and myself represent that particular profession. In that time, I have never come across a situation in which a jury was totally misled or totally foundered upon the evidence that was put forward by the prosecution. Members of the jury come forward with their own ideas. As has rightly been said,
790
it is impertinent to believe that they follow each nuance that is advanced: of course they do not; hut do the lawyers?
In my view the jury system, even in complex cases, answers the bill. There are certain instances in which there should be more co-operation between the prosecution and the defence. I also believe—and I speak here from experience—that where there is such co-operation, the cause of justice is improved immeasurably.
I turn to jury tampering. As I said at Second Reading, when I was defending I came across one particular incident in which the argument of jury tampering was advanced. It resulted in a total acquittal of the defendants. Of course they had a brilliant advocate at the time. That apart, the case which was put forward was vitally flawed. I do not think that we should consider a right to trial by jury being abrogated because of something that may happen in the future. It may well be that there is some evidence of jury tampering, but surely there are other means of protecting juries that could be tried.
On what evidence is the removal of juries wholly justified? I think it is slender. I return to the point I made right at the beginning. I do not think that the evidence should be slender: it should be firm and irrefutable; and that is not the case.
Lord Mishcon: Perhaps I may be allowed a short speech, an anecdote and an observation. The anecdote is forever written on my heart. I mean that without being emotional. It occurred many years ago when I was a young advocate appearing at Bow Street on a very unimportant case. The chief magistrate was there looking after his court.
While I was waiting for my case to come on. I witnessed a tramp—that is what he looked like. Incidentally, this was in the days before legal aid. He was accused of having stolen a wallet in St Martin's Lane by the trick of sidling up to someone who was on the pavement and asking him the time. The gentleman supplied the information. He then found his wallet was missing and the person who had asked him for the time was speeding up his walk along St Martin's Lane.
The magistrate had no doubt whatever in discarding the story that the tramp—not very vocally—told. It was that he had genuinely asked the time and wanted to know it because he had an appointment very near St Martin's Lane. The magistrate said: "There's too much of this going on. It's always the same story— someone asking the time. You're guilty and I want you please to go below while I have a report".
I then rose to speak on my unimportant case. I was only a little way into it when the clerk dropped me a note. The note said:
"Do you mind being interrupted? Something urgent has occurred".
I said that I did not mind in the slightest. A man hastily came into the court and addressed the magistrate. He said: "I'm so sorry, sir, but after the court hearing I went home. I wanted to take a suit to the cleaners. I found the wallet in that suit". The magistrate

791
apologised. It was a story of "case hardened", which I believe was the phrase used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
One of the reasons why I shall go into a certain Lobby if there is a Division is because I cannot forget that case. I am quite sure that a non-case-hardened jury would not have found that man guilty. Certainly, they would not have done so after a plea from an advocate, which was not heard in that court on that day, indicating that the onus is upon the prosecution and not upon the defendant.
I now make my short observation. 1 say with certainty that if any Member of your Lordships' House was charged with any offence covered by this clause or Clause 42, there is not a lawyer available, either here or elsewhere, who, upon being asked to advise on whether that Member should go before a judge or be tried by a jury, would not say to him that if he valued his reputation and it meant so much to him, that he should choose to go before a jury.
Should any Member of this House, if what I say be true, vote otherwise than the way I shall?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: This debate has been largely dominated by the lawyers among us. Although I am in a formal sense a lawyer, having qualified and briefly practised at the Bar, I do not claim any expertise in the field of criminal law. Indeed, in the last case in which I was involved, I unsuccessfully defended the distinguished historian CV Wedgwood from a charge of driving without due care and attention. That certainly cannot be said to qualify me to speak as a lawyer but, nonetheless, I speak in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about there being cause for pause.
It is not the first time that we in Parliament have had before us proposals to do away with jury trial in long and complex cases. I remember the debate on the Roskill report on serious fraud cases. In another place, of 12 Back-Bench Members who spoke, 11 spoke against the proposal to accept the Roskill commission's recommendation that serious fraud cases should he tried by a judge and two assessors. Periodically, Home Office Ministers return to that proposition but, once again, it is right that the Minister should pause.
I do not apply the arguments that have been so eloquently advanced in this debate, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, about whether justice is more or less likely to be done with or without a jury trial in the circumstances described in Clause 42. I found what she had to say on the subject enormously convincing.
What I found surprising is that the argument about justice being done is not what appears to lie behind Clause 42. It is not about the greater or lesser likelihood of convictions being wrongly obtained—innocent people facing conviction or people who are guilty being found innocent. Strangely, if the Bill's language is to be believed, it is about the burden to be placed on a juror faced with such a case. Non-lawyers have every bit as much right to speak about that justification as anyone else. Few responsibilities or
792
rights of citizenship are so widely understood and accepted as is the duty to serve on the jury. The right to vote in an election is perhaps the other attribute of citizenship that the wider public understands.
I am not among those who would argue that the only system of fair and just tribunal that falls under the scope of the rubric of the European convention is the jury trial. How could I? I am a Scot and it is rather less frequently used there. Nor am I inclined to invoke arguments that any criminal justice system is perfect—certainly none that has passed through as many transitions as has ours since jury trials were invented.
Indeed, I went so far as to write the libretto of an opera about a Scottish jury trial in which Thomas Muir, a great radical reformer, was wrongly convicted of the Scottish equivalent of sedition. Of the 15 jurors, 11 of them were paid servants of the Crown. But we do not live in those times and the public does not have that sort of attitude today to jury trials.
I think that people accept that it is an obligation of citizenship which, if they are invited to discharge it, may be burdensome but not so burdensome that they should not assume it with pride and willingness. As a Member of another place, I of course was never called on to do that, but many of my family have been, to their great inconvenience. I have never heard serious suggestions that that was an obligation that they would not be prepared to meet.
If there are better arguments for Clause 42, I hope that the Minister will deploy them in answering the debate. The reasons in the Bill are wholly inadequate to cause us to change the law in an area in which, it must be said, the reputation of the law may be fragile, to the detriment of the fabric of our society.
5 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I shall probably he drummed out of the profession when I sit down, but that is a risk I must take. Of course I accept that the public has great confidence in jury trials, but I am not sure that it follows from that that they would have no confidence in a trial by a judge alone—or, as I should prefer, by a judge sitting with two magistrates, or something of that order. That does not follow at all.
We ought also to consider whether the public's confidence is justified. My personal experience suggests that it is, to the extent that it is unlike a jury wrongly to convict. From my experience—and I have had more criminal experience than I am sometimes given credit for—I led two cases in which I was virtually certain that the jury would convict and was equally certain that it ought not to convict. I broke some of the rules and instructed the members of the jury that, in all the circumstances, it would be more sensible if they returned a verdict of not guilty. With slightly surprised expressions on their faces, they did so.
However, I have come across a number of cases in which—perhaps I am narrow-minded as a judge—I had not the slightest doubt that the jury was wrongly

793
acquitting. Although that is not as great a miscarriage of justice as is the other way round, it is a miscarriage of justice.
Against that background, I do not understand why the defendant should not have a choice. We have had the benefit of the long experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, of what happens in New Zealand. The system appears to work well there and I cannot understand why the whole edifice of justice will crumble if people are allowed to opt out of jury trial.
The only person who has advanced a tenable argument in favour of that view is the distinguished legal editor of the Daily Telegraph, Joshua Rozenberg. In an article a couple of months ago, he said that the trouble with Clause 41 was that if those who were innocent chose to be tried by a judge—he said that they might well do so, because it is a much more efficient form of trial and the chances of achieving justice if they were innocent were much greater—we should soon slide into a situation where anyone who failed to opt for judge-alone trial would be regarded as halfway to having admitted his guilt. I do not subscribe to that view. However, it at least suggests that he, with his experience and of course being much more in touch with the public and the judges than I am in that I have retired, thought that the public might take the view that if they were innocent there was a great deal to be said for being tried by a judge alone.
I totally reject the idea that the jury is the great bulwark of liberty against the establishment. I tried to think of cases in which it might he said that that was so, and could only think of two. I mentioned them at Second Reading. One was the attack by some anti-nuclear protesters on a submarine in the Clyde. They did a certain amount of damage and were triumphantly acquitted, although it is not clear on what legal basis they possibly could have been. The other was the great case of GM crops, where again there was a totally perverse finding of not guilty. But the establishment was not shaken and there has been no change in the law, so I do not think that there is much to be said for that.
I shall move on to Clause 42. It is said that it is the pride and duty of every citizen—I would certainly have been interested to do it, but that is a different matter—to sit on a jury. Duty, yes, but I query pride. Certainly on a long trial, I would very much query that. I was taught as a judge that one had to be very careful, when one sent a jury out or when it was out considering its verdict, not to be obstinate about considering the possibility that it might have to be discharged. If one keeps sending a jury out and saying, "You must try, you must try", one risks a situation in which those in the minority on the jury say, "All right, I give in. We must get home. We must reach finality".
Judges have been taught over the years to avoid that, but that is the situation that one will get into if one has a very long fraud trial. It is said that juries are wholly suitable for such trials because the conviction rate is 86 per cent. That figure frightens me. It is so out of line with the rate of conviction for non-fraud cases that I wonder whether the serious fraud squad is right in claiming—I do not doubt that it does—that it picks
794
all the winners, and whether the jury simply does not understand and comes to the conclusion in some cases that people would not have been charged if they had not been guilty.
It is then said that one can simplify a fraud case. To some extent one can, no doubt, but to some extent one risks arriving at a situation where one is trying something different from the real offence. As a follow-up to that, it is said that every fraud case comes down in the last resort to a question of honesty or dishonesty, and that the man in the street is a wonderful judge of what is honest or dishonest. I could not disagree more. One has only to consider the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion to see that very few juries would be capable of distinguishing one from the other. Provided that there was a profit in it and that it was something that they had not thought of, the chances are that they would regard it as dishonest.
On the subject of jury tampering, until today I was of the opinion that it was very regrettable that the police had to spend a lot of time, money and resources on protecting juries. However, I have certainly been persuaded by the letter in The Times today that it is not entirely a question of protecting juries, because bribery or attempted bribery cannot be protected against by the physical presence of policemen. Where that occurs and someone finds, as was described in the letter, a note of unknown denomination under his windscreen wipers with a clear indication that it is an advance payment, no amount of ordinary police surveillance would deal with that.
I should come back to the point about judges being protected from media scrutiny if they have juries. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, that judges have to put up with that. Physical attacks are slightly different, but they have to put up with them, too. I was interested in the case of the French magistrate who apparently was told by her minders that she must watch out for rooftop snipers. Members of the Committee may think that fanciful, but I lived in the Temple when I was trying IRA cases, and my minders said, "You pull the curtains before you put the lights on, because of the rooftops nearby". It happens to us all, and it is just one of those things that goes with the territory.
I will support all three clauses, but I hope that consideration will perhaps be given to substituting, for a judge alone, a judge with two magistrates. I used to sit in the national industrial relations court with two full members of the court, and found that a great assistance. In the days when there were quarter sessions, I sat as the deputy chairman of Hampshire quarter sessions with magistrates, and again found that of assistance. I would not mind in the least having to give reasons, but I would like someone to discuss the matter with before I decided and gave my reasons.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that he did not believe that a jury was a bulwark against the establishment. Let us assume that that is correct. Is it not also correct that

795
the perception is very clear by the people of this country that if a judge makes the judgment, that is a judgment by the establishment, whereas if a judgment is made by a jury, it is not one made by the establishment?
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I do not think that that is true. I particularly call in evidence our Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, who certainly is not of the opinion that a decision by a judge is a decision of the establishment.
Lord Morgan: As a non-lawyer, perhaps the first to participate, I want to say very briefly why I am afraid that I cannot support the Government in the Lobby. Speaking as a non-lawyer seems peculiarly appropriate, because the law belongs to everyone. The matter is too serious to be left to lawyers, and my case is relevant because the point of the jury system is that jurors are not lawyers. They have no legal background or axes to grind in terms of their expertise.
As a historian, I totally disagree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, who says that he finds it impossible or very difficult in our history to find examples of the jury acting as the bulwark of liberty. I find that a puzzling remark. The concept is rooted in our traditions. It is in and precedes the Magna Carta. I wonder whether it is even part of the Government's disrespect for the Middle Ages that they should offer the proposal.
I have two very brief remarks; we have had a long debate. I find very strange the idea in Clause 42 that jurors somehow might be thought too inadequate mentally or in terms of knowledge to understand the details of a case. As professional people, we have, as they say, a mission to explain. I have spent my entire life as a university teacher. One distinguishes between the accumulation and assessment of evidence and the reaching of a conclusion based on facts. One tries to do so not by assuming that one's pupils are foolish or stupid, but that they are intelligent citizens who can get to grips with it. So it should be and is in the case of a jury. A judge is there to direct a jury, and to explain technical details to it. As we have heard, verdicts are reached. It is important, not merely that the jury should be thought to understand, but that the public should be thought to understand. These are not arcane matters for an enclosed profession; they are for society as a whole. It is extremely important that Clause 42, which appears to contradict that proposition, should not be supported.
Further points could be made about the openness and the independence that the jury system enshrines. Those qualities would be compromised by judges deciding in secret conclave whether cases should be conducted with a jury or not.
I wish to follow up the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, with which I very much agreed, that the issue relates to citizenship. Citizenship is a concept with which people in the United Kingdom have difficulty. Not long ago, we had great difficulty getting the word inserted in the Communications Bill. Citizenship relates to the doctrine of liberty and the
796
doctrine of rights. That would be compromised, perhaps, by having two kinds of cases—those conducted with a jury and those conducted before a judge. Even more importantly, citizenship is about a doctrine of solidarity. It is about society acting together, and, in this case, publicly reaching its own idea of what are norms and values embodied in particular kinds of behaviour that one can accept, behaviour that one cannot accept and behaviour so unacceptable as to be deemed a crime. It is extremely important that that be maintained.
The jury system has been with us for centuries. It has survived King John at Runnymede and the rigours of the Second World War. I recall a distinguished judge and compatriot, Lord Atkin, who vigorously defended in wartime the maintenance of the full panoply of habeas corpus, our civil liberties and our judicial system. That is why we were fighting. The war was about defending our liberties. I recall as a historian reading the material produced by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs during the Second World War. It enshrined trial by jury as one of the supreme values that justified what the war was about.
I hope that the Government think again. I approve their other moves towards constitutional modernisation. I do not regard this proposal as modernisation. I hope very much that it will be rejected.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, tempts me to my feet; I had not intended to speak. I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, into the territory of Magna Carta, save to say that he is quite right. I am more concerned with the mundane matters of theft and minor felony. The great age of the jury as the bastion of liberty is in the first great age of the mandatory sentence, when one suffered the death penalty for any crime worth more than one shilling. Now we are entering what looks like the second age of the mandatory sentence. That case is beginning to acquire, again, a special merit.
It was my privilege this year to give the annual lecture at the Shakespeare birthday celebrations. The play was "Measure for Measure" and the text, of course, was mercy. It became clear to me as I worked on it that mercy, in that context, means an attention to the special circumstances of that case which distinguishes it from other cases in that mandatory category. It is necessary to look at whether there is genuine contrition, whether the crime was done professionally for profit, and whether there are mitigating circumstances that move to leniency. Those three urges to look at the evidence are a vital counterbalance to the mandatory sentence.
Juries regularly undervalued stolen goods in order to avoid a conviction of felony. In some cases, they reached special verdicts, which, until you look at the circumstances, are quite surprising. On one occasion, a man came home from work and found someone else in the act of raping his wife. He banged the man on the back of the head, which was the only accessible portion of that gentleman, and the man died. The jury reached a verdict that John Lellowe did it, the evidence having

797
shown the presence of no such person anywhere near the scene. If we must have a mandatory sentence, we must have mercy, and the jury is its appropriate agent.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said at the Second Reading of the Crime (Sentences) Bill in 1996, if you attempt to exclude discretion in one place, it bursts out in another. What better vehicle for discretion than the jury, which has studied all the facts of the case, unlike anybody who has merely read the transcript? The noble and learned Lord would do well to read some of the work of 17th century criminal historians, which is of very high quality.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am persuaded by the noble Earl that I overstated my case. Without going back to further reading, there is ample material in relation to the life imprisonment mandatory sentence, which juries disregarded bringing verdicts of diminished responsibility. I had overlooked that. Where there is a mandatory sentence, I agree that the jury is invaluable. But we ought not to have mandatory sentences.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I enter with diffidence these arcane discussions merely to try to draw one perception from Northern Ireland and, secondly, to offer respectful comment on the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke.
In Northern Ireland for the past 30 years, during what is still called the emergency, certain defendants charged with serious offences have, for very necessary and proper reasons, been denied a jury trial. The corollary of that has been that judges, whether at the High Court or at the county court sitting as High Court judges, have had to act as judges of verdict and of law. There cannot be the slightest complaint about how those judges have discharged that task. On the contrary, they have behaved heroically. To my knowledge, no serious criticism has ever been made of the integrity, the impartiality or the professionalism with which they have dealt with those cases.
However, the fact has always remained, and remains today, that there are two classes of trial for offences of equal severity. One class has been denied jury trial by reason of an association with the emergency, or a presumed association with it, and the other class has had jury trial. That has given rise to grievances and perceptions that have been very inimical to public confidence in the judicial system.
This debate seems to be about the necessity for confidence in the jury system. From Northern Ireland one can draw certain perceptions. The first is that, all things being equal, the people strongly prefer jury trial, for the reasons that have been so well disclosed today—they scarcely need more than a passing mention from me. Pace the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, people see juries as offering a bulwark against a bully.
I could add another case to the two that the noble and learned Lord recalls in which the jury has gone against the weight of the evidence and the weight of judicial
798
direction and done what it believed to be right because it thought that the law, whatever it was, was not being enforced in a way that accorded with its sense of what was sensible, proportionate and right. I think, therefore, that people see juries as a safeguard against a bully. They certainly see them as an independent institution—the importance of independence is very topical. People prefer their fate to lie in the hands of their fellow citizens. Perhaps they should not, but they do, and I am not in the business of telling them that they should not.
The second perception to come from the Northern Ireland experience is that mandatory discrimination between one defendant on a serious charge and another and according jury trial to one and denying it to the other is certain to engender grievance and a suspicious perception. Therefore, there is something to be drawn from the experience in Northern Ireland that may commend itself to the Committee. I hope that it does.
Lastly, I would like to say, with great respect, how much I enjoyed the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon. I believe that I may be the only Member of your Lordships' House present today to be able to claim that I have appeared before the Court of Appeal in New Zealand when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, was president. From then onwards, I have entertained the greatest respect for that court, for its then president and for the entirely respectable way in which it disposed of my Spycatcher litigation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, said that trial by jury cannot be put higher than a cherished institution and that it was not a fundamental right. I agree, of course. It was extremely interesting as well as helpful to learn of the ways in which the jury system has been modified and adapted in New Zealand. However, I am not arguing for an unchanged system of jury trial because to retain it is to retain a fundamental human right. I believe that we should retain it because it is what the people want, for the reasons that I have outlined. At the moment, the system has the people's confidence in a way in which the alternatives proposed in the Bill, in my judgment, do not.
People see the jury system as an institution that is well tried and well approved, and one that carries valued advantages that would be lost by the suggested alternatives. Its replacement has not been electorally demanded. I did not find my argument holed beneath the waterline by the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke—enormously impressive and interesting though it was.
I conclude by offering this reflection. In many jurisdictions that derive from common law and owe their origin to this country, there are all sorts of variations that have been found to be acceptable and congenial in those respective countries. I hope that I will not be thought frivolous to point out that New Zealand has a one-chamber legislature, which is not a precedent likely to commend itself to the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Brennan: To serve on a jury is an act of citizenship and citizenship is best understood within the history of the country in which it is being exercised, which for these purposes, is England and Wales. One can fairly say about the concept of citizenship in our country that it involves the right to have rights and the duty to perform duties. A jury trial exquisitely and democratically combines those two aspects of citizenship—one's right to be tried by one's fellow man and one's duty to participate in that process when called upon so to do. It is no doubt because we regard that as a fundamental value that the Government have included in this Bill the requirement for practically everybody to serve on a jury, whatever excuses people may try to put forward. What better vindication of its fundamental value in our society could we have than that provision?
Within our country such a value is not a myth, it is a reality: it is not sentiment, it is belief. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, was correct. We are not talking about human rights. We are talking, if the phrase is not too pretentious, about a fundamental value in which we have confidence. If that value is to be altered in legislation, it must be justified by serious, intelligent and convincing evidence and argument.
Many noble Lords on these Benches regard this Bill as an effective challenge to crime. Generally speaking, I accept the proposals about disclosure and double jeopardy. However, I stand firm on jury trial for the following reasons. First, on the provision in favour of trials without juries in long and complex cases, the Home Secretary himself said today or yesterday that he does not contend that juries cannot understand the evidence in such cases. If that is correct, the only concern that remains is the question of the burden upon the members of the jury who are asked to serve. Let us remember that all jurors are asked whether they are able to sit. If they have a reason not to, it is judicially considered. In all long cases juries sit as citizens throughout the process. We should not be concerned about the convenience of a particular juror when we are dealing with a fundamental value.
In this first sector of serious crime—usually fraud—I am for getting tough on fraud, but not for getting tough on the jury system. We are hopelessly weak in our attack on white-collar crime. I will briefly repeat the points that are obvious to us all. We do not have an organisation such as the SEC—the Securities and Exchange Commission—in America that pursues people early on and makes them pay massive fines to get out of a trial. We do not do that here. When people are brought to trial under the provisions of this Bill, there will be disclosure provisions that require defendants fully to explain the nature of their defence. With such a power of disclosure in the court, is it beyond the wit of the judge so to organise a fraud trial to crystallise the issue, require it to be phrased in plain English and restrict the number of counts before a jury? Of course it is not.
800
We are becoming hypnotised by the system that we have used for so long. Case management, a single offence of fraud, or any such ideas have not yet been properly tried. Until they are, I stand with the jury. What is the alternative that we glean from the material around the Bill? The Serious Fraud Office is seriously suggesting, if I have read correctly, that it could produce yet more complex prosecutions if a trial could be before the judge alone. Such trials would undoubtedly take longer and be more expensive. They would require the judge to produce written reasons and would certainly not assist justice. On the question of serious long cases, if we vote for this system, we suffer a real risk of institutionalising in our society enormously long, complex and expensive cases, as if that were our way of doing justice. It is not.
My second point concerns jury tampering. My noble friend Lady Scotland, no doubt acting on the material given to her by her advisers, is reported to have said in one of today's newspapers that it is almost impossible to guarantee the security of jurors at present. It is an astonishing state of affairs in a mature democracy that we cannot secure the safety of jurors in our criminal process. However, we should add that neither can we guarantee the safety of witnesses, nor that of a prosecutor and, according to one of the examples given in some of the briefing material. not even that of a judge. There was an example a while back of a defendant seeking to get out of a case by planting into the judges telephone records a totally bogus call said to have taken place between the judge and the defendant, which was then used as an argument for getting out on appeal. It is simply wishful thinking to say that, because we can do without a jury, the system is bound to work. It is not necessarily so.
Is the priority to protect jurors, witnesses and prosecutors, or is it to tinker with the jury system? It would be an unhappy result if we were to pass the clause and it became a fact of life in this country that we could not guarantee the security of jurors. Can it be done? America proclaims the value of the jury system in a society in which crime has been far more organised, sustained and ingenious than in this country. On that ground, I stand for the jury.
Lastly, there is election by the defendant. In Clause 41, there is a considerable exercise in illogic, no matter how felicitously phrased, for several reasons. First, there is no guidance as to the circumstances in which a defendant may seek trial by a judge, instead of a jury. Other than the given exception, there are no indications of the standards that a judge is to apply in deciding whether to allow trial by judge alone. That is how the Bill stands. What will it mean, if we have such election? Surely, it means—implicitly, if not quite explicitly—that there are grounds in our democratic society to doubt the justice of a jury trial. We cannot have it both ways: we are either for the system, or we declare ourselves to have lost confidence in it.
The irony of Clause 41 is well demonstrated by the fact that it provides that a case in which a servant of justice is charged with an offence the nature of which

801
appears to bring into disrepute or prejudices the administration of justice is the type of case for which we are likely to need a jury. Is that logical?
On election, tampering and fraud, I say, "Stand by the jury". However, I do not say, "Do nothing"; I say, "Do plenty—to get rid of the problems that are said to found the reasons for the change". If we have to vote at the end of our considerations today, the question will be whether we are convinced that it is a necessary step. Are we convinced, not only personally, but because we think that the majority of the community would agree with such changes in the jury system? I do not think that they would. One need not be a lawyer to make the analysis that I have just made; one must be a citizen who believes in jury trials. I do.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great interest, with great support for the views that have been expressed on the jury system and with ever-growing puzzlement as to why the Government are putting the suggestions forward.
There is little more that I would want to say on jury tampering than what my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said two hours ago. If there is jury tampering, it should he dealt with in ways other than deprivation of such an important right, which is vested in the defendant.
As I understand it, there is total acceptance by the Government—this is why I respectfully demur from the approach adopted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington—that, normally, serious offences should be dealt with in this country by the jury system. If that is right, it is nothing to the point that judges are capable of judging cases fairly and well. We have long opted for the jury system.
I looked at the ground for the exception in the case of serious fraud trials. I own that, some years ago, when the Roskill committee reported, I was attracted by the idea of trial by judge and two assessors. Then it was suggested that one of the reasons for that was the need to ensure that a fair verdict was arrived at by a tribunal that understood the evidence. As I understand it, the Government have abandoned the suggestion that the jury cannot understand the case. Now that they have done that, the entire underpinning of their case has gone.
In several respects, dishonesty is at the heart of most such cases. It is desirable that the issue—one of fundamental truth—should be decided by a jury. The reasons have been given by others, and I shall not expand on them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned the Justice briefing, which has been supplied to the Minister. It is possible to improve procedures in our jury trials to avoid and lessen the burden on jurors.
I commend to anyone who thinks that it may not happen a splendid book by Mr Trevor Grove, called The Juryman's Tale. He speaks of a long trial that conditioned his experience and led him to become a
802
magistrate and write a subsequent book, The Magistrate's Tale. He comes to the conclusion that the jurors can understand such cases but, my goodness, they could be helped by improvements to the procedures. I agree.
I shall close by taking up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. She made a point about control by the Government. I do so as gently as I can, as I am not an especially party-political person. However, I have, in recent years, become more and more concerned about the attitude of the Government to the value of the rule of law. It began with the attempt—made twice in a short space of time—radically to limit the availability of juries in minor trials. Those plans were kicked out by your Lordships' House, and that was applauded by the public.
I am sorry to say it but, this year, we have seen a Home Secretary who, on occasion, has undoubtedly made disparaging remarks about judgments that were given against him. It is the task of the Home Secretary to decide whether to appeal judgments that go against him: it is not his task to do anything that may bring our independent judiciary into disrespect.
In the Bill, there are certain disclosure requirements relating to the defence, including the requirement relating to expert witnesses, which have led no less fair, courteous, decent and able a judge than our Lord Chief Justice to put a paper in the Library saying that the provisions give unequal treatment—that is, they are not fair to the defendant, as against the prosecution. I would have hoped that no Lord Chief Justice would ever have seen it necessary to make such a charge against a government of our country. All that and the Government ask us to limit trial by jury and to leave the trial to judge alone when we simply do not know at the moment by whom those judges are to be appointed.
The Minister demurs, but perhaps I may remind her of an answer given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor yesterday. The final decision would be made by a Minister. At present, that Minister is the Lord Chancellor. That Minister is legally qualified. That Minister is insulated from the House of Commons. That Minister and successive holders have a long and honourable tradition of preserving total independence in the appointment of judges. By contrast, the final appointer now, if the consultation paper goes through, is to be a Minister who will be in the Cabinet, contrary to the Government's avowed principles of separation of powers, who may be in the House of Commons and who need not necessarily be legally qualified. We simply do not know what will be the basis of their competence to preserve the independence of the judiciary and to choose the appropriate judges.
I hope that my fears about the ultimate aim of the Government in some of these reforms are unfounded. What I know is that until we actually know the degree of independence which is to go into the appointment of

803
judges, until Parliament, which is the decision-taking body on this, has decided it, I would not go an inch to lessen the role of the jury.
Lord Dholakia: Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I, too, am concerned that the proposals in the Bill for the limitation of jury trial could be the thin edge of the wedge leading to a more radical assault on the right to jury trial of the kind that the Government have favoured in the past but have been unsuccessful in putting through this Parliament.
I shall concentrate briefly on three areas. The first area is the jury system and ethnic minorities; the second is our international reputation; and the third is tampering with juries. Taking up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the issues relating to racial minorities, I shall concentrate on one specific but crucial area of the argument; that is, whether ending the right to trial by jury will disadvantage black and Asian defendants and further dent the confidence of racial minority groups in the criminal justice process. Will the change be to the disadvantage of racial minorities? Will black and Asian people perceive the change to be biased against them and thereby further dent their confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice process?
There appears to be no dispute that black and Asian defendants who appear in the Crown Court are more likely to be acquitted than white defendants. For example, the research by Gordon Barclay—from the Home Office at one time—and Bonny Mhlanga, cited in the Section 95 publication, Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2000, showed that the acquittal rate in contested Crown Court trials was 36 per cent for black defendants and 44 per cent for Asian defendants compared with 30 per cent for white defendants. Many black and Asian defendants are likely to feel—rightly or wrongly—that trials by a single white judge might produce a different result to trial by jury or, more importantly, by a multi-racial jury.
Minority communities would also fear that the moves in the Bill are the beginning of a slippery slope to a greater restriction on the right to elect jury trial. In the past, the Government have argued that black defendants are also more likely to be acquitted by magistrates than white defendants. It has cited figures showing a higher conviction rate for white defendants than black defendants in magistrates' courts. However, a range of research studies indicated that black people are more likely to be prosecuted in cases where the evidence is weaker. That means that there ought to be a higher acquittal rate; it is possible that the acquittal rate should be higher still if justice was done in every case. The bald figures do not provide a solid basis for reassuring black or Asian defendants who fear that if future measures require their cases to stay in the magistrates' court they are less likely to receive justice from what, in many cases, would be an all-white group of magistrates.
If the statistical evidence is complex, the issue of perception is more clear-cut. It is quite clear that many black or Asian people strongly believe that they will
804
get a fairer trial from a multi-racial jury than from an all-white bench of magistrates. They will perceive this even more strongly in those cases where it is proposed that they be tried by a single white Oxbridge-educated judge. It surely is not difficult to understand that feeling.
If the Government were able to produce robust and sophisticated research findings disproving this perception, I would be prepared to play my part in helping to spread those findings among minority communities in order to help boost confidence in the court process. However, as yet we have seen no such findings. In any case, they would not in themselves justify restrictions on jury trial. At a time when the criminal justice system needs to take every step it can to sustain the confidence of minorities, moves towards the restriction of jury trial are a step in precisely the opposite direction.
So what is the basis of my case? In the past, I consulted the very organisation which the Government set up to promote equality and good relations—namely, the Commission for Racial Equality. I was told that it had three objections. First, the proposals were not "race-proofed" before they were introduced and the Government tried to justify them post hoc. Secondly, contrary to the Government's pledge to increase ethnic minority confidence in the criminal justice system, these proposals would further erode it. Thirdly, there is every indication that each year hundreds of defendants who would have been acquitted at the Crown Court will be found guilty if this legislation is passed. A disproportionate number of those people will be from minorities. Those are not my words but the words of the Commission for Racial Equality. It would be helpful to know from the Minister whether this body, set up by the Government, was consulted before the proposals were framed.
Seventeen per cent of the male prison population and 25 per cent of women prisoners are from ethnic minorities, which is a matter of serious concern. We need much more detailed studies on sentencing. I have figures before me but it is too late in the day to go into detail. The case has been made by a number of other speakers. We have evidence from former members of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice about how they view the whole process. The most important aspect to bear in mind is that at a time when the criminal justice system needs to take every step it can to repair the confidence of racial minorities, abolishing the right to elect jury trial is a retrograde step.
Perhaps I may conclude by putting forward two brief arguments. First, I am sure that I shall have the support of the whole House on a point clearly identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, which concerns our international reputation and standing. Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of the situation in Russia, Nigeria and a number of other countries on the world stage where courts and those who administer justice are bound to be corrupt. Justice is at a premium. The only hope that innocent people have is the jury system. However imperfect it may be, in many cases it is a matter of life

805
and death. Those countries would be entitled to say that if Britain, the mother of democracy, can abolish trial by jury, what is to stop them doing precisely that?
The second point relates to jury tampering. If juries need protection, we must provide it. Let me give an analogy: we do not stop mugging by locking up old ladies, nor should we abolish juries because criminals interfere with them. We should be more robust in protecting the principle which has stood the test of time. The Home Office should look again at the proposal it is advocating.
6 p.m.
Lord Condon: I rise to make a brief contribution. I apologise to earlier speakers who I did not hear, but I was unavoidably delayed. As a former commissioner, I always believed that the jury trial was at the heart of the criminal justice system. I still believe that it should be changed only if there are compelling reasons, and I am not convinced. A personal observation that I would add—I think I probably have a unique personal experience this year over your Lordships—is that I stood as a defendant for five weeks in No. 2 court at the Old Bailey on a health and safety charge. Although my liberty was not at risk and I was not financially at risk, my reputation and the future of operational policing was at risk in many respects.
I realised within a few days who I wanted to adjudicate on those important issues. I looked across at the good men and women of the jury and I was absolutely content and reassured that it was a jury adjudicating on the issue and not some other form of tribunal. So I find myself, perhaps against the stereotype, wishing to preserve and protect the role of the jury at the heart of the criminal justice system.
However, if noble Lords are not prepared to contemplate any change to trial by jury under any circumstances, then a number of things will need to follow from that. Although I was full of admiration for the jury in my case who, I think, came to the right conclusion, it was interesting to see how that jury was empanelled and how a group of 40 to 50 people was whittled down to the jury that finally served in the trial. Once the judge made it apparent that the trial would last for at least five weeks, everyone wearing a suit and tie disappeared from consideration. Once it was reinforced that the trial would last for at least five or six weeks, the penny dropped and people began to come up with—I must be unkind here—contrived excuses which were allowed.
If we are not to contemplate any change to trial by jury, then we must ensure that juries are truly representative and that people are not allowed to escape the duty spoken of by noble Lords earlier in the debate. It is a duty that must be fulfilled by a wider range of society than is provided by the narrowness and arbitrariness of parts of the current selection process. So in relation to serious and complex cases, if people are expected to sit for three, six or nine months, then there must be a fair distribution of responsibility as regards who sits on such trials.
806
The only other point I wish to make concerns jury tampering. Many of my former colleagues, chief constables, feel passionately about this issue and consider that trial by judge is the only way forward. I understand where they come from in their argument, but I do not share in its force. Like other noble Lords, I believe that the remedies must lie in better protection of juries. However, the price to pay for that protection will be very intrusive; that is, more intrusive in jurors' lives than is currently the case. Again, that is something that we should be prepared to do.
So I find myself in agreement with those who have grave anxiety about removing trial by jury, even in a limited number of cases. But if we are not to contemplate any change, then we must consider how to reinforce the role of our jurors, who will sit as jurors, and the protection they are given.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I rise to respond to what I think has been a very in-depth debate on these provisions. However, it has smacked more of a Second Reading debate than it has of consideration in Committee. I shall bear in mind what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, as to why that may have been so.
Somewhat out of sequence, perhaps I may take up some of the points that have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who of course has enormous experience of these issues. I do so because he has raised some very telling points. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, who said that juries are what people want. What I would say in answer to that remark is: not universally. It is our experience, gained from many long and difficult cases, that sometimes hundreds of potential jurors have to be empanelled before a jury can be chosen because individuals do not want their lives to be totally disrupted and their day-to-day activities completely suborned for what can be several months or even, on occasion, over a year. That is a very serious point for us to grapple with.
I turn to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, regarding what can be done about jury intimidation. I do so because the noble Lord said that he is outwith the views expressed by his colleagues. Many noble Lords will know that some 47 chief constables have written in the most trenchant terms to express their concern and anxiety about the task with which they have to grapple on our behalf on a daily basis. They have done so because these are changing times.
Noble Lords say that we can grapple with these complexities, but none of us should fool ourselves. We live in a very different world from that which we faced when I came to the Bar in 1977 and when many other noble Lords did so. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was called to the Bar before I was born. Things have changed. Today we have to deal with complex, difficult, vicious criminals who will stop at nothing. There is no boundary which they will not cross to get what they want, and what they want is the disintegration of our system. They want to be outside of it and they will use every tool and every machination

807
in their attempts to undermine the security of our system. We must acknowledge that reality when we consider the task with which Clauses 41, 42, 43 and 45 seek to grapple.
Of course we are all influenced by our passion for the importance of the jury, but I should say to noble Lords that some balm to our spirit in this debate was provided by the sagacity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon. I say that because many noble Lords fear change. To repeat the word used by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, we are in the main "conservative" when we deal with change. Therefore it is not surprising that noble Lords from all sides of the Committee have expressed their fear of change, their worries about what will happen if we trespass into a different area. The only Member of the Committee who has had that advantage for some considerable time is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, and so I listened with great care to what lie had to say. His words stem not from fear, but from objective experience. He told the Committee that this is a bourn from which travellers do return. He was also able to reassure the Committee that jurors and the validity of juries cannot be undermined thereby.
I wanted to start my response with those comments because we need to look at this issue with a certain degree of calm reflection. I say that because Members of this House carry out a very important duty on behalf of members of the public. We are not the elected House, but we bring to bear the experience and, one hopes, the wisdom and not the prejudice which will enable us to look afresh at things we have to consider. We must face issues that we have not faced before.
So it is with a little sadness that I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, that I have to part company with him entirely when he says that this Government do not honour the rule of law. I believe that it was he who made the remark rather than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I can say to the noble Lord, without fear of contradiction, that this Government and this party hold at their very core—their very essence—the rule of law as it applies not to one hut to us all. If you look at this party's history, you will see that thumbprint all the way through it. I can reassure the noble Lord that nothing has changed.
But we now live in a different world and we need to look at the context in which these provisions are being sought. This is one of the most comprehensive reform programmes that the House has ever seen in relation to the criminal justice system. All noble Lords have said that they value many of the changes that the Government are about to make. Through this Bill we are seeking to give the judiciary the tools it will need to make the punishment fit the crime, to enhance opportunities for rehabilitation, for mercy, as has been prayed, for change, and also for safety.
That is why we seek to introduce the new tools and to make them available to judges in order that they may decide whether someone should be set free, with conditions, on licence. It is an important change and Part 7 of the Bill is part and parcel of the whole picture.
808
I know that there is a temptation to lift it out and pretend that it stands alone. But it does not; it is an integrated part of the whole.
I shall speak personally. I have faith in the judges of our country that they will exercise their discretion without fear or favour; that they will hold in the balance the rights of the defendant against the rights of the public to justice. When making the decision as to whether it is in the interests of justice to have a jury trial or whether, exceptionally, it is in the interests of justice for a judge to sit alone, our judges will bear in mind all the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dholakia, in terms of what we need to craft in order to make this change.
I almost want to throw the question back to the noble Lord and ask whether he really believes that in the kind of cases he described any judge worth his salt would say, "We do not need a jury trial in this case. It suffices for the judge to sit alone". No, these provisions are there for the very rare, exceptional cases when the full panoply of the protection that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, knows we give simply may not be enough. We are talking about jurors who have their whole lives overtaken by protection, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, not for a week but for month after month after month.
There have been cases where juries have been discharged not only because of a threat of violence, not only because of bribery, but because witnesses on occasion have been shot, hurt, injured, maimed. When that happens, do we say "Enough"? Do we say, "Now we should follow a different course because it has been proven that these particular elements know no bounds"? Or do we say, "It suffices"? I have to say to noble Lords that these questions are being asked outside the House and we, each of us, will have to justify to the members of the public why we have done this.
A number of noble Lords have said that the Government have given up on complexity. I say, "Not entirely". Some cases are now extraordinarily complex, and it is that very complexity that cloaks sometimes the inequity that lies beneath. To have a successful prosecution we need to rip away that cloak and to lay bare the inequity that lies beneath it. That cannot be done quickly and it cannot always be done easily and simplistically. We advocates believe that all is possible. We are the communicators. We can make that which is cloudy seem clear. We can hone an issue so that those who do not understand will understand. Sometimes that is true, but the tragedy is that sometimes it is not.
We are now faced with not only our own offenders but international criminals who will use every device available to them to cloud and cloak what they do. This is a testing moment for the House. We are in Committee and this is where we discuss the issues that need to be debated so that we can hone that which should go into the Bill. This is the moment when we say our minds are open to debate. Some noble Lords have clearly indicated that there will be a Division and that the Committee will speak. I hope that the Committee

809
will also listen because, when we leave the House, each of us will bear a responsibility for what happens thereafter.
So let me do what we do in Committee and look at the Bill. A number of questions have been asked and a number of issues have been raised. I heard what my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws said. She, too, seemed to suggest that the Bill is a great undermining. She said, "Here we are. We are in the dock. We have been in the dock before. We have been found guilty on a number of occasions and all noble Lords should hold those convictions against us. When you come to look at what we say we should be burdened by that history. We should not stand or fall on what we say now".
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gave an example which will be indelibly printed on my mind. He referred to the tramp who was misunderstood. Why? Because of the clothing; because of what he had done before. The noble Baroness said, "Judge not on history. Judge on the facts of this case". I take her at her word. I say to the Committee, judge not on the history but on what we are doing now. It is what we are doing now that counts.
The Committee should understand that the Government have listened. The noble Lord referred to the fact that there has been a mode of trial Bill before; that it was wrong; that the Government should not have introduced it; that the Government should think again. The Government did. We did not bring back the Bill as we could have done under the Parliament Act; we thought again.
I remember that two or three years ago it was being urged upon us with great passion that the mischief we had to cure was intimidation and fraud. That was the mischief we needed to address; not the rest. Fraud and intimidation. We have listened and we have come back to your Lordships' House to ask for discretion in relation to fraud and intimidation. Not because that is what we want but because it is what the public want, what we are told the public need.
But what are we told now? We are told, "Oh, it is too late now. You should have done that before". That is not how we govern. This is not a game where we say, "I hit you so you hit me". We believe in mercy, we believe in redemption, we believe in rehabilitation and we believe in change. The Bill seeks to achieve that.
Let us look at the issues that noble Lords have raised. They have asked about the discretion, how it will work and what the limitations are. I invite the Committee to look at Clause 41(7), which states:
"This subsection applies if the judge is satisfied—

(a) that, because of the conduct which is alleged to constitute the offence or any of the offences concerned, the issues which will arise at the trial for determination include issues relating to whether the administration of civil or criminal justice has been prejudiced or brought into disrepute, and

(b) that the matters mentioned in paragraph (a) give rise to exceptional circumstances which make it desirable in the interests of justice for the trial to be conducted with a jury".

810
I invite all those who ask where is my safety net, where is my security for preservation of the jury in the right case, to look first at Clause 41(7).
Noble Lords have asked, what of Clause 42? I invite them to look at Clause 42(6), which states:
"In deciding whether or not he is satisfied that both of those two conditions are fulfilled, the judge must have regard to any steps which might reasonably be taken to reduce the complexity or length of trial".
That answers those who say that people will get sloppy and go on and on. No, the judge is obliged to look under Clause 42(6).
Clause 43, as noble Lords know, deals with the application by the prosecution for the trial to be conducted without a jury where a danger of jury tampering arises. What do we find there in relation to the second condition therein referred? Subsection (5) states:
"The second condition is that—

(a) the danger is such that it would be necessary to provide police protection for the members of a jury hearing the trial, and

(b) the level and duration of that protection would be likely to place an excessive burden upon the life of a typical juror".

Of course I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, says. In many of these cases, the jurors are able to withstand the burden, and they discharge their duty with integrity and real courage. I, from this Dispatch Box, commend them for that. But there are those for whom it is simply too heavy a burden.
We should ask ourselves whether we would be willing to give up a whole year of our life, with no days off—because the trial will stop if we have a day off—and to live under 24-hour supervision. Would we be willing to give up a whole year of our life? We all consider ourselves to be decent citizens, public-spirited and good-hearted people who wish to serve our country and our citizens. I regret to say that if we carried out a straw poll, most of us would say, "Actually, thank you, but no thanks".
So who are we imposing this burden upon? It is not only us. We have to ask ourselves whether it is so unsafe and unsatisfactory that a judge, entrusted with the exercise of that discretion, should make that judgment. There will he cases, no matter how great the burden, in which public interest will demand a jury trial because there is no other way through. But there are other cases in which that may not be so.
This Bill seeks not to expunge the right of jury trial in relation to the most serious and heavy cases but to give the judge, whom we have entrusted with the conduct of this trial, the right, the privilege and the burden, on behalf of the public, to make that decision by exercising that judgment.
I hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, says about the experience in Northern Ireland. However, that experience, as he rightly says, demonstrates that the public can have confidence in the sanctity of the judgments made. There has been no suggestion in all those years that the interest demonstrated by the judge has been

811
anything other than a true interest in the rule of law and the administration of justice. People have confidence in that. Whatever else they say, no one in 30 years has suggested that it is a politically motivated or improper process. I see the noble and learned Lord nodding his head. So we have good examples.
Earl Russell: Some 30 years ago, I sat in the Public Gallery of the House of Commons listening to Lord Jenkins of Hillhead deploying arguments in favour of accepting majority verdicts on juries. Those arguments had something in common with these. I was persuaded of them slowly and reluctantly because they went contrary to the bulk of Lord Jenkins' record. Can the Home Secretary say the same thing?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would say yes. It is always a delight, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows, to look back at history and see what was said by those who went before us. All these arguments, as has been so graphically said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, were made before. We were told it would be the end of the world as we knew it to have majority verdicts. Everything would grind to a halt— the ceiling would fall in, juries would be undermined. That is what people said.
They then came to peremptory challenges. I stand in the dock on peremptory challenges. I remember thinking at the time, "Doing away with peremptory challenges—whatever next". But the roof did not fall in, jurors' will was not suborned and justice has been done.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, took us through the history of juries. Juries have changed many times; the core has remained the same. Nothing in these provisions seeks to damage the sanctity of the jury. Noble Lords who say that if you suppress discretion one way it will bubble up elsewhere should bear that in mind when we look at these issues, because they will come back. If we do not face them now, we will have to find a way of facing them later.
We have balance in these provisions. We need to talk, perhaps, about the provisions themselves, but as to whether they should stand part, I say that they should. Let us debate, if we must, the detail. Let us debate balance; let us debate proportionality. But I ask noble Lords to open their ears and their minds. If it was not in relation to these issues, I certainly know all these concerns from looking in the documents from New Zealand and Australia. They come from the same root as do we—from the common law. All these concerns were played out in those jurisdictions.
I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I do not hide the fact that I wince at his suggestion that the independence of our judiciary will ever be impugned. For so long as I remain anything to do with this Government, that will not happen. But I rely not on myself but on thousands of years of good tradition which has never been suppressed. I believe that the judiciary we have today, who sit in judgment, will be with us, by the grace of
812
God, for a very long time. If the longevity of this House is anything to go by, they will be with us for a very significant time indeed.
This country has produced some of the greatest jurists. Many of them I have been privileged to listen to today. I do not feel that they will go away; I do not see them weakened, either in their passion or in their content. I listened with great care to everything that was said by all Members of the Committee. I almost wish that I could read out the roll call, which sounds a little like Henry V, of all the great names who have participated in this debate. Noble Lords have given justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly raised the question of the proper sensitivity about what we should do about black and minority ethnic defendants. How do we look at those issues? That is something of which the Government are very aware, and we have had discussions with the CRE. We are looking at what we need to do to monitor the provisions. The Home Office race equality scheme is, as noble Lords know, a living document, which recognises that it is often necessary to take a pragmatic approach to arrangements for assessing and consulting on new policies. The Home Office has committed to a regular review of its functions arid to assessing them to determine their impact on the public, including minority ethnic communities.
I myself wrote to Trevor Phillips, the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, to confirm that we will assess the proposals in the Bill that the commission has suggested would benefit from assessment. That was in his letter of 1lth June. Those provisions include: on Clause 5, limits on periods of detention without charge; on Part 7, trials on indictment without a jury; on Part 10, retrial for serious offences; on Part 11, Chapter 1 evidence about character; on Clause 146, as noble Lords know, an increase in general limits on magistrates' courts' powers; on Clause 271, the minimum sentences for certain firearm clauses; and on Clause 274, powers to limit periods of detention without charge of suspected terrorists.
We have agreed that all those should be included in the assessment that we shall make in relation to the proposals. We will have a watching brief on those issues, and I hope that I can assure noble Lords that the Government are very committed and concerned about them. We want to ensure that the provisions of the Bill apply with equality to all our citizens in a way that is not disproportionate and really does inure to the interests of justice.
I ask noble Lords to consider long and hard, first, whether this is an issue on which the Committee feels that it is proper to divide and, secondly, whether they are content with the results that will flow therefrom.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: I raise the issue of public interest immunity. How does a judge, sitting alone, deal with that difficult issue when matters. are put before him without the defence being present? How can a judge deal with that, sitting alone?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The judge deals with that by considering those factors and taking them into account when a decision is made as to whether that case is suitable for trial by judge alone. It may be those very factors that will weigh heavily on the judge's mind to make that judge exercise the discretion. He may say, "This is a case that I believe, should, in the public interest—as provided for under the legislation— properly be heard by a judge and a jury together".
I remind noble Lords that before such decisions are made both the defence and the prosecution will be able to make submissions about the mode of trial. That will not happen, as many noble Lords have suggested, at the door of the court when people will see what judge they fancy, and say, "Well, I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt is a very nice cove. I think he will be very good for me, so I will go for that judge; but I am very concerned about the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who looks quite different".
Those decisions will not be capable of being made in such a way, because they will be made at the preparatory stage; that is, before there is any knowledge of who the judge will be. Therefore, people will not be able to pick and mix—it will be more like Russian roulette. They will not know who they will get, and they will not be able to determine it. However, they will get a judge who will try the case fairly.
The defence and the prosecution will not only be able to argue about whether a jury is merited and give good reason as regards which should be chosen but also, if either side is displeased with the result, they can appeal to the Court of Appeal where all those questions—all those wonderful debates—about what is in the public interest, and whether it is going to be possible or appropriate for the judge to hear the case alone, can be rehearsed all over again. The court can then decide how to deal with it.
I can say to my noble friend that there are safeguards in the Bill that will allow her to quiet her beating heart.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: This has been a very important debate, with some outstanding speeches from all sides of the House. However, if noble Lords will forgive me, I do not think that I should delay matters by seeking to respond. Suffice it to say that this House has an honourable and proud tradition of standing firm against the executive to protect our fundamental rights and liberties. I, and many other noble Lords, have stressed why we believe that the right to jury trial is one of those fundamental freedoms. Therefore, I hope that this Chamber will fight to keep this very touchstone of our liberties. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 41 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: contents, 136; Not-Contents, 210.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Ahmed, L.

Hollick, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Joffe, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jones, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Billingham, B

King of West Bromwich, L.

Blackstone, B

Kirkhill, L.

Borrie, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brightman, L

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brookman, L.

Listowel, E.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burns, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Butler of Brockwell, L

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Clark of Hampstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mitchell, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon, L.

Orme. L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Ouseley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Oxburgh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Palmer, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pendry, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Erroll, E.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Radice, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Gale, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gavron, L.

Simon, V.

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Golding, B.

Stallard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Goudie, B.

Taverne, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Greengross, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turnberg, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Vinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Walpole, L.

Harrison, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

815

Weatherill, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hamwee, B.

Ackner, L.

Hanham, B.

Addington, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Alderdice, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]

Ampthill, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Henley, L.

Arran, E.

Higgins, L.

Astor, V.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hogg, B.

Attlee, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Barker, B.

Hooper, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooson, L.

Bell, L.

Howe, E.

Biffen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Blackwell, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Blaker, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Blatch, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Boothroyd, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Bowness, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Brennan, L.

Hylton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jeger, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Burnham, L.

Jopling, L.

Byford, B.

Judd, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carrington, L.

Laird, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lane, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Colville of Culross,V.

Lindsay, E.

Colwyn, L.

Liverpool, E.

Condon, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Courtown, E.

Lucas, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ludford, B.

Craigavon, V.

Luke, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lyell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

McColln of Dulwich, L.

Cumberlege, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Denham, L.

McNally, L.

Dholakia, L.

Maddock, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar, C.

Elton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Fearn, L.

Methuen, L.

Ferrers, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Flather, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Fookes, B.

Mishcon, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Fowler, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Freeman, L.

Montrose, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Morgan, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Geddes, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Naseby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Neill of Bladen, L

Goschen, V.

Newby, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Greaves, L.

Noakes, B.

Greenway, L.

Northbrook, L.

816

Northesk, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Slim, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Patten, L.

Stewartby, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strange, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Pym, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rawlings, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Razzall, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Redesdale, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rees, L.

Tope, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rennard, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Vivian, L.

Rogan, L.

Waddington, L.

Roper, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Russell, E.

Wakeham, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Walmsley, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Warnock, B.

Sandberg, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wigoder, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wilcox, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Sharples, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sheldon, L.

Wolfson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Clause 41 disagreed to accordingly.
6.49 p.m.
Clause 42 [Applications by prosecution for certain complex or lengthy trials to be conducted without jury]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 132ZA:
Page 28, line 36, after "prosecution" insert "or defence"
The noble Lord said: The Committee may think it rather strange that, in a Bill of this importance, there is only one non-government amendment to the nine clauses which deal with the jury. In making my few remarks on this group of amendments, I wish to make it perfectly and abundantly clear that I am as protective and admiring of the jury system as anyone who has spoken today. However, I believe that there has been some wishful and romantic thinking about the capacity of modern juries which are randomly selected—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, indicated, they are not truly randomly selected; in lengthy modern trials, there is a disproportionate representation on juries of unemployed persons. There is a good deal of romanticism as to the comprehension of those juries of the complexities of fraud trials.
Like others, I will remember the anecdote of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who talked of the poor old tramp in Bow Street. However, I suggest that the old tramp is hardly typical of the normal accused person in a modern complex fraud trial who comes to court typically armed with a battery of expensive lawyers,

817
the mission of which is not to explain so much as to secure an acquittal. I do not think that I do my profession an injustice if I say that defence barristers are adept at obfuscating when it is in the interests of their clients so to do.
Had there been present at the Maxwell trial—as I am sure there were in the public gallery—poor old pensioners of the Mirror Group, they would have been appalled at the trial's outcome. It is perhaps a comment on our debate today that not a single person, I think, has referred to the public reaction to the Maxwell trial and other fraud trials that have gone wrong. It is worth reminding ourselves that one of the biggest, most longstanding, massive and premeditated frauds in modern business history has not resulted in a single conviction of a single one of the many players involved. I think that that says a great deal about the state of complex fraud trials.
That perception is reinforced by the extremely worrying failure of the prosecuting authorities to bring before the courts a steady and reasonable flow of fraud cases. In an Answer to a Written Question which I tabled recently, I discovered that, in a typical year, the Serious Fraud Office brings forward only 25 prosecutions for fraud. The Answer also indicated that, in the past five years, there has been only one prosecution for insider trading—which I am afraid to say is a daily—indeed, hourly—occurrence in the City of London. The principal reason why there is such a paucity of prosecutions of fraud, at a time when by all accounts it is burgeoning, is the difficulty of obtaining a conviction.
We all know the reaction in the press and on television to the failure of one of these great fraud trials. Those bringing the prosecution who have been seen to fail at vast public expense are excoriated. The effect of that upon the Serious Fraud Office and Crown Prosecution offices is the one to which I have just referred—an extremely small flow of cases through the courts.
The position was considerably complicated by the observations of the Court of Appeal in the Blue Arrow case where it in effect strongly advised both the Serious Fraud Office and future judges of fraud cases to unbundle or sever different charges rather than deal with them jointly. In preparing for the debate I had cause to speak both to the present chief officer of the Serious Fraud Office and to George Staple QC, who was a distinguished chief of the Serious Fraud Office for some years. His view of these matters was put in a letter to me which I received only a few days ago. He says:
"On further reflection over the last few years"—
this comes from someone who believed in the traditional status quo method of dealing with fraud trials—
"and in spite of the best efforts of counsel in the Serious Fraud Office, I am no longer convinced that the trial procedure. dominated as it is by the oral tradition in which the jury play an entirely passive role—a question from the jury is rare indeed—does enable the jury properly to understand the evidence in the most complex cases. When the time comes at the end of the process to reach a verdict, the juror is expected to recall with clarity evidence which may have been presented to him many months before and take it properly into account when reaching his verdict.
818
Subjecting lay people to this process is not to my mind best calculated to ensure that in the most complex and difficult cases the juror will be free from doubt and be sure of his verdict. He will receive a powerful summing up that if in doubt he must acquit and the responsible juror will be more comfortable in taking refuge in this formula".
George Staple, if left to a choice between my amendment which preserves the jury, but a special jury, or to follow the Roskill route, which was to have a judge with two expert assessors, would incline in favour of the Roskill route. But it is because I am profoundly reluctant to abandon juries that I commend this amendment to the Committee and solicit its views. I am aware that my proposals for Clause 42 are not comprehensive and do not, for example, deal with the reduced majority of five to one, but I believe that it would be possible to establish a list of special jurors with the necessary experience or expertise. Those are the words I use, not, if I may say so, the formula of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, of gentlemen, esquires and the rest of it. I am talking of those with experience and expertise.
That would not, of course, confine jurors to qualified professionals but could extend to people who have worked in the finance and accounting departments of businesses of all sorts. It would not be beyond the wit of man to devise such lists, especially as many in the financial services sector now retire before 55. It is not even as if special juries are a novelty. They were a major and widespread feature of jury trials, mainly civil but also criminal, for centuries and were only abolished finally by the Juries Act 1949, but were preserved for civil commercial cases in the City until the Courts Act 1971 was passed.
Since the Roskill report in 1986 the problem has become significantly worse both in terms of the complexity of law and trials and in terms of the amount of fraud, which is why George Staple significantly shifted against leaving such trials to ordinary juries, and presumably why the former Lord Chancellor was reported in the Financial Times a year ago, in relation to those who think that the status quo is adequate, as saying that it is very often a pious hope to get a satisfactory outcome from a traditional jury given the staggering complexity, as he rightly called it, of some trials.
As I say, there is a media profile of failure. This tiny trickle of cases is now working its way through the courts at the very time when the City of London's reputation is being seriously undermined by the amount of unchecked, unpunished fraud. If one wants a very recent example of the same problem across the water in Wall Street, one has only to consider the "laddering" fraud claims which recently resulted in fines by the SEC on just 10 investment banks of £1.35 billion, with a further £5 billion plus civil claims following up. That was a case of what I could call collective fraud among investment banks in Wall Street. We have not, I suggest, seen the last of it here.
Finally, the idea of having special juries of people of expertise and experience is supported by the Fraud Advisory Panel, which is a group of professionals who are deeply engaged in that kind of trial. In an article in the New Law Journal in March 2000, the author said,
"The Juries Act 1974 does not adequately allow for the selection of jurors who are by reason of level of numeracy and literacy capable of following the kind of evidence typically presented in serious fraud trials".
They go on to point out that questionnaires are used in trials at the moment and were used, for example, in the Maxwell trial. They are used, first, to establish whether there is conflict of interest and, secondly, to establish the personal circumstances of those who have been empanelled. For Maxwell, I understand that more than 700 were empanelled, which gives one some idea of the problem of getting down to 12. A Home Office report of 1998 on fraud trials stated:
"It is clear from the transcripts of the Maxwell trial that the questionnaires were also used by the court to identify and excuse jurors with obvious and serious literacy problems".
That, it stated, was probably incidental.
My amendment would merely make what is incidental formally permissible and gather together a number of our fellow citizens who have the expertise and experience. That would achieve two things. First, it would speed the course of trials enormously, because, as is obvious, the case currently must proceed. like a convoy, at the pace of the slowest juror. It would therefore accelerate trials considerably. Secondly, it would enable those who are supposedly sitting in judgment to have some prospect of following the twists, turns and complexities.
Perhaps I may make a point from personal experience. Several noble Lords have spoken of their own experiences in these matters. Having spent a good number of my early years dealing with fraud trials as a solicitor, and as one who since tried to explain the complexities of the law to the great British public for 25 years as "Legal Eagle" on "The Jimmy Young Show"—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Thank you. I have a strong source of intelligence about what the great British public think about our legal system and its defects. The flow of letters—about 100 a week—into that programme is totally unmediated.
For my money, the problem is not that an unselected, random group of citizens is currently sitting on fraud trial juries. The public are not daft. They understand that the unbelievable difficulties of following those trials, if one has no financial experience, training, or numeracy, make the process a near farce. We should not be caught up in recollections of Henry Fonda in "Twelve Angry Men". The jury is wonderful for a typical case involving violence, dishonesty, burglary, where there is a match between the jury, the accused and the case, but not in complex fraud trials.
820
I conclude with a further quote from Mr Staple that puts the finger on the myth of jury comprehension. He stated in his letter to me,
"When the time comes, at the end of the process, to reach a verdict, the juror is expected to recall with clarity evidence which may have been presented to him many months before and take it properly into account when reaching his verdict. Subjecting lay people to this process is not to my mind best calculated to ensure that in the most complex and difficult cases the juror Hill be free from doubt and thus be sure of his verdict".
That is the nub of it. I am powerfully in favour of jury trials, but powerfully, I hope, realistic about the particular problems of complex fraud cases. I would like to think that the central proposal of the amendment takes what is already happening informally to a point where one would have competent juries dealing with the cases that need such expertise and experience. I beg to move.
Lord Brennan: I want briefly to comment on the proposal. The eloquence of the noble Lord's presentation of the amendment does not overcome its inadequacy as a proposal. I shall deal with it in four ways. First, good taste requires me to limit the kind of anatomical metaphor that might be appropriate, so I shall content myself with saying that the noble Lord has got it back to front. In his analysis, he accepted the present system as the norm. I vigorously challenge that. It should not be the norm. Why should we put up with trials that go on for months on end? Why should we allow lawyers to tell us that it is so complex that one can understand it only when one has looked at it for six months? It is absolutely ridiculous. We should change that system in favour of the jury. The example of America that the noble Lord gave merely illustrates the fact that if one is tough up front in regulatory control, one dramatically reduces the number of trials that are necessary for fraud.
I shall move to my second point. I did not follow it up with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, in the previous debate for reasons of time, but I reject his historical analysis. The passage of our democratic history in the 20th century, which led to ordinary people having the vote—emancipation—was matched by their having the right and duty to act as jurors. The history books on the law show that it was regarded as a great democratic advance that ordinary folk would judge as jurors. I am completely against, in a democratic sense, the idea of any kind of special jury.
The third point that I must regretfully criticise is the idea that the people on the panel of special jurors should be determined by a Secretary of State. I cannot believe that we would want to create a jury system in which those chosen were the product of government nomination to the panel from which they were chosen.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may relieve him of angst on this point. I am certainly not suggesting that. I am suggesting that the means by which the selection would

821
independently be carried out would be laid down in the normal way by the Secretary of State, as it would be in many other parts of the Bill.
Lord Brennan: My legislative immaturity would be greatly advanced by an explanation of how the Secretary of State is to identify and organise lists of those eligible, without his being involved in a decision about who is on the list. No doubt, the noble Lord can amplify that if the amendment is pursued.
I turn to my fourth and final point, which is probably the most important of all in my critique. I am strongly against any accommodation in our debate about jury trials. Either one is for that system or one goes for a completely different approach. I would much prefer a judge alone to six special jurors. In making that remark, I do not see how the confidence of the public would be assisted by a system in which they saw the judgment of guilt or innocence in a fraud trial, from the City, for example, determined by people from the City. That would not produce the confidence that is essential.
The noble Lord must forgive me. I have been extremely harsh towards his suggestion, but for, I hope, good reasons. I admire his good intent. I simply suggest that, on this occasion, it is misplaced.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for moving this amendment. I do so because he engages with the debate in terms of what we need to do to respond to the pressure placed on the system by the nature and extent of such cases. Therefore, I commend the noble Lord for attempting to enable us to have a discussion about where the proper boundaries may be.
Having said that, I am afraid I must say to the noble Lord that we do not consider these proposals to be workable. However. I understand that he put them forward very much in the spirit of the Committee stage—that is, to enable us to explore, discuss and hone, although it appears that we may be deprived of that advantage. I shall deal with this issue as quickly as I can.
The proposal put forward by the noble Lord suggests an alternative solution to the problems of dealing with long or complex fraud cases by giving the court the option to try complex and/or lengthy fraud and fraud-related trials before a "special jury" following applications from either the prosecution or the defence. As the noble Lord said, both Roskill and Auld considered, and rejected, that option. Therefore, I feel that I am probably in good company when I say that it is not necessarily attractive to the Government either. Perhaps I may say why.
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, raised the question of the selection of juries. To the following extent, I empathise with what he said. The idea that the jurors serving on such cases essentially would be self-selected jury enthusiasts involves a significant departure from the principle that jurors are selected randomly from the population local to the Crown Court in question. The Government would need to be sure that the
822
benefits of a special jury would outweigh the undesirability of compromising the principle of random selection. It is not at all clear that that would be the case.
There is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying the proposal that a special jury would be more competent than an "ordinary" jury or deliver better verdicts, or, conversely, that ordinary juries are doing a poor job. However, I very much take on board what the noble Lord said about the attempts that we have made in terms of the questionnaires to ascertain whether jurors have any conflict of interest. I also take on board the fact that the noble Lord said that, on a number of occasions, issues of literacy have been highlighted. That would obviously make some of the trials, which are heavily dependent on the consideration of detailed documents. a challenge for some jurors who may feel that they are thereby disabled from engaging fully in the process. Therefore, I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to that.
What the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and other noble Lords said in the previous debate was also important inasmuch as the Government argue that all attempts to simplify fraud trials, in particular, and to make them as clear as possible should continue. Therefore, nothing that I said in relation to the previous set of clauses or, indeed, to this amendment should be misunderstood in that we do recognise that attempts to manage the process better must continue.
Although I understand the import of what the noble Lord seeks to do in relation to these amendments, we had come to the conclusion that the choice should be between a full jury and a judge alone. It is hoped that a judge alone would he able to make impartial decisions. Noble Lords will know that historically it was suggested that if interested groups were involved—for example, in relation to insider dealing issues— then it might be thought that, because it was a matter of common practice, it was therefore permissible. But, in fact, the judge must say, "It may be common but it is unlawful". Therefore, having heard from the defence about common practice and from the prosecution about illegality, a judge alone may be able to make such a distinction.
We understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendments, but, for all the reasons that I gave previously, we do not believe that they meet the required needs. Therefore, we must consider the choice between a full jury and a judge alone.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am most grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord. Lord Brennan. and for the Minister's careful summing up. I believe it is a common-sense proposition that in phenomenally complicated matters of law and fact, people of competence and some experience are needed to deal with them. I do not accept that we would be moving into the territory of what the Minister described as "self-selected jury enthusiasts". That certainly would not be the case. I believe that an irreducible complexity is involved in these matters, however well one manages the case. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, may go on

823
about what happens in America, but we are not in America; we are here. People have been trying to simplify fraud trials for years with little effect.
However, time is getting on. No one is supporting me. I am a thin-skinned fellow and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 132ZB to 132ZF not moved.]
[Amendment No. 132ZG had been retabled Amendment No. 132ZDA on the Marshalled List.]
Clause 42 negatived.
Clauses 43 to 46 negatived.
Clause 47 [Further provision about trials without a jury]:
[Amendment No. 132ZH not moved.]
Clause 47 negatived.
Clauses 48 and 49 negatived.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.17 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gulf War Illnesses
7.17 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchesterrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what new help they are considering for service men and women with Gulf War illnesses.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest—not pecuniary—as honorary Parliamentary Adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion, as Vice-President of the War Widows Association, and as a co-opted member of the United States Congressional Committee of Inquiry into Gulf War Illnesses.
This debate is one of high importance to many thousands of men and women who were prepared to give their lives in the service of this country in the most toxic war in Western military history and to the dependants of those who did so. I know that my noble friend Lord Bach appreciates this and am most grateful to him for his abiding courtesy in speaking for the Government on Gulf War illnesses. I am grateful also to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Clement-Jones, for being here this evening. They, too, are much respected by the ex-service community.
None of us here wants to see the afflicted and bereaved of the first Gulf conflict made to suffer the added stress and demeaning indignities of' preventable delays in dealing with their concerns. There were no delays in their response to the call of duty in 1990–91. Nor should there have been any delay in discharging our duty to them. Yet that is the charge made, 13 years
824
on from Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait, by the ex-service community; and it helps neither Gulf veterans and the bereaved families nor Ministers for Parliament to ignore that charge. After all, there is no higher duty for parliamentarians than that to those afflicted and bereaved in the service of this country.
The Gulf War Veterans and Families Association speaks of tortuous and hurtful delays in handling cases raised with them. They report a "widespread feeling" among their members of being,
"treated by officialdom as yesterday's people".
Speaking for the ex-service community as a whole, the Royal British Legion has expressed deep concerns about the,
"seemingly endless haggling in tribunals and courts with Gulf veterans, some of them terminally ill, over war and service attributable pensions; and the distress of widows, many of them now in broken health, who would have been better treated had their husbands been in the United States and not the British armed forces".
These are not undocumented concerns. They are exemplified by the experience of veterans with medically unexplained illnesses whose cases were still unresolved when they died. One is that of the late Major Ian Hill. Speaking to him prior to the debate I opened on Gulf War illnesses in your Lordships' House on 15th January 2001, he was in no doubt whatever that his undiagnosed illnesses were caused by the multiple immunisation programme of which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said in that debate:
"one glaring question stands out above all others. Was the cocktail of inoculations … liable to cause, in some individuals. a harmful chemical or physiological reaction that would lead to a loss of future Immunity?—[Official Report, 15/1/01; col. 1014.]
Reverting to that question two weeks ago, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked how the Ministry of Defence could be so insistent,
"that there are no attributable medical conditions specifically emanating from service in the Gulf when the tests on what are most likely to bring about such conditions—the cocktail of inoculations—have still to be completed?"—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 873.]
I last spoke to Ian Hill three days before he died. He had then become registered blind and his condition was medically described as one of "total burnout". His wife Carol, on whose devoted care he relied crucially both day and night, was also severely disabled with a "crumbling spine". Yet in the final week of Ian's life, over 10 years after the conflict, they were left trying to cope in grossly inappropriate housing.
Another case raised with me by the Legion was that of Hilary Jones, a former senior army nursing officer in the Gulf. Terminally ill and living alone, she was deeply hurt and distressed by delays in dealing with her war pensions appeal. As in Ian Hill's case her entitlement to a 100 per cent war pension was conceded only after she died. Both Hilary and Ian went to their graves with a deep sense of injustice having succumbed to illnesses that were never medically explained.
It is cases like these that led the Royal British Legion to describe delays in dealing with Gulf War pension appeals as "nothing short of shocking". Anyone contesting their assessment should read the much

825
stronger criticisms of veterans themselves. Shaun Rusling, an officer in the Parachute Regiment, returned from the Gulf with medically unexplained rashes, numbness in his feet, pains in joints, frequent micturition, kidney infection, sweating/fever and chest infection. His case was contested by the MoD—at what cost to the taxpayer we still do not know—all the way to the High Court, where it was finally resolved in Shaun's favour last month. Speaking after the High Court's ruling, he said of the handling of his case:
"The treatment Gulf veterans have had is outrageous. Iraqi casualties were treated with more care and compassion than my fellow sufferers and I were treated here. Once we had won the war they didn't care."
Stronger language was used by another Gulf veteran with multiple illnesses, the Reverend David Peachell—an Anglican vicar in Norfolk—who served with 16/5 Lancers and now suffers from diabetes, auto-immune and depressive disorders, neurological diseases and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Reacting to having had his case medically recognised as one of "Gulf War Illness", David Peachell said:
"I was not prepared to crawl away and die like a poisoned rat. America has come clean about it. Here no government has been good enough even to say sorry".
This in part is the background to my having sought this evening's debate; but its timing was informed by a recent further development. Earlier this year Beverley Green, who served in the Gulf as a Captain in the Queen Alexandra Royal Army Nursing Corps, raised with me her concern about a Parliamentary reply from my noble friend Lord Hunt, then a Health Minister, on 20th January 2003. I had asked the Government if they could state whether the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down is content that combining the anthrax vaccine with other vaccines and protective measures could not involve harmful long-term effects.
My noble friend's reply on 20th January stated:
"The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, a special health authority, which reports to the Department of Health, manufactures anthrax vaccine. The vaccine is licensed. The vaccine licence holder is the Secretary of State for Health.
The product licence summary of characteristics states that the vaccine should be used alone. This information is included in the product summary provided to doctors with the vaccine. The patient information leaflet also asks patients to inform their doctor If they are taking any other medicines".—[Official Report, 20/1/03; WA 79.]
Captain Green's letter to me contrasts the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with her experience of how the anthrax vaccine was used in 1990–91—when it was most certainly not used alone—and indeed how it was administered in her own case, of which she has full records.
On that basis, I tabled last January the following further Question:
"Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 20 January (WA 79), whether the anthrax vaccine used for troops deployed to the Gulf was licensed in 1990–91; whether the guidelines for its use referred to by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath were in place in 1990–91; if they were in place, why they were not followed; whether any other vaccines administered to troops in
826
1990–91 had similar limitations on their use; and whether the instructions for the taking of pyridostigmine bromide tablets had and have now any similar limitations regarding their use".
Responding to that Question, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said on 4th February:
"I will write to the noble Lord and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House".—[Official Report, 4/2/03; WA 26.]
The noble Lord, Lord Clement Jones, pursuant to that reply, then asked the Government whether, as well as placing the letter I had been promised in the Library of the House, they would also publish it in the Official Report [HL1910], to which the reply on 7th March was the single word:
"Yes".—[Official Report, 7/3/03; col. WA 134.]
Yet since then, unbelievably, the letter I was promised in reply to my Question of last January has still not appeared, either in the Library or in the Official Report; and Captain Green wrote to me again recently to say:
"You know how appalled I was that the letter promised in reply to your Question of last January on vaccines used in the first Gulf War was to appear only in the Lords' Library. Now, six months later, to find that not even this has been done, leaves me and other Gulf War veterans with a feeling of deep distrust about the whole process. Such is our concern that we are considering litigation and this letter is being copied to an eminent solicitor who has sympathy with our case."
Her letter was copied to Patrick Allen of the solicitors Hodge, Jones and Allen, who I understand have now been instructed by Captain Green to advise her and to take this matter up with the MoD.
A second Gulf conflict has taken place since the promise I was given on 4th February of a reply by letter to my parliamentary Question of last January; and the continued failure to answer that Question is made all the more serious by reports of new cases of undiagnosed illnesses among our troops now returning from Iraq. Hence the strong and repeated representations from the ex-service community for a definitive response to my still unanswered Question.
On 11th December last, my noble friend Lord Bach spoke of improvements in immunising our troops since and on the basis of what was learned in the 1991 conflict. He said:
"we have learned a lot of lessons since then".—[Official Report, 11/12/02; col. 225.]
This acceptance of faults in the arrangements for the first Gulf conflict that have now been improved does not, of course, help veterans suffering from adverse health effects of the multiple immunisation programme as it was administered in 1990–91. But It does strongly underline the justice of their claim to all the help we can provide and our responsibility—as a moral imperative—to ensure that they are not left to suffer the consequences of what went wrong alone.
Meanwhile it has to be recognised that the trials at Porton Down cannot match the conditions under which the 1990–91 programme was administered. For example, was pyridostigmine bromide administered at the same time as the vaccines used in the marmoset trials—and those with mice that preceded them—as it was to Gulf veterans? It has been reported that in the marmoset trials

827
only four vaccines have been used simultaneously, whereas troops deployed to the Gulf in 1990–91 had up to 14 programmes at the same time, often involving 28 inoculations. Has this at any time been replicated in the trials at Porton Down? If not, what possible credibility can the results of the trials have in establishing whether the multiple immunisation programme—as it was administered in 1990–91— was or was not safe?
Moreover, were the vaccines used in the marmoset trials administered strictly in accordance with the protocols applying to each vaccine and not in the way in which they were used in the case of Beverley Green?
There is now a growing consensus that the multiple immunisation programme and the way it was administered damaged, in some cases gravely, the immune systems of many veterans of the first Gulf conflict. That would explain why such a wide diversity of symptoms are being presented without an apparent cause. What research has been done in this area? Is my noble friend aware of the studies carried out in the United States by Dr Robert Hayley indicating that there is significant and objectively measurable brain damage found among Gulf veterans? What action is being taken to replicate Dr Hayley's work here or to collaborate with him in joint research, which I know from my contacts with him he would warmly welcome?
It is also widely accepted now that some Gulf War illnesses were caused by the way in which pyridostigmine bromide was used; the release of toxic substances at Khamisyah; the heavy use of organophosphates; massive air pollution after the firing of Kuwait's oil wells; and the use of depleted uranium in our own and in Iraqi munitions.
I understand from the Royal British Legion that to date some 2,405 veterans have received war pensions for illnesses that relate to service in the Gulf. They were approved on the basis of reasonable doubt; but from 2005 it is intended to base awards only on the balance of probability. This, the Government acknowledge, will mean far fewer awards and that there will be more discontent among future veterans. It is strongly opposed by the Royal British Legion and I urge the Government urgently to reconsider their position.
Most of all, I hope the Government will heed the wise counsel of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, as I ask them, as he did on 22nd May, to consider making ex gratia payments in settlement, without further commitment, rather than,
"drag out endlessly expensive litigation."
Surely, he said,
"a little magnanimity now would not only be cost-effective but would also serve to relieve the continuing anguish of veteran sufferers and their families?".—[Official Report, 22/5/03; col. 935.]
The vast majority of the British people want this whole question to be settled on the most generous possible terms for those afflicted and bereaved. Our debt to them cannot be measured in money; but lack of money inflicts demeaning indignities. In the spirit of the plea of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, let it now he resolved that the best way of showing our regard and admiration for those who served this country with such distinction and gallantry in the two
828
Gulf conflicts is to meet in full what I know your Lordships' House sees as an undoubted debt of honour.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I apologise to the House for speaking in the gap. It is a question of timing which has caused me to come in at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has been involved with the problems of the disabled in one House or another for 29 years and with the illness of Gulf War veterans since the first Iraq war. It is therefore distressing that he should have had this question down for many months and that he has consistently failed to get satisfactory replies to questions from a line of Ministers, culminating in the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for whom I, and I think the whole of the Armed Forces, have the highest respect. I hope that he can satisfy us in this matter by giving an actual reply to the questions in principle, both in personal cases and in general.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, detailed a number of very sad cases, some of whom I have seen at the Royal British Legion Gulf War Committee as their health gradually declined and as in the end they died. There is no doubt that their deaths, the deaths of others and the illnesses of many more result from the group of Gulf War diseases, many of them arising as a result of treatment deliberately administered in the form of inoculations.
This is not a new problem, although most of the jabs are. In the Boer War, more than 100 years ago, there were 70,000 cases of "soldiers' heart", for which pensions were paid. "Soldiers' heart" later became shell shock, then PTSD and now it is generally known as Gulf War illnesses.
It is reasonable to ask the Minister a direct question. Since the number of illnesses is finite and there can be no suggestion of setting a precedent, why can the Ministry of Defence not be generous in a settlement for all established cases? At present, these men and women have served and have suffered. There is no reason why they should not be compensated with ex gratia payments for their suffering. Let us just hope that it does not happen again with this last Gulf War. Let us also ask for a full inquiry into all the problems arising from the diseases of both wars.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I have mixed feelings about today's debate. On the one hand, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on securing today's debate and on continuing his long-standing campaign for compensation for Gulf War veterans. On the other hand, I am sad that despite his efforts for 12 years the MoD has remained so intransigent on the matter.
There have been a number of important developments since we last properly debated the issues relating to Gulf War illnesses. In particular, we have seen the outcome of the Izett case before the War Pensions Tribunal, which was not appealed against by

829
the MoD. It decided that there was a link between the cocktail of vaccinations given to troops before the 1991 conflict and Mr Izett's osteoporosis. It is particularly interesting in view of the fact that Mr Izett did not actually go to the Gulf.
We saw in June the outcome of the appeal by the MoD against the War Pensions Tribunal's decision in the case of Shaun Rusling, which determined that his claim was tenable that his ill health could be caused by Gulf War syndrome.
We also, on a more positive note, have had the decision by the MoD to include those who have recently been involved in the most recent Gulf War in the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme.
Throughout all these developments, the Minister has valiantly maintained that MoD liability rests on whether such a condition as Gulf War syndrome can be established. He seems to be saying that ill health must be characterised as due to a new illness, condition or syndrome. It is also clear that in contrast to the war pensions situation, the MoD, in the compensation cases, is relying on the fact that the onus of proof is on the Gulf War veterans. Despite that, the Minister stoutly maintains that the MoD is being "magnanimous".
If that were not bad enough, it appears that lessons leant from the first Gulf conflict, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, have not been applied to the most recent conflict. It appears that, prior to their service, soldiers were once again given multiple doses of a cocktail of vaccinations against chemical and biological attack. In May they were reported as suffering symptoms similar to those of the original Gulf War veterans. That is despite ministerial assurance that these would not be administered in this way.
On 2nd July the noble Lord, Lord Morris, rightly talked of concern about,
"endless haggling in tribunal and courts with veterans".—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 871.]
Is it not time that the MoD swallowed its pride and accepted that it is enough that these servicemen's illnesses were caused by service in the Gulf, whether or not there is something which can be specifically labelled "Gulf War syndrome"?
As I have pointed out to the Minister on a number of occasions, I find it quite extraordinary that the Government's own medical adviser, Professor Simon Wesley of King's College, London, head of its own assessment programme said:
"'There is irrefutable proof that going to the Gulf has affected the health of some UK servicemen'".—[Official Report, 2/7/03; col. 872.]
If so, why have we had the quibbling by the MoD? All this moreover, is in stark contrast to the way that the US Department of Defense has dealt with the matter.
All that the Government have done over many years is commission endless medical research into the condition of the veterans, which never seems to reach a practical conclusion to the benefit of those veterans.
830
There are now more than 2,000 legal claims by ex-service people on foot against the MoD. Veterans have had enough to deal with following their service without that being added on top.
Why the obsession with the label. "Gulf War syndrome"? The Izett case, in particular, has put the spotlight on the question of use of multiple vaccinations. The case of Captain Green, cited by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is important for that reason. That raises the question of whether the guidelines for the administration of vaccines were followed in 1991. If not, why not? Despite, as noble Lords have heard, probing by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, with a little help from me, we have still not received a letter from the Minister or the MoD. let alone copies placed in the Library.
This is a continuing sorry tale. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris said, it is all the more serious in view of allegations of multiple vaccination causing problems during the current conflict. I hope that the Minister's reply will be more satisfactory than on previous occasions.
7.41 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before speaking to the debate, I remind the House of my peripheral interest. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for at last securing a date for this debate this evening. There is little doubt that during the past few years, the MoD has made some effort to improve matters for those Gulf War veterans who are suffering from illnesses picked up from their service in the Gulf War 1. On these Benches, we have every sympathy with those veterans and want a fair and rapid conclusion to the existing problems. Twelve years is a long time.
There is now good evidence that UK Gulf veterans report more ill-health than other comparable groups, but the same symptoms have been seen in UK military personnel who did not deploy to the Gulf—although they may also have received another cocktail of inoculations for some other overseas deployment. The difference is that veterans of the 1991 conflict report having more of the symptoms and are suffering more severely from them.
Some Gulf veterans have recognised medical conditions, but a large number of non-specific. multi-system, medically unexplained symptoms have also been reported. The current consensus of the international scientific and medical community is therefore that there is insufficient evidence to enable that ill-health to be characterised as a unique illness or syndrome. The Medical Research Council, which published its review on 22nd May, came to the same conclusion.
It is important to note that that does not prevent Gulf veterans who have left the Armed Forces and are ill from claiming a war pension. War pensions are awarded not for a list of disorders but for any disablement that can be accepted as caused or made worse by service, whatever that disablement is called. As at 31st December 2002, 2,330 veterans of the 1991 Gulf conflict were in receipt of a war pension.

831
However, there is a problem. Recently during Starred Questions, the Minister referred to the agreement to pay war pensions to some Gulf veterans adversely affected by Gulf War illnesses. What worries me is that a junior non-commissioned officer—a lance corporal or corporal—would receive a junior NCO's pension. However, his long-term potential in the Armed Forces might be to be a warrant officer 1 or even to get a commission, quickly rising to the rank of captain or major. But the disabled junior NCO and his family would be stuck with the low standard of living of a junior NCO. That is a terrible risk for a young man or woman to take and might, on top of all the other challenges of being in Her Majesty's Armed Forces at present, encourage him or her to apply for premature voluntary release.
Can the Minister confirm that the MoD has now taken steps to avoid a recurrence? These are: first, that improved medical record-keeping through the introduction of the new operational medical record form is now in use. Secondly, ensuring that troops are when possible immunised routinely, so that there should be no need for personnel to receive a combination of vaccines upon deployment. When I deployed for the Gulf I received only two immunisations. I cannot remember what one was, but it was routine; the other was against anthrax, but received only the initial anthrax inoculation, not the booster, so that expensive inoculation was wasted.
Thirdly, personnel deploying on operations must receive pre-deployment and in-theatre briefings on health and hygiene matters. The fourth step is that health and safety instructions have been given to the crews of vehicles that carry the extremely effective depleted uranium ammunition, and to the units that support them. I hope that the Minister never withdraws depleted uranium ammunition simply for reasons of political pressure. If he withdraws it because there is something better, that will be fabulous; but he must never withdraw it just because of its name. The fifth step is that a new and comprehensive joint service guidance on the use of pesticides has been introduced and is kept under review.
I turn briefly to inoculations and vaccines. Porton Down has been carrying out various tests on combining different vaccines. Porton Down has issued a preliminary report, which claims that overall those preliminary results indicate that there were no adverse immune consequences following vaccine and pyridostigmine bromide administration—what I call nerve agent pre-treatment sets (NAPS)—that were detectable in that model. The longer-term outcomes will be reported when the studies are complete at the end of 2003. However, the Medical Research Council warns that the lack of substantiated vaccine exposure data means that it is unlikely that existing study groups will yield any more useful information.
The issue of Gulf War illness has continued for the past decade, involving a great deal of worry for veterans and their families. A substantial amount of time and money has been expended by the MoD in investigating it; no doubt there has also been considerable expenditure on legal advice. Although
832
recognising that there may be a generic Gulf War illness, there is no such thing as a syndrome: there are just several different illnesses. Given that judgment, the Government must now make a formal statement about how they intend to process future claims and to what extent they will continue with the research programme. They should make a Statement before Parliament goes into Summer Recess. Above all, the MoD must fulfil its obligations to veterans.
7.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for once again providing an opportunity to debate the Government's approach to Gulf veterans' illnesses. His active interest in the subject and all issues concerning disability are well known. He has a proud record and I welcome his involvement. I am grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken this evening—although let me say straight away that, with the notable exception of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, there has been a degree of huffing and puffing and overstating of cases that may appeal to those who listen to our debate but does not necessarily add much to the serious issues that the topic raises.
I want to make clear from the outset that Gulf veterans' illness issues remain a high priority for the Government. In case the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is in any doubt, I repeat what I said to him in answer to an oral Question as recently as 2nd July. We have repeated that on countless occasions We acknowledge that some veterans of the first Gulf conflict are ill; and that some, alas, have died. The question surrounding the ill-health reported by the veterans of that conflict remains a priority for us. If we did not acknowledge that, why have we paid out so much in war pensions?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, surely the Minister knows perfectly well how the onus of proof works. The ministry does not have to acknowledge that in order for the war pensions to be paid out.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is absolutely clear that we acknowledge it. It is very misleading to pretend that we do not. I do not accuse the noble Lord of doing so, but some people outside pretend that we do not.
I want to make it clear that Gulf veterans' illnesses issues remain a high priority for us. I believe, and I think the evidence shows, that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to addressing Gulf veterans' concerns openly, honestly and seriously, and we will continue to do so.
In 1997, this Government made it clear that they had adopted three guiding principles when dealing with the concerns of Gulf veterans: first, there will be appropriate research into veterans' illnesses—even though that research apparently is attacked—and factors that might have a bearing on those illnesses; secondly, all Gulf veterans will have prompt access to medical advice from the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme, and, thirdly, information of

833
potential relevance to the issue would be made available to the public. A great deal has been achieved since then and the three guiding principles continue to underpin our approach to the issue.
I remind the House of what is being done in respect of scientific research—I address this remark to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in particular—because it is only through such research that we are ever likely to be able to establish the causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses. Noble Lords will recall that a great deal of scientific research has been carried out here and in the United States into Gulf veterans' illnesses. What has emerged is that significantly more Gulf veterans report more ill health than non-Gulf veterans. However, Gulf veterans do not all have the same symptoms, nor are their symptoms different from those of non-Gulf veterans. The same range of symptoms is seen in both groups; the difference is that Gulf veterans report more of the symptoms and suffer more severely from them. However, because the range of symptoms is so wide, the scientific and medical community does not accept the existence of a unique "Gulf War syndrome". Our position as a Government—and, as I said previously, that of any responsible government—must be guided by those findings from the scientific and medical community. That is why we do not recognise Gulf War syndrome as a medical condition.
We continue to monitor Gulf veterans' mortality and to publish that data every six months, as we promised. Our most recent data were published today, so the debate is very timely. The data show that the total number of deaths among Gulf veterans was 600 compared to 613 in a matched group of service personnel who were in the Armed Forces on 1st January 1991 but did not deploy to the Gulf. I hope that those figures provide at least some reassurance to Gulf veterans concerned about their health.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he have any comparable figures for disablement?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not have such figures with me, but I shall see whether I can find some before the end of my speech. If I cannot, I will be in touch with the noble Earl.
At our request, the independent Medical Research Council has recently carried out a thorough review of research to date. Its report was published on 22nd May. Perhaps I may outline the main points that the Medical Research Council concluded. First, there is no unique Gulf War syndrome. Secondly, there is little evidence that vaccination was a cause of veterans' illnesses. No commonly accepted mechanism could account for immune system related symptoms more than 10 years on. Thirdly, the UK's research programme into Gulf veterans' illnesses was highly regarded internationally and has made,
"a critical contribution to international understanding".
834
The report contains recommendations for future work. Some are highly complex, and we have sought further advice from the MRC on how best to proceed. When that advice is available, we will consult with veterans and other stakeholders before we respond.
Our portfolio of research into Gulf veterans' illnesses is expected to cost at least £8.5 million to complete. It currently includes two major epidemiological studies; a programme of clinical tests; research to investigate the possible adverse health effects of the combination of medical countermeasures that were used to protect UK personnel against the threat of biological or chemical warfare agents, and a systematic review of research literature, as published worldwide. Important work has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; some is complete, awaiting publication, and some is ongoing.
Medical assistance continues to be available to Gulf veterans through the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme, which has been running since 1993. In that time more than 3,370 patients have been seen, some more than once. The programme was set up to provide as full a diagnosis as possible to veterans concerned about their health. Veterans who have left the Armed Forces will normally have a GP as their doctor and therefore any recommended treatment will be carried out within the NHS. We remain committed to the long-standing pledge that war pensioners should be given priority in NHS hospitals for examination or treatment relating to their pensioned disablement, subject always to the needs of emergencies or other cases that demand clinical priority.
Based on the feedback received through completed patient survey questionnaires, the service that the GVMAP provides is welcome. As of 30th June this year, 96 per cent of patients were satisfied with their GVMAP experience. Noble Lords may know that we have expanded the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme's remit to allow all regular and reservist service personnel who deployed to the Gulf during Operation Telic to be seen. I confirm to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the changes made between the first Gulf War and Operation Telic that he outlined and asked me about directly. I urge veterans of both deployments who have any concerns about their health to take advantage of the help available through the GVMAP. We plan to publish an updated version of the information pack about Gulf veterans' illnesses later this year. The current version was sent to all GPs in the UK as well as other interested health professionals, including those in the Defence Medical Services. We will ensure that the new pack is widely publicised.
As well as medical help, financial assistance is available to Gulf veterans. No-fault compensation for all former service personnel disabled as a result of their service is provided through the war pensions scheme. The scheme applies to all those who have served in the UK forces. Disablement pensions are provided on the basis of disablement, not individual diagnosis. As at 31st March this year, 2,405 veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict were in receipt of a war disablement pension.

835
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked a question about that. He knows that the scheme provides no-fault compensation for all ex-service personnel disabled as a result of their service. All pensions and allowances are tax-free, index-linked and include a basic war disablement pension based on the degree of disability. War pensions legislation does not take account of financial losses due to a curtailment of an individual's possible career progression, but in common law negligence cases they are taken into consideration.
The figure of 2,405 that I mentioned includes awards for both Gulf-related and non-Gulf-related illnesses. In addition, the Armed Forces pension scheme—in effect, the occupational pension scheme—and the Reserve Forces (Attributable Benefits etc.) Regulations provide enhanced injury and death benefits to regular and reservist service personnel whose injuries, illnesses or death were attributable to their Gulf service. All that is in addition to all the normal social security benefits to which service and ex-service personnel may be eligible.
Advice and information on a wide range of veterans' issues is available through the Veterans' Agency. I encourage veterans who require assistance to contact the agency via their free-phone helpline. The agency's welfare service is available to veterans who require help. Welfare officers are specially trained to offer advice and assistance on a range of issues, not just war pensions.
Reference has been made to the effect of vaccinations, and I am conscious that the question in the letter that has been mentioned has not yet been answered. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, rightly asked whether anthrax immunisation followed the appropriate protocols. I am very aware of the interest in this House and elsewhere, but I am afraid to say that I am not yet in a position to answer his Question of 4th February. However, I will write to him and place a copy of my letter in the Library as soon as I am able. The House should be aware that the new Secretary of State for Health, Dr John Reid, who also has experience in the Ministry of Defence, is personally engaged in this matter. I am aware that it has been a long time, but it is important that we get the answer right.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I rise on a point of fact. My Question was not dated 4th February. That was the date of the reply, which stated that a letter would be sent to me and placed in the Library. I tabled my Question on 22nd January.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, as I often am. However, I want the noble Lord and other Members of the House to understand that their interest in this matter is not forgotten. I thank noble Lords for their patience.
Before I sit down, I want to mention the marmoset tests to which the noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred. The immunisations given to the marmosets were administered in a way that replicated the way in which immunisation should have been given to those who served during the first Gulf War. I emphasise that this
836
research has been overseen by an independent panel of experts, two of whom represent the veterans. Research by the Ministry of Defence shows that most veterans received a total of seven immunisations—two against cholera, two against anthrax, two against pertussis and one against plague. The tests are likely to represent the experience of many of those who were deployed.
I have nearly finished—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and considers his peroration, I wish to ask a question based exactly on what he said during his speech. At the beginning, he said that the Ministry of Defence accepted that, in certain cases, service in the Gulf had caused illnesses among veterans. Later on, he said that he and the Ministry did not accept that there was such a thing as Gulf War syndrome. However, the point at issue is not whether or not there is a syndrome, but whether the veterans were affected by their service in the Gulf. Why cannot the Ministry of Defence accept that they were and pay compensation on that basis?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we do pay compensation when—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister himself pointed out that, in negligence cases in court, loss of future earnings of the type described by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, could be paid out, but they could not be paid out under the war pensions scheme.
Lord Bach: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggesting that it is Liberal Democrat policy that, instead of the war pensions scheme, there should be a policy that states that every unfortunate member of the Armed Forces who is injured in the course of war should be paid a loss of earnings element in compensation? Perhaps he should reflect with some of his colleagues before he goes that far.
As I pointed out, we have paid 2,405 veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. We have paid a war disablement pension to them that is tax-free and index-linked. We have done our duty under the existing legislation. The criticism that we have not is unfairly based. We will continue to do our duty by the very brave men and women who put themselves in danger's way in the first Gulf conflict. Of course, we will do the same for those involved in Operation Telic this year.
The criticism that is made that the Ministry of Defence somehow does not care about these people and is not paying the compensation to which they are entitled is false. It is something about which those in this House who talk about such matters should be more careful.
I end by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, for his interest and for bringing this matter before the House. I know that all the comments made by noble Lords have been heard by the Minister responsible for these matters. 1 have no doubt that he and I will react to them in due course in this House.
Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.17 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.6 until 8.17 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 50 [Live links in criminal proceedings]:
[Amendment No. 132A not moved.]
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 132B:
Page 36, line 2, after "o' insert "justice, and of"
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 132B, I shall, with the permission of the Committee, speak to Amendments Nos. 132C and 132E.
Amendments Nos. 132B and 132C concern the criteria that must be fulfilled before a direction can be given to hear a witness's evidence via a live link. Under the Bill, the court must be satisfied that,
"it is in the interests of the efficient or effective administration of justice for the person concerned"
to give evidence in that way. The amendment would ensure that the court considered justice as a specific and separate test and before the test for efficiency and effectiveness.
We agree that efficiency and effectiveness are vital components of the criminal justice system, but we should remember that they should be secondary to the primary purpose of the criminal justice system—justice. Effectiveness must remain a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Amendment No. 132E would amend subsection (8). The current drafting creates an obligation on the court to state in open court its reasons for refusing an application to allow a witness to give evidence via a live link. However, the clause does not mention similar provisions for occasions on which such an application is to be granted. Such an omission could be interpreted as meaning that only a refused application might require justifying and must be subject to appeal. There might be good reasons for opposing an application and reasons would be required in order to appeal against it being granted. In such cases as this, the appeal process would be made easier if the court stated its reason for granting an application. Is it the Government's intention not to allow a right of appeal at all against a decision to grant an order? Would such a stance, if this is indeed the case, be compliant with the Human Rights Act? I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 132D. Clause 55(4) refers to the extent,
"to which a person is unable to see or hear by reason of any impairment of eyesight or hearing",
and that it,
"is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (2)",
838
which is, in fact, the definition of the live link. I should like an explanation of that. But the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the court decides to give a direction under Clause 50, it should make sure whether a direction might tend to inhibit any party to the proceedings from understanding the evidence of the witness, as well as merely effectively testing it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may say straight away that I understand the concerns which underlie the amendment, but I can give an assurance that we intend that the court should take into account all the circumstances of a case when determining whether a live link direction should be given. That is made clear in Clause 50(6). Subsection (7) lists a number of the most important circumstances which would necessarily form part of any "interests of justice" consideration.
Clause 50(7) provides a list of many of the relevant issues, including the need for the witness to attend in person, the importance of their evidence, the suitability of the facilities at the remote location, about which I know the noble Lord is concerned, and, crucially in this context, whether a direction might tend to inhibit any party to the proceedings from effectively testing the witness's evidence.
The list of circumstances is not intended as an exhaustive list, but merely as a guide to the kind of considerations that the judge may wish to take into account. It is therefore the intention that the court should have regard to any wider "interests of justice" considerations as part of this assessment. We believe that it might be helpful to the court to be more specific about the particular factors likely to be most relevant to the primary "efficient or effective administration of justice" test to be applied in this context.
We do not think that it is necessary to have an explicit "interests of justice" test on the face of the legislation. We want the court to be focused on how a live link direction could be in the interests of the efficient or effective administration of justice, as it is on these factors that the provision will have most impact. However, I reiterate that the court can consider all the circumstances in the case before deciding whether to grant a live links direction.
Amendment No. 132C, again in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, would also alter the test that must be satisfied before a live links direction could be granted. This amendment would require that a live links direction be in the interests of both the efficient and effective administration of justice.
We consider that this is an unnecessarily high threshold. For instance, it may be that the live links direction satisfies one strand of this test, although not the other, but that it is nevertheless appropriate for an application to give evidence over live link to be granted. Perhaps I may cite an example to illustrate the difficulty that we foresee. It may be in the interests of the efficient administration of justice for an expert to give evidence from his place of work over the live link. However, the live links direction may have no impact on the effectiveness of the administration of justice as

839
the quality of his testimony would be of equal value whether he attended court or appeared over the link. In such cases we do not think that the live links direction should be precluded, because all parties may appreciate the benefit of that advice and want to hear it, but it might be difficult to get it in any other way.
Of course it may be the case that it would be in the interests of one strand of the test—for example, the interests of the efficient administration of justice—but that nevertheless in all the circumstances of the case it was not appropriate to grant a live links direction. In such cases the court would not have to grant the live links direction. The scheme is structured in such a way that a direction cannot be given unless it is in the interests of the efficient or effective administration of justice. However, where this condition is met, the court must still consider all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether to grant a live links direction. We think that the right approach is to set a relatively low threshold, and where that is met, to allow the court to consider all the relevant circumstances in deciding whether live links should be used.
However, we do anticipate that where the test is met the court will routinely grant a direction for live links. We have therefore included a specific requirement that a judge or magistrate should give his reasons when refusing an application. Amendment No. 132E would also require the court to give reasons for granting a live link direction. Generally, a court will give reasons for any ruling that it makes. However, we believe that including on the face of the Bill the requirement to explain the reasons for refusing a live links direction will help to ensure that the scheme is applied in a positive manner. This requirement will focus the court's mind on whether any reasons put forward for refusing to use live links are sufficient for the direction not to be granted and therefore should encourage courts to make use of live link directions where they are appropriate. A requirement on the face of the legislation to give reasons where a direction is granted would detract from this positive signal. On that basis we would resist the amendment, not because we do not understand the thinking here, but because we do not consider that it is absolutely necessary.
I turn now to Amendment No. 132D tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Thomas of Gresford. The amendment adds to the list of factors under Clause 50(7). As I have already pointed out, the list set out in subsection (7) is a non-exhaustive list of considerations for the court in deciding whether to grant the live links application. This amendment would add to the list the consideration of whether a live link direction would act to inhibit any party from effectively understanding the witness's evidence.
The list of considerations in Clause 50 is intended to raise the issues that will most commonly arise where an application for live links is made. As a live links direction would not usually have any effect on the ability to understand a witness's evidence, we do not consider that the amendment is appropriate. However, there may be circumstances where a witness needs to he present for his evidence to have the same value as it
840
would if he were in court. For example, this may be the case because he needs to be in court to explain his evidence by handling exhibits. However, this is a factor that is already covered by the existing list in Clause 50(7) as the need for the witness to attend in person is put forward in subsection (7)(b) as a relevant consideration.
If the quality of the picture provided by the live link is such as to impair the understanding of the witness's evidence, then this can be considered under Clause 50(7)(e).
If there are any relevant issues raised by an application that are not covered under the factors advanced by Clause 50(7), these will be able to be considered by the judge. It is not therefore deemed necessary to draw the attention of judges to every conceivable factor that might be of relevance on the facts of individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will know that if the list is so comprehensive and not used in generic terms there is a risk that it may be argued that a factor is outwith the list and therefore cannot be taken into consideration. I know that is not what the noble Lord intends and it is not what we intend. The broad generic term gives a capacity to look at all the circumstances.
Clearly, if a live link direction would for any reason make it more difficult for the evidence to be understood, we would want the court to be able to consider this as a relevant factor. We consider that this is adequately catered for in the existing scheme in the way that I have outlined. We do not therefore consider the amendment necessary.
Furthermore, if the witness needs an interpreter or any other person appointed by the court to assist the witness, then, under Clause 55(2) and (3)(d), it is a necessary requirement that this person be able to see and hear the witness.
I hope that noble Lords are content with the explanation and reasoning I have given and that it can be agreed that Amendment No. 132D is unnecessary. I understand why noble Lords have tabled both species of amendments. It is important that there should be clarity about the way the clause will be interpreted hereafter.
8.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 1320 to 132E not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Magistrates' courts permitted to sit at other locations]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 132F:
Page 37, line 11, after "may" insert "after hearing and taking into account any representations made by the prosecution or defence"
The noble Viscount said: The amendment relates to Clause 52, which allows magistrates' courts to sit at other locations when the court feels it appropriate to

841
receive evidence through a live link and such a facility is not available at any petty sessional courthouse. It is a very simple amendment which would allow both the prosecution and the defence to make representations to the court about the issue of sitting at another location.
The Bill allows the court to sit elsewhere for the whole or part of the proceedings at a place which could even be outside the petty sessional area. This may mean a large burden on either party with regard to travelling, time and expense. It would seem fairer in the interests of justice to allow the court to hear what such a move would mean to all those involved in proceedings so as to avoid issues of fairness arising later. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend's amendment. We are here dealing with what the magistrates' court may do. When giving powers to magistrates' courts, I always feel it is necessary to be very specific about such powers. The words,
"after hearing and taking into account any representations made by the prosecution or defence",
add to the purpose of the subsection. It is a simple, non-controversial amendment, which I hope the Government will accept.
Lord Hylton: When the Minister replies, will she give the Committee some idea of the number of magistrates' courts where it will be difficult to install live links at the present time? Does she agree that this could have an important bearing on cases involving children and other family matters?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know whether I will he able to give the noble Lord the precise details he wants. I am making inquiries because if I can tell him before I sit down I will be happy to do so. However, if I may, I will give a generic answer.
The purpose of the power to sit in other locations is to enable the facilities that exist for evidence to be heard by live link to be fully utilised. It is very practical. When the court is deciding whether evidence should be heard by live link, the parties of the case will be able to put their arguments on this matter to the court. Once a decision to hear evidence by the live link has been made, it would normally be a decision for the court alone as to where it is best for the court to sit to hear this evidence.
The suggestion would be that the live link would be appropriate; the parties would then be heard regarding that issue. The judge or magistrate would then decide that it was appropriate to use live links. Then it is a practical issue of finding the nearest court that has those facilities which is reasonably proximate and convenient. It will be a totally practical matter; it may be very desirable to have it in a court next door, but the court next door may simply not have the necessary machinery.
We would like to have these facilities in all our courts. There is a roll-out taking place—we have a greater number now. I am not at this moment able to
842
give the noble Lord the sort of answer that he wants about numbers, although I may be in one second. Actually, it might be simpler if I just write to the noble Lord.
We do not have a comprehensive programme; we are rolling it out. We would like to reach the stage where all appropriate courts have appropriate facilities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that, given the sensitivity surrounding cases involving children, we have to have the most appropriate place. That will obviously be taken into account when submissions are made as to whether the live link is appropriate and how it should be dealt with.
Lord Hylton: Would the Minister be kind enough to place a copy in the Library?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I would be more than happy to do that.
This is the only import of this provision—it is purely practical and I am sure that if defence counsel and prosecuting counsel can come up with some more machinery very close by, the court will avail itself of that opportunity.
Viscount Bridgeman: For clarification, does the Minister regard it as implicit in the Bill as it stands that representations by the prosecution or defence will be taken into consideration by the court?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should think it is, but when they are considering whether the live link is appropriate to be used, there might at that stage be discussion about where to do it, how it will be done, who will be there and whether there will be an interpreter. All those matters will be taken account by the judge or magistrate in making the decision that live link is either appropriate or inappropriate. Once they have decided that it is appropriate and they have heard the submissions, the most practical location nearest to the court which is convenient to everyone is likely to be chosen. It is not likely that there will be any need for further submissions on that.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton who, with his great experience, has supported the amendment. However, I hear the Minister's explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Warning to jury]:
Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 132G:
Page 37, line 21, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: In speaking to Amendment No. 132G, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 132H. Both amendments seek to probe the provisions of Clause 53, which states in subsection (2) that where,
"evidence has been given through a live link",

843
the judge,
"may give the jury … such direction as he thinks necessary to ensure that the jury gives the same weight to the evidence as if it had been given by the witness in the courtroom or other place where the proceedings are held".
While we recognise that the subsection gives the judge some discretion by using the word "may" rather than "must", we still feel that it fetters judicial discretion with regard to the weight that should be given to live-link evidence. We recognise the need for giving evidence by live link, and can see its benefits. However, there is a qualitative difference between evidence given in a courtroom, with the immediacy of the response and the atmosphere, and evidence given in separate accommodation. There will, for example, be differences in the body language, which will influence the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witness. The judge must retain a discretion to direct the jury as to what weight they may give to such evidence. It is difficult to assess accurately the demeanour of a witness over a live link.
It is a fact that technology varies from one courthouse to another. Do the Government accept that that is something that should be taken into account? What are the Government's plans to ensure that a uniform high quality of live link is available in all Crown and magistrates' courts?
Amendment No. 132H is a qualified amendment to Amendment No. 132G. I offer it as something of a compromise position. It would ensure that judges, in exercising their limited discretion in subsection (2), would be properly informed and would follow guidelines as set out by the Judicial Studies Board. We do not know how much evidence via a live link will be used in practice; it may be something that a judge comes across frequently, or rarely. A model direction from the JSB would be welcome. Such a model direction should also have the positive effect of preventing unnecessary appeals. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The amendment moved by my noble friend would leave out subsection (2). It is really a sort of probing amendment, as we could not do without subsection (2)—or something like it in any event—within the clause. However, he has made some points that are really rather necessary to ensure that the warning given to the jury is of the character that it should be and as precise as it should be.
It may be a matter of opinion, but the words,
"and in accordance with any model direction issued by the Judicial Studies Board",
may, alas, be somewhat hypothetical. However, in the important matter of giving warning to juries, we must be as precise as we possibly can in laying down the rules.
I know from my rather long experience that that sort of thing was normally put forward not in statute but in rules of court. One of the several reasons why the Bill runs to such a vast number of pages—something like 347 pages—is because it gets Parliament to give directions that are normally given by the High Court to
844
the judges under rules of court. If we are doing that, we must be as good and precise as the rules of court were. My noble friend has raised points that, in those circumstances, need to be considered by the Government.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have considered them, and I hope that I shall he able to give an explanation to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, which will hopefully make them feel a little more comfortable.
I am aware that evidence given over a live link may not have the same impact as that given in person in open court. I give the Chamber some reassurance on this matter, as there is a developing body of research that suggests that evidence given in that way does not significantly reduce the effectiveness of the witness's evidence. I should be very happy to write to noble Lords to set out the background of that in more detail if noble Lords would find that helpful. Before I am invited to do so by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I should also say that I am happy to place a copy of that in the Library.
When live links are used the fact finders will still be able to see and hear the witness, adjudge his or her demeanour and come to a conclusion about what weight they should place on the witness's evidence. However, in developing these proposals we do not wish to be thought dismissive of these important concerns. There will be issues on which we want to improve if and when we properly can. Thus, in deciding whether to give a direction to use a live link, the court must consider the circumstances of the case including, as I said earlier, whether that would inhibit the testing of the witness's evidence. So if in the particular circumstance the court decides that live evidence is required in order to give those hearing the case a full flavour, that is what should happen.
I can give some examples from research. In 1991, Davies and Noon looked at cases involving child witnesses—an issue about which I know the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is particularly concerned. They found no significant differences in observer ratings of the effectiveness or the credibility of the testimony and concluded that using links facilitates the giving of evidence by children, who were happier, more fluent and less likely to give inconsistent testimony. So the research we have so far tends to indicate that it is a good thing.
Clause 53 provides that the judge may give such direction as he thinks necessary to ensure that the jury gives the same weight to evidence which has been given through a live link. Amendment No. 132G would in effect remove the effect of this clause. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this is a probing amendment. The effect of the amendment as currently phrased would be that there was no statutory guidance about the weight to be placed on evidence given through a live link. That may result in a little confusion about the status of such evidence and whether it should be accompanied with a warning as to how the evidence is used. That would clearly be

845
unsatisfactory as there is no reason why evidence given through a live link may not be accorded the same weight as evidence given in court.
The clause does not oblige the court to give any direction; the judge will do so only if he or she considers it necessary. The judge may decide because of the way in which the trial has proceeded that it might be helpful to reiterate or re-emphasise that the evidence should be treated absolutely the same. However, the clause is a useful guide as to the weight that should be accorded to evidence over live link.
I understand that Amendment No. 132H, also tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, proposes that directions under Clause 53 should be made in accordance with any specimen direction given by the Judicial Studies Board. As we know, the Judicial Studies Board is an independent non-statutory body. As it has no legal identity, it is not desirable to refer to it in legislation. I see the noble Viscount nodding. Furthermore, it may be that the Judicial Studies Board may not consider it appropriate to give a model direction in this area. The bench book of the Judicial Studies Board's directions does not currently contain any model direction concerning the weight to be attached to evidence given over a live link. The desirability of producing such a direction will be considered by the criminal committee of the JSB once Parliament has completed its consideration of the Bill. If no direction were issued, the amendment would be redundant and could cause confusion.
In any event, the model directions contained in the JSB Criminal Bench Book do not have any independent legal status. As the foreword to the bench book makes clear, the directions are not intended to lay down or develop any principles of criminal law, but merely to reflect the law as it stands. Noble Lords know that it will be updated very regularly as the jurisprudence changes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rightly said, legal principles are decided by the Superior Courts and the JSB directions become authoritative only when and to the extent that they have been expressly approved or adopted. In view of that, it would not be appropriate for any individual direction to be given an authoritative status in legislation in advance of its production and consideration by the appellate courts.
846
I understand that the noble Lord is anxious to know how guidance will be used. However, the vehicle we are discussing would not be appropriate or effective.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, speaking for myself, I am grateful for the explanation that she has given. But I am still puzzled as to why we should be legislating on these somewhat technical matters which affect the administration of justice but have always been satisfactorily dealt with by rules of court which can so easily be amended from time to time. The Government will not want this statute amended very often.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I absolutely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says and I agree with him. We are seeking to use live links in a significantly different way from the way they have been used before. At the moment the use of live links is still unusual for us. We are used to the full panoply of hearing evidence in the normal way. If we had been asked 15 years ago what we thought of a fax we would all be rather nervous about how and when it should be used, but now we are very comfortable with it. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was right to make the remarks that he did, but we believe that as it is a new measure and because we are extending it much more broadly, it is important to highlight it in the way that we have. We think that that is important but we take on board what the noble Lord said. We believe that we have the matter about right and that the proposed further amplification or definition on the face of the Bill is not necessary.
Viscount Bridgeman: I hope that the Minister will take on board the general remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton about the practice of including in the Bill a detail which would otherwise have been included in rules of court. Bearing in mind that I think this part of the Bill was not debated at all in another place, the Minister's offer of a letter is much appreciated. I should like to take up that offer. I, too, am grateful for the Minister's comprehensive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 132H not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 56 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  Language Implementation Body: Budget 2003
  Language Implementation Body: Budget 2003
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Northern Ireland: Energy Costs
  Northern Ireland: Energy Costs
  Northern Ireland: North West Gas Pipeline Project
  Northern Ireland: North West Gas Pipeline Project
  Lisburn to Antrim Railway Line
  Lisburn to Antrim Railway Line
  PEACE I Funding
  PEACE I Funding
  Northern Ireland: Sexual Offences Legislation Review
  Northern Ireland: Sexual Offences Legislation Review
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Customs and Excise: Review of Current Practices
  Customs and Excise: Review of Current Practices
  Uganda
  Uganda
  UNAMSIL
  UNAMSIL
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
  Iraq: Looting of Archaeological Sites
  Iraq: Looting of Archaeological Sites
  Iraq: Constitution
  Iraq: Constitution
  Iraq: Penal and Criminal Procedure Codes
  Iraq: Penal and Criminal Procedure Codes
  Middle East: Gaza Airport
  Middle East: Gaza Airport
  Middle East Peace Process
  Middle East Peace Process
  Racial Discrimination: UK and EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination: UK and EC Legislation
  Commission for Racial Equality: Costs of Investigation into Prison Service
  Commission for Racial Equality: Costs of Investigation into Prison Service
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Annual Report 2002–03
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Audit Committee Annual Report 2002–03
  Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Firearms Amnesty
  Firearms Amnesty
  Veterans
  Veterans
  Equality Institutions
  Equality Institutions
  Pensions: Employer Insolvency
  Pensions: Employer Insolvency
  Licensing Act: Draft Guidance and Consultation
  Licensing Act: Draft Guidance and Consultation
  Gambling
  Gambling
  Post Mortem Removal of Organs: Report into case of Mr Cyril Mark Isaacs
  Post Mortem Removal of Organs: Report into case of Mr Cyril Mark Isaacs
  Medicines Commission and Medicines Act Advisory Bodies: Annual Report 2002
  Medicines Commission and Medicines Act Advisory Bodies: Annual Report 2002
  Medicines Control Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Medicines Control Agency: Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03
  Genetically Modified Products
  Genetically Modified Products
  Horticulture Research International
  Horticulture Research International